Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, stevertigo wrote: > 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 trans

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

> I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on > the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation > can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that > machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text > is too difficul

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

A child seeing such a page will ordinarily go instead to something they understand. Unless we're talking about teen-agers. I see this as an excellent example of the slippery slope we would be in if we did anything targeted at facilitating censorship, especially considering the author of the book i

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Wikipedia images and pages normally have descriptive titles. If you want to prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet, set up a web blocker. Mind you, if you want to prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet, best to raise them in an Amish village. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM,

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

Hoi, Children in Romania know what to expect of a pizdă, children in Indonesia know it for the tempik.. They are both descriptive and you do not know at all that you want to l

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

David Goodman wrote: > A child seeing such a page will ordinarily go instead to something > they understand. Unless we're talking about teen-agers. > I see this as an excellent example of the slippery slope Would that be the slippery slope to the thin end of the wedge perchance? > we would be

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 7/24/10 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > In other words "cultural context" is usually just an > excuse for POV pushing of various kinds. > > Actually, I think the opposite is true. Right now we impose our arbitrary Western moral standards on the rest of the world, and because those standards

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 26 July 2010 20:08, Ryan Kaldari wrote: failure > offer filtering. Frankly, we're already filtering content, even on > en.wiki, but only according to a "default" Western/American POV. We use > line drawings instead of photos in articles on sex positions. And this was a defective compromise wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > On 7/24/10 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> In other words "cultural context" is usually just an >> excuse for POV pushing of various kinds. >> >> > Actually, I think the opposite is true. Right now we impose our > arbitrary Western moral stand

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic wrote: > If photos of Tienanmen protests are > forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China. I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. - d. ___ foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic wrote: >>  If photos of Tienanmen protests are >> forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China. > > I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. No, but

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

I don't think using an illustration of Bukake rather than a photo is a "failure of neutrality", but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Regardless, as a global project, we need to seriously consider what steps we can take to accommodate cultures very different from our own, while s

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

I should make the disclaimer that all of my opinions expressed on this list are as a community member rather than a WMF employee. I have no official involvement in the current study or any decision making power thereof. I just code donation banners :) Ryan Kaldari On 7/26/10 2:14 PM, Ryan Kald

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I don't see anything > threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues, As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.) I note also that several board members i

Re: [Foundation-l] free software policies

Hi SJ: I've been thinking about your note. Maybe "programmes" would be a better word than "policies". I hope here to put my note in a pro-active frame. In fact there are lots of things that we could do, but here is where it would be nice to know more about who "we" are! You and I already discu

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic wrote: >>>  If photos of Tienanmen protests are >>> forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China. >> >> I certainly hope you'r

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

"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 overcome any such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' - really? It's a) not particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to English-language sources

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

> > really? It's a) not > particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to > >> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in >> > nature. > Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and use the exact copy of en:wp in all oth

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

Shiju Alex, Stevertigo is just one en.wikipedian. As far as using exact copies goes, I don't know about the policy at your home wiki, but in many Wikipedias this sort of back-and-forth translation and trading and sharing of articles has been going on since day one, not just with English but with