On 2019-12-06 09:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Fr., 6. Dez. 2019 um 08:08 Uhr schrieb Maarten Deen
<md...@xs4all.nl>:
On 2019-12-05 22:12, Tomek wrote:
Still, it is a Good Idea to have one standard (language) to
communicate
or define things, like everything meant for an international public
in
the wiki is English and the tag system is English.
you should argue why it is a good idea to have _one_ standard language
in the project. IMHO it excludes many billions of people from
Depens on what you use it for. I'm sure you're not arguing for having
tag names in chinese. These are all in (UK) English. The same goes for
the majority of the wiki pages geared towards the basis of this project.
Sure, there are translations (and that is good), but the English page is
usually the guideline.
I see nothing bad in that. Yes, it implies that you need to be
relatively proficient in English to be able to contribute there, but
what is the alternative? Going to Esperanto or Chinese will put more
people off the project than it will attract.
Why is this list called OSM-talk and not OSM-talk-gb? Because it is the
main list. And we speak english here.
for other places:
Suggestion 4a: remove the label "wikipedia" and leave only
"wikidata",
I agree that it is strange to have (e.g. for the Caspian Sea
multipolygon 3987743) wikipedia=en:Caspian Sea when it is not in
England. Is there a reason for that other than historic? Since there
is
also a wikidata link.
I am strongly opposing the idea of removing wikipedia article links
when there are wikidata feature links. The former are human readable
and mostly (?) the original data that the mapper added, the latter are
often automatically derived (from wikipedia article references), worse
verified, link to a less mature project (a wikidata entity to which I
link today may change its nature significantly until tomorrow), are
not human readable and a typo in just one digit makes them completely
worseless, and there is no 1:1 relation of wikipedia articles and
wikidata objects (this is btw. a serious problem which I do not know
why the wikidata community doesn't address, they seem to assume that
there is just one wikipedia article for one wikidata object and vice
versa).
I'm not so active in the wikidata project to have seen these problems. I
was looking at the Caspian Sea and saw a wikidata link that has 175
wikipedia links in it. Yes, you can get that too by opening the English
wikipedia page page, but that again does nothing against the "English
dominance" argument.
But then again, the wikidata page also does not do that because it is in
English only.
Please also note that "wikipedia:en" is not about "England", it is the
It is not about England, it is about the perceived English dominance of
the project.
knowledge of the world collected in the English language (btw. it is
the wikipedia version with most articles). With all
Precisely. So I found your comment "you should argue why it is a good
idea to have _one_ standard language in the project." a bit odd. Why is
that English knowledge better than the wikipedia:cn page? Just because
it is English?
The fact of the matter is that a brit started the project, that alone
gives a lot of credibility to using English as native language for the
project. Above and beyond that, English just is the main language, at
least of the western world. And that has nothing to do with wanting to
rule the world. I'm not British or American and I'm perfectly ok with
this situation.
And lets face it, if a Chinese person had started this, most of us
probably would not have know about it because it was all in Chinese.
Regards,
Maarten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
