I am cleaning Requests for new languages [1] at Meta. Some of the requests are clearly out of the Language committee scope, and they need wider discussion for concluding them.
One of such requests is for multilingual Wikibooks [2]. Please, discuss here (at foundation-l; I am sending this message to textbook-l to poke those who are not at foundation-l) or on wiki at the page [2].
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Multilin...
A multilingual Wikibooks would be valuable to the extent that it would focus on smaller languages which don't have their own language project yet.
This makes perhaps more sense with Wikibooks than other projects because each "book" is relatively autonomous and of significant educational value in its own right, and even if someone were to donate a textbook in a rather obscure language I don't think that we should turn such a gift away.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Milos Rancic [email protected] wrote:
I am cleaning Requests for new languages [1] at Meta. Some of the requests are clearly out of the Language committee scope, and they need wider discussion for concluding them.
One of such requests is for multilingual Wikibooks [2]. Please, discuss here (at foundation-l; I am sending this message to textbook-l to poke those who are not at foundation-l) or on wiki at the page [2].
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Multilin...
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Milos Rancic [email protected] wrote:
I am cleaning Requests for new languages [1] at Meta. Some of the requests are clearly out of the Language committee scope, and they need wider discussion for concluding them.
One of such requests is for multilingual Wikibooks [2]. Please, discuss here (at foundation-l; I am sending this message to textbook-l to poke those who are not at foundation-l) or on wiki at the page [2].
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Multilin...
The request has been rejected as invalid. The explanation for rejection is below:
According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve just a project which intends to be written in one language. Thus, this proposal is invalid. If you want to create multilingual Wikibooks, please create a page Multilingual Wikibooks and start discussion about the idea at textbook-l. --Millosh 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Milos Rancic [email protected] wrote:
According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve just a project which intends to be written in one language.
True, the language sub committee is asked to attend to details about specific languages; we need a similar process for deciding when to form a multilingual site.
People are still sharply divided about whether beta wikiversity and oldwikisource are good ideas, based on which one they've had good experiences with. We need a better view of how the new-language process works for them and for incubator. My sense is that incubator could satisfy a lot of what people want out of Project-specific multilingual sites, with a few additional features.
SJ
Forwarded as per request. -Ryan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: darklama [email protected] Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM Subject: Discussion about proposal for multilingual Wikibooks To: [email protected]
Pharos wrote:
A multilingual Wikibooks would be valuable to the extent that it would focus on smaller languages which don't have their own language project yet.
This makes perhaps more sense with Wikibooks than other projects
because each "book" is relatively autonomous and of significant educational value in its own right, and even if someone were to donate a textbook in a rather obscure language I don't think that we should turn such a gift away.
Thanks,
Pharos
Exactly, we shouldn't turn people and textbooks away. I think this project can help with that.
People willing to translate textbooks have been turned away at times too. I think this project can help with that as well.
Some instruction manuals and how-to guides include multiple translations as a single work. We shouldn't turn away people willing to provide free alternatives here either. These books are autonomous too.
I know some people are concerned that Multilingual Wikibooks' focus overlaps too much with existing projects. I think this can be managed by turning away:
* Source text previously published by an author. Thats Wikisource. * Translations of source text. Thats Old Wikisource * Original writing that is within the scope of an existing Wikibooks project and it is not intended to become an autonomous work in two or more languages. This applies to finished translations as well. * Research not previously published. Thats Wikiversity.
Thanks, darklama
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve just a project which intends to be written in one language.
True, the language sub committee is asked to attend to details about specific languages; we need a similar process for deciding when to form a multilingual site.
People are still sharply divided about whether beta wikiversity and oldwikisource are good ideas, based on which one they've had good experiences with. We need a better view of how the new-language process works for them and for incubator. My sense is that incubator could satisfy a lot of what people want out of Project-specific multilingual sites, with a few additional features.
I find for the most part that people like to compartmentalize their knowledge based on the premise that it will somehow be easier to understand. Naturally, cutting out some knowledge makes it easier to understand, and shutting out incomprehensible languages is one of the easiest ways of doing that. But at what cost?