Thank you for the answers. Jay Walsh, 17/12/2011 19:29: > The languages chosen were a balance between our geographic priorities > (Brazil, Middle East, India) and our widest base of donors and contributors > from other countries. It's imperfect, as always - we want to do more in > the future, but we needed to get started.
I'm not saying you should have translated to more languages, I understand the constraints; I was just wondering how the priority was defined. I had thought of the geographic priorities, not of the donors and contributors base. However, I'm still quite confused: for instance Russian projects have way more active users than the Japanese and almost the same as the French (with twice as many speakers); Italian projects have a bit less but Italy, Zack said, is the second biggest source of donations to WMF this year. > These choices are by no means > part of a permanent pattern for WMF in terms of translation. It can be a coincidence, anyway in the future sharing your "algorithm" (which is something difficult to make and I suppose cost you some thinking) would help everybody define variations suitable for their purposes and make other choices like this. :-) Nemo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
