body of the output:
The output files of course would be larger, and having large amounts
of different texts might confuse autodetect.. But the issue is again
to aid users in keeping a high fidelity between input and translated
output, and keeping source paragraphs close.
stevertigo wrote:
>&
Michael Galvez wrote:
> Sorry for coming into this discussion a bit late. I'm one of the members of
> Google's translation team, and I wanted to make myself available for
> feedback/questions.
Thanks for stopping by. A few questions: 1) Does GTTK have a specific
API for Mediawiki markup ("wikite
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Interestingly, I have had a completely opposite experiences. When reading a
> Google translation, it is easy for me to decipher what does it mean even if
> it is not gramatically correct. When translating, I often hang on deciding
> what sentence structure to use, or on
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/
> Is something like translatewiki.
> Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/
> They also provide their databases for download.
> For running your own server:
> TinyTM: http://tinytm.sourceforge.net/
Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> Where is the community? where is the involvement and exchange of ideas and
> continuous evolvement of articles? where's the wiki in wikipedia?
> - I see it as POV to assume that wiki x has the 'perfect' article on a
> certain subject such that everyone in the world
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Suppose for a minute that your proposal were implemented, and all the
> machine translation problems were overcome. Would English NPOV be so
> good that community members in the target language would be incapable of
> making substantive improvements? And if they did make sub
Mark Williamson wrote:
> I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea
> is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
> en.wp.
The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to ov
Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling
paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another
language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language
wiki.
These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
the starting basis for an
Erik Zachte wrote:
> Revision Review (or any similar term) clearly signals this is a human
> process, which IMHO gets it 80% right already.
Review of a "revision cue" or "edit cue" works. You are right, as both
words "Flagged" and "Protections" convey an autocratic sense.
Note, on wikien-l, some
Fred Bauder wrote:
> There does seem to be some advocacy recently for propaganda campaigns
> coordinated by the Israeli government:
Well yeah, we've seen some of that. In the context of whats ultimately
a very humanistic project, the open editing model as made it difficult
for some people to edit
Jay Walsh wrote:
> We've seen a lot of comments about the size of the puzzle globe, and I don't
> >disagree that it might benefit from being increased in size slightly.
And shrinking makes the puzzle pieces - the cornerstone of the
original winning design - ambiguous. How ambiguous? For example
Jay Walsh wrote:
> SVG versions of the new globe, and the Wikipedia identity can be found here:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_official_marks
> I don't believe all of those assets have migrated to Commons yet.
The new, smaller logo is visible now on Wikipedia. I think it needs
re
Stephen Bain wrote:
>It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this
>way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or
>YouTube.
Andre Engels wrote:
> I disagree. Pictures should be judged on their value for Commons, not
> on something else. And that value
Kat Walsh wrote:
> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very
> little informational or educational value
This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as
stated above. "Prurient" and "exhibition
David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first
copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the
errors?
-St
, would be the albatross here.
That's not to say that we shouldn't further pursue the science of
collaborative database interfaces (ie. "wikis").
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ng us up to more
conservative/prudish/puritannical cultures of course needs discussing.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
al with images as they like, through semantic searching or through
content filtering.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
an understand why it's not
universally accepted and used on our foreign encyclopedias, namely
that its still a bit esoteric enough for us on en. Nevertheless its,
again, encyclopedic and necessary.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
is a cross-project
issue should be dealt with at the Foundation level (ie. global not
just inter-wiki policy).
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
ed as such. But likewise we can't get too stuffy about pronouncing
words according to native phonologies, clicks and whirrs and so forth.
:P
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.w
ugh - which is that we inevitably find that Wikipedia will conflict
with any other Wikimedia projects if their priorities are too
different.
Wikipedia is more than just Wikimedia's flagship project, and its
encyclopedic and journalistic principles have a priori
text of this ambiguity, along with the typical
modern neuroses - safety panics, protectionist parenting, and mass
media in particular. Also bearing are the popular political
objections toward the development of truly international concepts of
law.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
in some
unprincipled way - such as to either undermine the aberrations that
people like, or to promote the principles that people don't.
And actually that self-fellatio image looks also like an OR violation.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
f
here as
well, and the fact of the matter is that we do delete articles all the
time for being "un-encyclopedic" - the debates around whether images
are "encyclopedic"
have largely shifted to Commons, which has a much broader purpose -
perhaps one that does not match that of t
stevertigo wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
> With regard to economies and economic influence, there is
> a variance between what
The line "different people have and thus can do." should have been in
my previous post.
-Stevertigo
_
dequate.
> I don't know if she's reading this list, but you can discuss with her
> more directly. Expressing personal interest is often a good way to
> learn what others think.
Looks like she was quite busy before she left. I emailed her about
this thread, so I imagine she might
lize and understand these particular
objectives and how to achieve them. If she would she be interested in
commenting on such matters, Wikimedians may find these useful.
Regards,
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
U
lways been some impressive if not strictly
commercial talent at the 'school of "art"' across the street. It could
be fruitful to try exploit some of that talent for focused article
illustration projects.
-Stevertigo
___
foundatio
Dennis During wrote:
> Notice how easy it is to have vacuous "discussions" in the
> absence of facts about user behavior.
Query - to what "facts about user behavior" are you referring?
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l
Greg wrote:
> There are many indirect effects as well— Less search engine
> hits means less readers means less editing means less content > and probably
> less neutral content.
Ha!
In reality, one could just as well argue that less hits and less edits
might mean a *perfect article will remain pe
> On 7/31/09, stevertigo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeir
>> wrote:
>>
>>> An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international
>>> body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US
>>> doll
o this thread so far.
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:45 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>> Mark Williamson wrote:
>>> Remind me, please, why we are still talking about this.
>>
>> Well, Thomas' idea about a lists-l list for discussing mailing lists and
&g
RREF). But I wrote that in 2005, and it got little attention - mostly
because of "difficult people."
Regards,
-Stevertigo
> Many of us talk/think a lot about how to reduce conflict in our
> projects. For those who're interested, I was recently pointed towards
> two releva
ping list discussion there means
there would be no issues related to discussing meta ("off topic") issues
here. All that would show on here or on wikien-l is a pointer to the top
post in the thread on the lists-l archive, and everyone is happy.
-Stevertigo
_
> 2009/8/8 Stevertjgo :
> I think those high level discussion can take place either on-wiki or
> on existing mailing lists without a problem.
I generally agree. But "existing mailing lists" generally means wikien-l -
once highly purposed toward resolving on-wiki disputes - is now
notoriously dism
reason - was it
because they were not "pro-freedom?"
- Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
stroyed se
x attached concept as if it were a ubiquitous part of any loving
relationship. Wikipedia is censored after all. The question then is
about scale and degree.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsub
interest.
Granted it's a meta issue, and not a general Foundation policy issue.
But this is not the foundation-press-release list either, such that
all posts need to conform to some sanitized concept.
-Stevertigo
Again, I think this thread is done.
___
o wrong in your opinion?
>
> Mark
>
> skype: node.ue
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that
>>
ders or suggestions are coming
from. To do otherwise would be quite unfair to them.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
nocratic one, and
therefore must not be left to the technocrats. Assuming good faith, I
infer that the technocrat is not really the decider in such matters,
and that such decisions are communicated behind the scenes.
Exposing the politburo is one of the first principles of
destructive-sexuality / pro-depravity articles and images - something
our great many pro-"freedom" dogmatists just don't want to do.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
everyone, not just you.
This doesn't even make sense. What "went for everyone?"
> And again, I did post in that thread giving notice.
No, you said, in inappropriately teenage sysadmin-speak "consider this
thread killfiled." Even if I had know you were the moderator,
abased content. The project transcends both wiki and internet -
which are just the tools that make it work.
- Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email
> not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. Stevertigo
> is a long-serving and trusted (if passionate) member of the community.
You forgot
wearing last night's
rose-colored beer goggles - a quarter-billion dollar long-term
endowment figure doesn't seem too infeasible to me. There are quality
assurance issues with en.wiki articles though, that might put limits
on those seed funds.
-Stevertigo
_
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
-Steven
_
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chad wrote:
> I'm speaking as a volunteer: go away, and take your thread with you.
> It is /not/ appropriate for foundation-l, period.
>
> It is obvious to everyone that this thread exists for solely one reason:
> for you to bitch and moan when you didn't get wha
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> What do you not understand ?
That is not for you to say.
> It has been explained to you that the en approach is not compatible with what
> happens elsewhere.
What does this even mean? Nothing has been "explained." Terse and
useless "go away's" do not suffice as explanatio
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Chad wrote:
> Pedro pretty much outlined my views already. I was going to write
> a point-by-point rebuttal as to why this doesn't belong on foundation-l,
> but I decided not to. Honestly, I thought it was pretty damn obvious
> that this doesn't belong on foundati
Pedro Sanchez commented on a few of my points, but mistakenly removed
my byline, making Yaroslav look like the author. These are responses
to Pedro's comments.
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> And english wikipedia has several mailing lists to deal with its own issues.
> Foundation-l is for wikimedia-wide
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad wrote:
> I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
> this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
> to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
> to wikien-l, /please/.
If you could offer some actual
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
> valuable to all projects.
Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that
wikien-l played for years, and for which there are several disjointed
o
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> I suggest a hatnote on the main page of the site: "This is the website
> of Wikimedia United Kingdom. For other uses, see uk.wikimedia.org
> (disambiguation)."
I actually coined the word "hatnote" - probably in violation of our
'no neolog
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
> Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
> this discussion back to the project-s
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Geoffrey Plourde :
>
>> Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I
>> am not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?
>
>
> wikien-l is full of useful and relevant stuff abo
Cary Bass wrote:
> You have not gained any additional support.
Open discussion is of course the first step in gaining support.
We've been waiting for your participation, as you seem to be the
functionary in charge of starting new lists. Now that you are
participating in an open discussion, we ca
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
> Mailing lists don't get opened by mailing list discussions
Hm. I also filed a request on mediazilla, which was automatically
assigned to you.
> and the "largely positive" responses you received were neither > numerous nor
> meritorious of cre
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Chad wrote:
> Not sure what this has to do with foundation-l, can this go back to wikien-l?
Thomas' comment was a bit off-topic, but that does not mean this
entire thread belongs elsewhere. There are at least four reasons why
this discussion belongs here. If you
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Responses were rather mixed - there were different proposals
> being bounced around.
There weren't any "different proposals." Aside from suggestions taht
dealt with the scope such a list would take, there was a brief
suggestion for a separa
I started a thread on Wikien-l last month suggesting we start a
dispute resolution mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101428.html
Responses were largely positive, and what little criticism the idea
got (much of it from Thomas Dalton) was fairly easy to deal with.
omeone, putting eight billion dollars a year into
English-language teaching in Africa, China, Australia and elsewhere
would be a good place to start.
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
63 matches
Mail list logo
