 | Medicine NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 8 April 2015. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
|
| This template was considered for deletion on 14 August 2015. The result of the discussion was "userfy". |
We need a mechanism to give attribution to those involved with translation. This is one potential method however their are pros and cons to its. While it might increase participation some psychology literature actually suggest that giving external rewards may decrease participation. We have the study mentioned in this article dealing with extrinsic motivation [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know the study on extrinsic motivation but I do not perceive that as a significant consideration at this point. I would prefer to make sure the processes work minimally well before discussion about optimizing output. The situation is that there could be some Wikipedia article in a given language which a Wikipedian gives to an external non-Wikipedia translator for translation. That translator, who does not have a Wikipedia account or otherwise participate in Wikipedia, gives the translation back to the Wikipedian who uploads it.
- The translator needs to be identified because this person is the copyright holder. I support the identification of this person in the template.
- The Wikipedian needs to be identified because this is the person who verified that the translator released the translation with a Wikipedia-compatible license to use the copyrighted translation.
- I do not think it is necessary to name the editors who brought the article up to WP:GA or WP:FA status because there are already templates associated with these processes. Although only good or featured articles will be translated, it will not happen in all cases that the development of the article's quality had anything to do with the translation project. However, I think that it is motivating to see that if someone can improve an article to a certain level of quality then there is a connection between that and putting the article in queue for translation. I propose that the field for naming any group of individuals for the good article status be optional, and that the other two fields be required.
- I think that we should codify the process for verifying the copyright release. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
|
| Medicine NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
| This template was considered for deletion on 8 April 2015. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
|
| This template was considered for deletion on 14 August 2015. The result of the discussion was "userfy". |
We need a mechanism to give attribution to those involved with translation. This is one potential method however their are pros and cons to its. While it might increase participation some psychology literature actually suggest that giving external rewards may decrease participation. We have the study mentioned in this article dealing with extrinsic motivation [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know the study on extrinsic motivation but I do not perceive that as a significant consideration at this point. I would prefer to make sure the processes work minimally well before discussion about optimizing output. The situation is that there could be some Wikipedia article in a given language which a Wikipedian gives to an external non-Wikipedia translator for translation. That translator, who does not have a Wikipedia account or otherwise participate in Wikipedia, gives the translation back to the Wikipedian who uploads it.
- The translator needs to be identified because this person is the copyright holder. I support the identification of this person in the template.
- The Wikipedian needs to be identified because this is the person who verified that the translator released the translation with a Wikipedia-compatible license to use the copyrighted translation.
- I do not think it is necessary to name the editors who brought the article up to WP:GA or WP:FA status because there are already templates associated with these processes. Although only good or featured articles will be translated, it will not happen in all cases that the development of the article's quality had anything to do with the translation project. However, I think that it is motivating to see that if someone can improve an article to a certain level of quality then there is a connection between that and putting the article in queue for translation. I propose that the field for naming any group of individuals for the good article status be optional, and that the other two fields be required.
- I think that we should codify the process for verifying the copyright release. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)