Most reputable translators of literary texts do not aim at a literal
translation, but one that replicate the meaning, the emotional affect
as far as possible, and ideally some of the linguistic subtleties.
Even in translating prose texts, a literal translation is usually not
produced unless it is f
Message-ID:
X-Sender: pute...@mccme.ru
User-Agent: Webmail/
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:28:31 +0100, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> For what it is worth
>
> I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using
> for
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 20:31, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a
>> very long time."
>>
>> We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator
>> of sources.
>> That is
For what it is worth
I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign
sources with no independent translation available:
a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source
(because other editors are generally not able to understand it)
b) Th
edia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Why can't you do both?
Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed
y a tra
On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a
> very long time."
>
> We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator
> of sources.
> That is the point of RS.
> We don't publish first.
Translating a qu
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Why can't you do both?
> Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed
> by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be
> dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is
gator
> of sources.
> That is the point of RS.
> We don't publish first.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: M. Williamson
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] O
Williamson
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say
am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original
s.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Gerard
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrot
tions.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
> texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is
> that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon
> be, a verifiable En
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> This is spot on.
>
> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
Some have some haven't.
However the field of epistemology tends to have so little relation to
what people actually do that it's not particularly critical.
--
blishing just such a translation.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the
On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton wrote:
> While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
> this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
> of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).
They do tend to be noisiest, and they do
Thanks Ray! I actually met with developers from RRN and a few First Nations
advocacy groups (regarding cultural preservation) - RRN is really amazing, and
I look forward to exploring how opportunities can open from it. We will talk
more in Haifa!
(I lived in Van for a year, give my best to Comm
> Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion
>
>
While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
this is not the cas
On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard wrote:
> Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable
> sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
> *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
> hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd
heard of the stuff.
Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:
This is spot on.
At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to
truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.
Ray
On 07/29/11 2:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> The great thing about an
From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many
of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element
in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa.
Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver
District the
The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is
a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with
English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we
know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.
(I realise this is foundation-l, b
rved by expressing our uncertainties instead of blocking
uncertain facts. Especially in matters of history it should be up to
the reader to decide what weight to give to material.
Ray
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
> Subject: Re:
LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR
policy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their
original language unless the translation itself is verifiable.
Ray
On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to
Ha, sorry I missed the joke! I had no idea what emesis referred to.
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/28/11 7:41 AM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Ryan, perhaps you missed the intention of my e-mail. The sentence about
> "emesis" was also clearly not serious. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emesis
>
> 2011/7/27 Ryan Kald
Ryan, perhaps you missed the intention of my e-mail. The sentence about
"emesis" was also clearly not serious. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emesis
2011/7/27 Ryan Kaldari
> So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
> people trying to have legitimate discussions, it'
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
> people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end
> my emails with a serious sentence???
No, it's not okay. whothis's posts have been largely unacceptable and while
I don't genera
So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end
my emails with a serious sentence???
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/27/11 4:53 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I
Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a
research project in emesis in the global south or something would have
suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely
serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go do
a "res
On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a topic just to
unpublished translation used as the
actual source*.
That's no good.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjh
Wikipedia and what it is doing to change our world.
Best wishes
Maria Alameda
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:40:49 -0400
> From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
> Maria
Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all
translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
not allowed at Wikipedia.
2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge
> On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> > David how is an exact quote a summary or interpre
2011/7/27 David Richfield :
>
> Lots of ethnographic work is very strongly based on interviews with
> people who have an oral tradition. This is then published and, quite
> correctly, cited in Wikipedia: the view is that it is then a secondary
> source, and hence appropriate. When we directly sou
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case the exact quo
Raul Gutierrez
>
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:52 PM
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-
: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:52 PM
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon
Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and
being disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alam
man
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> For actual quotations from sources, you should quote t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a
Maria Alameda is not a troll. She apologized to me in a very sincere manner
offlist. Culturally this is a very sensitive topic, and I have learned to
deal with the criticism, weariness and lack of trust that people have
towards the work I do based on my skin color and name. This is not the first
ti
Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely
go
Dear Achal,
I don't have a form fetishism :-) although I highly prefer written to
oral sources for many practical reasons. You know that in oral history
projects the transcription is an essential part of the work, by the
way.
What I am pointing to is the difference between primary sources and
sec
Yes, Achal, i was listening to them right now. And reading the Meta
page. My question is about the transcription. Should we use Wikisource
(because it is an authoral work) or Wikinews (because it's an interview)
for the written version? Or should we cite the audio file directly?
I'm asking this
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
>
>
We shut down simple
iginal source using other words.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An e
>
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
>
>
The point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote an
Dear Castelo,
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:25 AM, CasteloBranco wrote:
> Tom,
>
> The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about
> translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not
> bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English
> version
Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.
You are
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
> Then you will never be using original research.
>
> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.
But selecting what quotations to use, w
bhala
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline)
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
However yes, if you
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> Hallo, (responses inline)
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> For actual quotations from sources,
l to do so.
-Original Message-
From: Achal Prabhala
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline)
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
For actual quota
Tom,
The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about
translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not
bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English
version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own
community, which is n
-Original Message-
> From: Thomas Morton
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research&
Dear Ziko,
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 09:38 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations"
> project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can
> go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In
> scie
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
from yourself as the s
>
> All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
> Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
> from yourself as the source.
> Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
> research.
>
> Ideally of course, yes. Howe
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
Thanks,
Achal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sarah Stierch
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 6:06 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations
From: Sarah Stierch
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 6:06 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hi all -
I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
ist, and felt the need to share my similar thought
e way, why this is considered revolutionary.
These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to a
published video.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 2:33 am
Subject: Re:
Hello,
Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations"
project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can
go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In
science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the
colour of the
>
> How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and
> also
> on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,
>
Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider
that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda wrote:
>
>
> Hello all
> I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me
> here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research
> raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isol
Hi, Achal
I was sure you would do something special when i translated [1] some
note on the launching of this project for Brazilians. And i wasn't
wrong. Congrats!
Yes, we are saying the same thing, except perhaps for your last
sentences (sorry if i didn't get your point). Despite of its italia
y, July 27, 2011 9:26 AM
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hello all
I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me
here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american
her comments on the plight
> and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its
> just me.
> Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530
> > From: whoth...@gmail.com
> > To: foundation-l@lists
m rather patronizing. Perhaps, its
just me.
Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530
> From: whoth...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
> Hi Sa
Hi Sarah
I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I
don't want to be called a troll again..maybe later.
Much love
Elizabeth
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wik
>
> I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective
> of
> providing material about the native countries of those languages.
>
>
I don't partially, I completely disagree. While these communities might not
be English based, and many of the members don't even speak English,
>
> Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
> than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
>
I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective of
providing material about the nat
Hi all -
I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
made previously.
For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
communities of North America and opportunities
Hallo (responses inline)
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 06:02 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:
> And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
> write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
Yes, we don't. We have Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi Wikipedias to work
on.
And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
barrier. Also, the
Dear Tom and David,
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 03:03 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.
>
> As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
> without falling afoul of "original research".
>
> The first problem I see is
I agree with your assessment that problems with interpretation and
lack of independent review can definitely make it problematic for
editors to cite these interviews directly, and we'll have to see
whether it is in any way feasible under any circumstances, and if so,
what guidelines can be set up.
This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.
As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
without falling afoul of "original research".
The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:
> "Interviews with members of the Sk8r
> tribe in
David Richfield, 27/07/2011 09:35:
> One of the most frequent complaints about Wikipedia, which I have seen
> in contexts such as the Wikipedia overview of World History and on
> websites that are critical of Wikipedia, is that it has an endemic
> bias towards Western, English-language information.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM, whothis wrote:
> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>
> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait t
What is your intention here, Elizabeth, besides trolling?
2011/7/26 whothis
> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>
> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> appropriate place for your ori
Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
it.
I still think a research project in
Dear friends,
At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
r
82 matches
Mail list logo
