<CAKO2H7_x3rCaWe1LAskwF8pvMNkqmL=3apvzwsr5_x4p1g5...@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <[email protected]> X-Sender: [email protected] User-Agent: Webmail/ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:28:31 +0100, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > For what it is worth.... > > I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using > foreign > sources with no independent translation available: > > a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source > (because other editors are generally not able to understand it) > b) There is more potential for mistakes or miscomprehension - for example > if > editors resort to using Google translate (not at all uncommon) > Actually, I do not see much of a problem here. I created more than 30 articles in English Wikipedia in the last three months, and all but two only cite Russian sources. I believe for the topics of these articles English (or, for that matter, in any other language than Russian) sources do not exist. I was one approached and asked to check the facts based on one of the sources (which I did and corrected the text of the article. However, if someone asks me to provide a translated piece proving one of the statements I will gladly do it (I believe the article talk page is an appropriate place). In my opinion, providing a source in a foreign language is not more OR than to provide just one source in a topic where thousands of contradicting sources exist (the perennial example is Israeli-Palestine conflict). Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
