The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki
Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI
Wikipedia:TRANSWIKI
In light of the recent events showing concern about the creation of unreferenced inefficient manual stub creation I think the time has come to organise a project Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI which concentrates on trasferring content from other wikipedias but in a way which is much more efficient and can be done with no community concerns. This project would tie together the Missing Encyclopedia Articles project with the stale current translation project. Given that there thousands upon thousands of referenced good content articles on other wikipedias, particularly German, Dutch and French wikipedia I think it is very important to transfer content from other wikipedias but done adequately as part of a project coordination. The idea is a bot, offered by User:ThaddeusB, which can run through categories on a different wikipedia and extract any main information from an article and create it on english wikipedia with a reference to an outside reliable source. I know the community expresses an extreme indifference to automation in regards to content but if programmed correctly bots can do things much more consistently and efficiently than us. The idea is not that the bot writes the articles, the idea is that it draws up missing lists of articles from other wikipedia in the project space, members of a group check them for notability and then the bot is assigned to blue link them in the best possible way without community concerns and which adheres to our policies. The ultimate ideal of cause would be bot which can translate whole articles into English but as we know present, google translate is far from perfect. If it is somehow perfected in the future see google toolbar the new translation thing they have going then I think it would be possible to instantly translate articles but would need to be proof read. But at present I think something which can extracts some basic facts and reference them is most needed. The first phase would be to use a bot to draw up lists of missing articles by wikipedia in the project space. . Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/de/Politicians etc etc. but it would seme this project would have the potential and capacity to do more than just list missing encyclopedia articles, it would attempt to fill a void for translation in which the other project failed in and help improve existing content. I've lost count for instanc ehow many articles I've come across on German and Swiss municipalities and the article on German wikipedia is full and well referecned. We'd need a bot to be able to run off categories on other wikipedias and list them on here in the workspace so in effect it would begin the start of making articles on other wikipedias avialable in english and at least highlighting exactly what is missing. So it could generate lists from a diversity of topics and wikipedias such as Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/nl/Writers, and Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/pt/Portuguese novels etc. They would be stored in the workspace into subcategories and topics for each wikipedia.
The first task of the new project would be to create sections of the new project related to content on the different wikipedia. Then the bot would raid the categories on other wikipedia for various topics and list the articles missing from these categories. The ones that we already have maybe can be moved manually or the bot could by pass them. So eventually we'd have a directory of missing articles organised by each wikipedia and neatly by topic/sub topic so we know exactly what is missing. Inevitably the task is a tremendous one to do so which only a bot could achieve but I am certain that a bot is able to be programmed to copy categories from the other wikipedias and insert them into lists in the project space. Once we have that done or are happy with the missinglists for one topic maybe then the bot can be programmed to start the missing articles, a lot of related categories use similar sources etc so that should make it easier at least.
Given the scale of this proposal I think a seperate wikirpoject dedicated to the transfer of content from other wikipedias and finding missing sources to reference them etc is EXACTLY what is needed at present. I've tried my very hardest to start as many articles as I can which are missing but I have received bad press from doing so in that quality is jeopardized as at present it is an effort done badly manually or by AWB which is really not the way it should be done. If we had a project and bot able to draw up lists of missing articles (rememebr the missing articles are enormous from other wikis) which this project would benefit immensely from the trasferring process could not only be done much more efficiently but it would also provide a monitoring process over what is being trasferred and makes sure say for instance that articles adhere to BLP concerns etc and the project would also provide a forum to discuss these issues and provide a means in which the community can collaborate and work together in doing so in the best way possible without one or two editors being shouted at for not complying with standards. What we need is an organization of language translators, bot operators, quality overlookers to esnure that articles can be transferred correctly and without referencing or other issues. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
If you are using a different translation service, which allows you to use it, then that is fine. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google.
I don't think articles would be generated fully using google translate if that is your concern. It is not an effective enough yet tool yet to translate whole articles anywayI think the first task which may take many weeks is drawing up a missing article directory from other wikipedias in the most full way possible. Then we would have to sort out how we go about starting articles from other wikis later and find how extracting the main points and referencing them would be done. Remember, the articles will not be fully tranlsated immediately upon creation but they will be started in a way which are mostly important adequate and consistent starter articles which provide a decent platform to build on afterwards and still be an adequate starter article in its own right. I would suggest that the bot also draws up lists of top visited missing articles on other wikis and referenced articles from other wikis and lists them as first priority for starting. If we did require google translate it would indeed have to be arranged and google sent a request. Anything starter using google translate though would require a monitoring process and testing prior to creation to ensure that it is done properly as we know the tool is as yet imperfect. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed. What I mean in regards to content would be something like Kobylá nad Vidnavkou which Kot is working on at present. It takes similarly programmed articles and manually it would be found which word means which in the foreign language first. Once that prior programming is sorted it would then be free to generate more articles based upon a set template. The main problem would be that many articles are not consistent or don't contain set information so extracting the main facts may be considerably more difficult and that is when a translation programme would be more required I believe. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That is exactly how I see it. Agreed with Ottawa too that such a project would be perhaps evne more useful for the other wikis, particularly the lesser devleoped ones. However i believe there is already something which helps them with outgoing content. People do forget that similarly we could greatly benefit from content on other wikis. The ultimate ideal would be a translation bot which produces articles on different wikipedias in any language fully and accurately first time but that is obviously a dream, nothing more, at leats not yet anyway. I don't really think bots should write articles, I believe it should be done by the hard work and research of people but I do think that bots will be of a massive benefit to starting content and remove the inadequacies of us clumsy manual editors in trying to start them by starting them more efficiently, faster, and more resourcefully. There should equally be bots running on here which do more than just fix minor errors. Content should be of uttermost importance to us and I think a project which seriously realises the differences between articles on different wikipedias and does something to work towards equalising it is greayly needed and I mean that not only on English wikipedia but on all the other wikis too. In the end it will always come down to hard work and involvement of many people to develop articles fully on wiki but a bot and project of editors who work on putting articles on the plate consistently and in coordination is definately the start we need. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
But I'm not convinced that bringing the full list of articles from categories topics from another language Wikipedia is a good idea. Some topics like geological formations (lakes, rivers, mountains) it is okay to have short stubs. Other topics, having a short stub is much more problematic because it might introduce biases into the content. For example, some might have an article started on them because they are a member of a parliament, and someone is writing an article on each member of parliament. But the person might actually be much more well known for other accomplishments that would be unmentioned while they had a dismal record in parliament. If no one is really has an interest in the topic, but is bringing the article to WP-en as part of a process, then a follow up article about the person may never be written.
So I think that the process needs to deliberately figure out ways to prevent introducing a large number of stale or incomplete articles that could have the potential to introduce biases about the subject of the article. -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
If Jenna and the others concerned about BLP are interested, the project could have a department which reviews any articles to be started on living people. Sources would be put forward and together an agremeent would be made as to whether or not that source or bit of information is adequate to start the article. As I said this should be a large scale project and adhering to BLP and having a group of editors who authorise banks of articles to be needed and discuss it with the rest of the group is what I am proposing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
These are worse case scenarios. Nobody has any intentions at least not until 2020 to auto generate articles about Italian adult film stars from Ugarit. We will be focusing on the higher quality articles or at least verifiable articles from the bigger wikipedias like German, Dutch, French and Spanish and on rather less controversial subjects mostly. In answer to Lady's comment about self referencing above. The idea is to find Reliable Sources used on other wikipedias to reference the information given. I think that tag may be acceptable for articles about places but seeimgly not for people, they must be verified by external sources and given. The best thing would be to start articles from other wikipedias and find external sources to support them. The problem as John said, might be to ensure that external sources support what is given in the foreign wiki article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Ahh I see what you both mean, I agree! Legally if any text is translated in bulk from another wikipedia it must be attributed anyway, isn't that correct Jen? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Editors here might be interested in a little page I wrote as I was working on the translation system here, Wikipedia:Translation/Overhaul - it describes some changes made, remaining problems, and some suggestions for improvement. It's obviously not coextensive with this effort but might be helpful background. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:Wikiproject Importing articles from other Wikipedias? That might be a little unwieldy. Other ideas? Lady of Shalott 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes I agree. We'd turn that one into a full blown project likely. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Posted to Blofeld earlier: Yes, I like the idea of WikiProject TRANSWIKI very much. I think another way of expanding the project and making it of real educative value would be to get schools, colleges, etc. involved too. I used to get so bored having to translate passages from Caesar and the like that had been translated and re-translated over and over again by many generations of school kids. It really turned me off both Latin and French. What I would have loved was a project working with others to translate something that had not already been done to death - something NEW and EXCITING! My proposal would be to try to get teachers to assign a translation project to create new (or better) pages for Wikipedia. A group or a class taking French could, for instance, translate some article from the French Wikipedia. To make it even more interesting and educative - it could be to translate something of historical, geographical, cultural, or some other interest - so it would be even more than just learning how to translate (and to use computers to edit something like the Wikipedia). Maybe they could get extra credits if they could get an article to good article stage??? Anyway, this is just an idea of mine - I am not sure how to get anyone or any group inspired enough to try it. Whadaya think? Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 10:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
What should we call it then? TRANSWIKI is fine but I would suggest renaming the other project which deals with outgoing material and we occupy that space. Other than that a task force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles might be a good idea. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I realise this proposal is fundamentally flawed. If I write a summary of a source (using inline citation) which I have read, then I can vouch for that source personally, but if I transwiki another editor's summary, then I am blind copying. Since Wikipedia is a teriary source (a summary of reliable source), then blind copying of tertiary source undermines the whole concept or reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that we cannot assume that summarising a summary is anything more than plagarism. We cannot substitute research for reguritation. To write an article and comply with the spirit of WP:RS makes us duty bound to go back to the original source. If we are to stand on the shoulders of giants, then we have to use our own feet, not stand in another editors shoes. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 12:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, your point is well, pointless. As Jen said "The whole POINT of free licensing is to be able to use others' work with attribution". We should be working as one team translating each others work into a different language. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, nobody has even said every article is going to be fully translated and copied!! On a lot of articles they will be started translating a paragraph or two and will probably be written following this by whatever editor in their own words and using reliable sources. I would imagine a high proportion of cases will involve the developer afterwards seeking out sources across the web and in books to verify the information and make the article their own. Who've lost what the proposal is about. It is about starting missing articles from other wikipedias and then allowing people to develop them afterwards in their own right. A lot of them time this will be outside of the projects parameters as traffic come across the solid starter articles the project will start and then add what ever information they think is needed. It really wouldn't anyway if entire articles for copied providing they are supported by reliable sources. that's the whole point of the licensing system on here to allow work to be represented, certainly within the wikimedia group. All of our 12 million articles are everybody's articles, they were just started in a different language, I can't emphasise enough that we are really one project. Anyway, hundreds of articles are "lplagiarised" by other wikipedias everyday and you know what? The information is making a major difference to education and knowledge in developing countries as people gradually gain access to the Internet. They benefit immensely from having our good articles translated into their language, the same for us and any project that is missing good content. I think this particular discussion is again irrelevant and should be discontinued as it is not a valid concern. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
- Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
Gavin, please check if this article I just created, Hero Corp from the French Wikipedia is in any way deficient. Abductive ( talk) 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
@Gavin, what are you talking about now? What "evidence"? The ref will be there, just as it would on any other article. What evidence? Have you read the reliable sources guideline? I don't need to provide "evidence" of what is in the source, in fact I could cite sources that aren't publicly available to wikilawyers such as yourself and it would still be valid. You don't have a case and it's time you realize why everyone else disagrees with you. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, here's an example for you (going the other direction, but the principle is identical): Faith Hunter is a (stubby) article that I have written here on enwp. Someone over at frwp decided they needed it. My words were translated directly (which may or may not be what happens with any given article under this proposal). There is a template at the top of the page which says it was translated from enwp. This is not plagiarism of my work. Why not? It says exactly where it came from, and anyone who cares to do so can come over to enwp and look at the editing history here. It is preserved. Lady of Shalott 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Now the potential problem I see: Someone at enwp could look at Faith Hunter and decide she is not notable enough (this is not a suggestion, folks! ;-D); the user nominates the article for deletion and the consensus at AfD is to delete it. The article remains at frwp, but now the editing history is lost - in this scenario, no one who saw the frwp article would be able to see all the work I put into the article. Without importing article histories, how can we prevent this scenario from happening? Lady of Shalott 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
What a refreshing change it is to have some more female input on this site! There are too many guys here, not enough female editors. Makes a welcoming change! A neutral encyclopedia needs articles written equally by both, it is a shame that this site doesn't attract more female editors. Sorry, it was just very rare to see a section with two women sharing their views that's all! I agree 110% with you about encouraging this project on other wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Since I am offering my programming skills, I think I should make it pretty clear how I envision this process working...
Obviously getting the bot "right" is a crucial aspect here. In that regards, I would like to assure the community that I always proceed with great caution when making bots. I view accuracy as the number one priority of any bot, as bot edits are rarely scrutinized and can be exhausting to undue (since they can make so many edits so fast.) Of course, if this is to happen the bot will have to go through the normal
approval process which will allow both technically minding people and average users to express their concerns and strengthen the code.
I look forward to working with interested parties to make this happen. Please do ask any questions you may have. Thank you, ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Here is a note I posted on Dr. Blofeld's discussion page which he thought might be of interest here:
I just replied to a note from Dr. Blofeld on my Discussion page and thought I should post it here as well:
Good idea, it is like a ghost town on wikipedia today. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I would suggest someone go ahead and start setting up the page. This is a WikiProject proposal after all and doesn't need formal community approval, just 5-10 interested editors. Clearly that level of commitment has been reached. I suggest we pick a name, get the basic page structure set up, and then decide what our initial targeted areas will be. There is no need to debate endlessly the potential problems of this endeavor. Only actually getting started will reveal any real problems and those can be addressed as they come up.
It will be easier to recruit translators and such once the project is going. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TRANSWIKI - We're all set up now! As such, conversation about how to proceed should take place there. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Isn't this what Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo used to do? I don't know if they're active anymore, but it might be a place to get some ideas. -- Ned Scott 11:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki
Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI
Wikipedia:TRANSWIKI
In light of the recent events showing concern about the creation of unreferenced inefficient manual stub creation I think the time has come to organise a project Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI which concentrates on trasferring content from other wikipedias but in a way which is much more efficient and can be done with no community concerns. This project would tie together the Missing Encyclopedia Articles project with the stale current translation project. Given that there thousands upon thousands of referenced good content articles on other wikipedias, particularly German, Dutch and French wikipedia I think it is very important to transfer content from other wikipedias but done adequately as part of a project coordination. The idea is a bot, offered by User:ThaddeusB, which can run through categories on a different wikipedia and extract any main information from an article and create it on english wikipedia with a reference to an outside reliable source. I know the community expresses an extreme indifference to automation in regards to content but if programmed correctly bots can do things much more consistently and efficiently than us. The idea is not that the bot writes the articles, the idea is that it draws up missing lists of articles from other wikipedia in the project space, members of a group check them for notability and then the bot is assigned to blue link them in the best possible way without community concerns and which adheres to our policies. The ultimate ideal of cause would be bot which can translate whole articles into English but as we know present, google translate is far from perfect. If it is somehow perfected in the future see google toolbar the new translation thing they have going then I think it would be possible to instantly translate articles but would need to be proof read. But at present I think something which can extracts some basic facts and reference them is most needed. The first phase would be to use a bot to draw up lists of missing articles by wikipedia in the project space. . Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/de/Politicians etc etc. but it would seme this project would have the potential and capacity to do more than just list missing encyclopedia articles, it would attempt to fill a void for translation in which the other project failed in and help improve existing content. I've lost count for instanc ehow many articles I've come across on German and Swiss municipalities and the article on German wikipedia is full and well referecned. We'd need a bot to be able to run off categories on other wikipedias and list them on here in the workspace so in effect it would begin the start of making articles on other wikipedias avialable in english and at least highlighting exactly what is missing. So it could generate lists from a diversity of topics and wikipedias such as Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/nl/Writers, and Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/pt/Portuguese novels etc. They would be stored in the workspace into subcategories and topics for each wikipedia.
The first task of the new project would be to create sections of the new project related to content on the different wikipedia. Then the bot would raid the categories on other wikipedia for various topics and list the articles missing from these categories. The ones that we already have maybe can be moved manually or the bot could by pass them. So eventually we'd have a directory of missing articles organised by each wikipedia and neatly by topic/sub topic so we know exactly what is missing. Inevitably the task is a tremendous one to do so which only a bot could achieve but I am certain that a bot is able to be programmed to copy categories from the other wikipedias and insert them into lists in the project space. Once we have that done or are happy with the missinglists for one topic maybe then the bot can be programmed to start the missing articles, a lot of related categories use similar sources etc so that should make it easier at least.
Given the scale of this proposal I think a seperate wikirpoject dedicated to the transfer of content from other wikipedias and finding missing sources to reference them etc is EXACTLY what is needed at present. I've tried my very hardest to start as many articles as I can which are missing but I have received bad press from doing so in that quality is jeopardized as at present it is an effort done badly manually or by AWB which is really not the way it should be done. If we had a project and bot able to draw up lists of missing articles (rememebr the missing articles are enormous from other wikis) which this project would benefit immensely from the trasferring process could not only be done much more efficiently but it would also provide a monitoring process over what is being trasferred and makes sure say for instance that articles adhere to BLP concerns etc and the project would also provide a forum to discuss these issues and provide a means in which the community can collaborate and work together in doing so in the best way possible without one or two editors being shouted at for not complying with standards. What we need is an organization of language translators, bot operators, quality overlookers to esnure that articles can be transferred correctly and without referencing or other issues. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
If you are using a different translation service, which allows you to use it, then that is fine. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google.
I don't think articles would be generated fully using google translate if that is your concern. It is not an effective enough yet tool yet to translate whole articles anywayI think the first task which may take many weeks is drawing up a missing article directory from other wikipedias in the most full way possible. Then we would have to sort out how we go about starting articles from other wikis later and find how extracting the main points and referencing them would be done. Remember, the articles will not be fully tranlsated immediately upon creation but they will be started in a way which are mostly important adequate and consistent starter articles which provide a decent platform to build on afterwards and still be an adequate starter article in its own right. I would suggest that the bot also draws up lists of top visited missing articles on other wikis and referenced articles from other wikis and lists them as first priority for starting. If we did require google translate it would indeed have to be arranged and google sent a request. Anything starter using google translate though would require a monitoring process and testing prior to creation to ensure that it is done properly as we know the tool is as yet imperfect. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed. What I mean in regards to content would be something like Kobylá nad Vidnavkou which Kot is working on at present. It takes similarly programmed articles and manually it would be found which word means which in the foreign language first. Once that prior programming is sorted it would then be free to generate more articles based upon a set template. The main problem would be that many articles are not consistent or don't contain set information so extracting the main facts may be considerably more difficult and that is when a translation programme would be more required I believe. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That is exactly how I see it. Agreed with Ottawa too that such a project would be perhaps evne more useful for the other wikis, particularly the lesser devleoped ones. However i believe there is already something which helps them with outgoing content. People do forget that similarly we could greatly benefit from content on other wikis. The ultimate ideal would be a translation bot which produces articles on different wikipedias in any language fully and accurately first time but that is obviously a dream, nothing more, at leats not yet anyway. I don't really think bots should write articles, I believe it should be done by the hard work and research of people but I do think that bots will be of a massive benefit to starting content and remove the inadequacies of us clumsy manual editors in trying to start them by starting them more efficiently, faster, and more resourcefully. There should equally be bots running on here which do more than just fix minor errors. Content should be of uttermost importance to us and I think a project which seriously realises the differences between articles on different wikipedias and does something to work towards equalising it is greayly needed and I mean that not only on English wikipedia but on all the other wikis too. In the end it will always come down to hard work and involvement of many people to develop articles fully on wiki but a bot and project of editors who work on putting articles on the plate consistently and in coordination is definately the start we need. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
But I'm not convinced that bringing the full list of articles from categories topics from another language Wikipedia is a good idea. Some topics like geological formations (lakes, rivers, mountains) it is okay to have short stubs. Other topics, having a short stub is much more problematic because it might introduce biases into the content. For example, some might have an article started on them because they are a member of a parliament, and someone is writing an article on each member of parliament. But the person might actually be much more well known for other accomplishments that would be unmentioned while they had a dismal record in parliament. If no one is really has an interest in the topic, but is bringing the article to WP-en as part of a process, then a follow up article about the person may never be written.
So I think that the process needs to deliberately figure out ways to prevent introducing a large number of stale or incomplete articles that could have the potential to introduce biases about the subject of the article. -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
If Jenna and the others concerned about BLP are interested, the project could have a department which reviews any articles to be started on living people. Sources would be put forward and together an agremeent would be made as to whether or not that source or bit of information is adequate to start the article. As I said this should be a large scale project and adhering to BLP and having a group of editors who authorise banks of articles to be needed and discuss it with the rest of the group is what I am proposing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
These are worse case scenarios. Nobody has any intentions at least not until 2020 to auto generate articles about Italian adult film stars from Ugarit. We will be focusing on the higher quality articles or at least verifiable articles from the bigger wikipedias like German, Dutch, French and Spanish and on rather less controversial subjects mostly. In answer to Lady's comment about self referencing above. The idea is to find Reliable Sources used on other wikipedias to reference the information given. I think that tag may be acceptable for articles about places but seeimgly not for people, they must be verified by external sources and given. The best thing would be to start articles from other wikipedias and find external sources to support them. The problem as John said, might be to ensure that external sources support what is given in the foreign wiki article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Ahh I see what you both mean, I agree! Legally if any text is translated in bulk from another wikipedia it must be attributed anyway, isn't that correct Jen? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Editors here might be interested in a little page I wrote as I was working on the translation system here, Wikipedia:Translation/Overhaul - it describes some changes made, remaining problems, and some suggestions for improvement. It's obviously not coextensive with this effort but might be helpful background. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:Wikiproject Importing articles from other Wikipedias? That might be a little unwieldy. Other ideas? Lady of Shalott 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes I agree. We'd turn that one into a full blown project likely. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Posted to Blofeld earlier: Yes, I like the idea of WikiProject TRANSWIKI very much. I think another way of expanding the project and making it of real educative value would be to get schools, colleges, etc. involved too. I used to get so bored having to translate passages from Caesar and the like that had been translated and re-translated over and over again by many generations of school kids. It really turned me off both Latin and French. What I would have loved was a project working with others to translate something that had not already been done to death - something NEW and EXCITING! My proposal would be to try to get teachers to assign a translation project to create new (or better) pages for Wikipedia. A group or a class taking French could, for instance, translate some article from the French Wikipedia. To make it even more interesting and educative - it could be to translate something of historical, geographical, cultural, or some other interest - so it would be even more than just learning how to translate (and to use computers to edit something like the Wikipedia). Maybe they could get extra credits if they could get an article to good article stage??? Anyway, this is just an idea of mine - I am not sure how to get anyone or any group inspired enough to try it. Whadaya think? Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 10:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
What should we call it then? TRANSWIKI is fine but I would suggest renaming the other project which deals with outgoing material and we occupy that space. Other than that a task force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles might be a good idea. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I realise this proposal is fundamentally flawed. If I write a summary of a source (using inline citation) which I have read, then I can vouch for that source personally, but if I transwiki another editor's summary, then I am blind copying. Since Wikipedia is a teriary source (a summary of reliable source), then blind copying of tertiary source undermines the whole concept or reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that we cannot assume that summarising a summary is anything more than plagarism. We cannot substitute research for reguritation. To write an article and comply with the spirit of WP:RS makes us duty bound to go back to the original source. If we are to stand on the shoulders of giants, then we have to use our own feet, not stand in another editors shoes. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 12:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, your point is well, pointless. As Jen said "The whole POINT of free licensing is to be able to use others' work with attribution". We should be working as one team translating each others work into a different language. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, nobody has even said every article is going to be fully translated and copied!! On a lot of articles they will be started translating a paragraph or two and will probably be written following this by whatever editor in their own words and using reliable sources. I would imagine a high proportion of cases will involve the developer afterwards seeking out sources across the web and in books to verify the information and make the article their own. Who've lost what the proposal is about. It is about starting missing articles from other wikipedias and then allowing people to develop them afterwards in their own right. A lot of them time this will be outside of the projects parameters as traffic come across the solid starter articles the project will start and then add what ever information they think is needed. It really wouldn't anyway if entire articles for copied providing they are supported by reliable sources. that's the whole point of the licensing system on here to allow work to be represented, certainly within the wikimedia group. All of our 12 million articles are everybody's articles, they were just started in a different language, I can't emphasise enough that we are really one project. Anyway, hundreds of articles are "lplagiarised" by other wikipedias everyday and you know what? The information is making a major difference to education and knowledge in developing countries as people gradually gain access to the Internet. They benefit immensely from having our good articles translated into their language, the same for us and any project that is missing good content. I think this particular discussion is again irrelevant and should be discontinued as it is not a valid concern. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
- Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
Gavin, please check if this article I just created, Hero Corp from the French Wikipedia is in any way deficient. Abductive ( talk) 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
@Gavin, what are you talking about now? What "evidence"? The ref will be there, just as it would on any other article. What evidence? Have you read the reliable sources guideline? I don't need to provide "evidence" of what is in the source, in fact I could cite sources that aren't publicly available to wikilawyers such as yourself and it would still be valid. You don't have a case and it's time you realize why everyone else disagrees with you. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gavin, here's an example for you (going the other direction, but the principle is identical): Faith Hunter is a (stubby) article that I have written here on enwp. Someone over at frwp decided they needed it. My words were translated directly (which may or may not be what happens with any given article under this proposal). There is a template at the top of the page which says it was translated from enwp. This is not plagiarism of my work. Why not? It says exactly where it came from, and anyone who cares to do so can come over to enwp and look at the editing history here. It is preserved. Lady of Shalott 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Now the potential problem I see: Someone at enwp could look at Faith Hunter and decide she is not notable enough (this is not a suggestion, folks! ;-D); the user nominates the article for deletion and the consensus at AfD is to delete it. The article remains at frwp, but now the editing history is lost - in this scenario, no one who saw the frwp article would be able to see all the work I put into the article. Without importing article histories, how can we prevent this scenario from happening? Lady of Shalott 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
What a refreshing change it is to have some more female input on this site! There are too many guys here, not enough female editors. Makes a welcoming change! A neutral encyclopedia needs articles written equally by both, it is a shame that this site doesn't attract more female editors. Sorry, it was just very rare to see a section with two women sharing their views that's all! I agree 110% with you about encouraging this project on other wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Since I am offering my programming skills, I think I should make it pretty clear how I envision this process working...
Obviously getting the bot "right" is a crucial aspect here. In that regards, I would like to assure the community that I always proceed with great caution when making bots. I view accuracy as the number one priority of any bot, as bot edits are rarely scrutinized and can be exhausting to undue (since they can make so many edits so fast.) Of course, if this is to happen the bot will have to go through the normal
approval process which will allow both technically minding people and average users to express their concerns and strengthen the code.
I look forward to working with interested parties to make this happen. Please do ask any questions you may have. Thank you, ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Here is a note I posted on Dr. Blofeld's discussion page which he thought might be of interest here:
I just replied to a note from Dr. Blofeld on my Discussion page and thought I should post it here as well:
Good idea, it is like a ghost town on wikipedia today. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I would suggest someone go ahead and start setting up the page. This is a WikiProject proposal after all and doesn't need formal community approval, just 5-10 interested editors. Clearly that level of commitment has been reached. I suggest we pick a name, get the basic page structure set up, and then decide what our initial targeted areas will be. There is no need to debate endlessly the potential problems of this endeavor. Only actually getting started will reveal any real problems and those can be addressed as they come up.
It will be easier to recruit translators and such once the project is going. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TRANSWIKI - We're all set up now! As such, conversation about how to proceed should take place there. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Isn't this what Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo used to do? I don't know if they're active anymore, but it might be a place to get some ideas. -- Ned Scott 11:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply