Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[James Heilman]

I have been involved with efforts to translate medical content into as many
languages as possible since 2012 in collaboration with Translators Without
Borders, donations of translation time by for-profit translation companies,
and movement volunteers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force

It takes a lot of time and effort to build capacity and to coordinate
volunteers. I have personally hired a project manager to help and the WMF
was providing support to one collaborator through an IEG.

I guess the question is how do we prioritize this work versus other
translation efforts? We switched to writing three to four paragraph
simplier summaries of topic in English specifically for translation as
translating entire high quality articles was too resource intensive.

James

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-03-11 18:00, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
>> Hello Yaroslav
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> My point is that there is no clear strategy or process for prioritizing
>> which pages get translated. So, perhaps it is easy for some people to be
>> mixed up.
>>
>> But I'm pretty confident that I understand the issues, and I'm not getting
>> anything mixed up. :-)
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> This dynamic in the wikimedia movement needs to change. It is exclusionary
>> and unwelcoming.
>>
>> We can not reach the people that the wikimedia movement needs to reach if
>> the burden of translation of these important official WMF processes a
>> completely volunteer process.
>>
>> Going forward, I would like to see the percentage of pages translated as a
>> metric that is tracked, reported, and discussed regularly.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Sydney
>>
>>
> Thank you, it more clear now.
>
> However, my point is we can not translate everything to all languages. we
> do not have and we will never have resources for that. We need to
> prioritize. I would say in the case of the upcoming elections, it would be
> great to know what languages we need to translate the documents into - the
> languages spoken by the members of boards of the organizations who actually
> intend to vote, and only in the case they do not speak English. I asked
> this already a week ago in this very same topic of the mailing list, and
> got a reply from someone (was it Amir? - sorry, I can not easily check it
> now) that there is a generic list of languages important messages get
> translated into. In this situation, I would say, we need first to make a
> custom list for these elections - hopefully it is more narrow than the
> generic list, and then see what is the best way to proceed. I am not sure
> there is a general solutions - probably different documents just need to be
> translated into different sets of languages.
>
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-11 18:00, Sydney Poore wrote:

Hello Yaroslav

Thanks for your reply.

My point is that there is no clear strategy or process for prioritizing
which pages get translated. So, perhaps it is easy for some people to 
be

mixed up.

But I'm pretty confident that I understand the issues, and I'm not 
getting

anything mixed up. :-)

<...>

This dynamic in the wikimedia movement needs to change. It is 
exclusionary

and unwelcoming.

We can not reach the people that the wikimedia movement needs to reach 
if

the burden of translation of these important official WMF processes a
completely volunteer process.

Going forward, I would like to see the percentage of pages translated 
as a

metric that is tracked, reported, and discussed regularly.

Warm regards,
Sydney



Thank you, it more clear now.

However, my point is we can not translate everything to all languages. 
we do not have and we will never have resources for that. We need to 
prioritize. I would say in the case of the upcoming elections, it would 
be great to know what languages we need to translate the documents into 
- the languages spoken by the members of boards of the organizations who 
actually intend to vote, and only in the case they do not speak English. 
I asked this already a week ago in this very same topic of the mailing 
list, and got a reply from someone (was it Amir? - sorry, I can not 
easily check it now) that there is a generic list of languages important 
messages get translated into. In this situation, I would say, we need 
first to make a custom list for these elections - hopefully it is more 
narrow than the generic list, and then see what is the best way to 
proceed. I am not sure there is a general solutions - probably different 
documents just need to be translated into different sets of languages.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Sydney Poore]

Hello Yaroslav

Thanks for your reply.

My point is that there is no clear strategy or process for prioritizing
which pages get translated. So, perhaps it is easy for some people to be
mixed up.

But I'm pretty confident that I understand the issues, and I'm not getting
anything mixed up. :-)

Looking at the upcoming election's pages on Meta, I see that many of the
basic pages that describe the election are not translated into more than a
few languages and those are not up to date.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats_election_FAQ#What_is_the_chapters_wiki.3F

Additionally, I feel strongly that most everyone in the wikimedia movement
should have the opportunity to read the candidate statements and Q of the
future WMF Trustees. But right now we don't have anyway of making sure that
even the languages of voting Chapters or thematic organizations have a good
method to get it done in a timely way.

It is troubling to me that an Affiliated organization's Board needs to be
proficient in English to do the translation. Not to mention that the Board
members don't select the timing of this election and may have serious
limitations on their time that prevents doing the translation.

This dynamic in the wikimedia movement needs to change. It is exclusionary
and unwelcoming.

We can not reach the people that the wikimedia movement needs to reach if
the burden of translation of these important official WMF processes a
completely volunteer process.

Going forward, I would like to see the percentage of pages translated as a
metric that is tracked, reported, and discussed regularly.

Warm regards,
Sydney











Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-03-11 15:58, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
>> I agree with antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv that broader translation of WMF
>> BoT
>> election pages is important.
>>
>> To reach the goal where "every single person on the planet is given free
>> access to the sum of all human knowledge" the wikimedia movement needs to
>> prioritize translation as a regular part of key processes.
>>
>> We are failing at this today. The wikimedia movement lacks a clear
>> strategy
>> to shift the cost (funds and human resources) from non-English speaking
>> volunteers to the broader wikimedia movement.
>>
>> I welcome a hearty discussion about how the Affiliate-selected Board of
>> Trustee election can be made more accessible to more non-English speaking
>> people. And also a larger discussion as part of the WMF Strategic Plan
>> discussion, and the upcoming WMf Annual Plan.
>> Warm regards,
>> Sydney
>> User:FloNight
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>> Wikipedian in Residence
>> at Cochrane Collaboration
>>
>>
> Hi Sydney,
>
> as I mentioned earlier, I am afraid there are two things mixed up here.
> There a big step between making the candidate statements and answers to
> questions to all individuals who are eligible to vote at the forthcoming
> elections, and providing the sum of human knowledge in all languages.
>
> In practical terms, every person who speaks Dutch and is a member of
> Wikimedia Nederland / Belgium also speaks English and would be able to
> understand the candidate statements. On the other hand, Dutch as a language
> is spoken by 20M people, and we need of course to consider support of Dutch
> Wikipedia / sister projects / Wikidata, Commons, and Mediawiki interface
> with a high priority. As another example, I believe we have zero Quechua
> speakers who are eligible to vote, and translating statements into Quechuan
> languages would be a loss of time. On the other hand, these languages have
> 9 million speakers, and definitely need their own projects.
>
> I agree that both should be discussed, but let us separate the things. One
> issue is a global priority of languages in terms of the projects etc and
> whether they need to be supported, another issue is whether there are some
> languages the statements of the candidates should be urgently translated to
> in order to help the voters decide.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi,

2016-03-11 15:58 GMT+01:00 Sydney Poore :
> I agree with antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv that broader translation of WMF BoT
> election pages is important.

I agree. FWIW I havce asked in the WM-IT members mailing list if
somebody can help with Italian translation. As a member of the board
of WM-IT if our members request it I would also been open to consider
to pay for a translator.

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-11 15:58, Sydney Poore wrote:
I agree with antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv that broader translation of WMF 
BoT

election pages is important.

To reach the goal where "every single person on the planet is given 
free
access to the sum of all human knowledge" the wikimedia movement needs 
to

prioritize translation as a regular part of key processes.

We are failing at this today. The wikimedia movement lacks a clear 
strategy

to shift the cost (funds and human resources) from non-English speaking
volunteers to the broader wikimedia movement.

I welcome a hearty discussion about how the Affiliate-selected Board of
Trustee election can be made more accessible to more non-English 
speaking

people. And also a larger discussion as part of the WMF Strategic Plan
discussion, and the upcoming WMf Annual Plan.
Warm regards,
Sydney
User:FloNight

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration



Hi Sydney,

as I mentioned earlier, I am afraid there are two things mixed up here. 
There a big step between making the candidate statements and answers to 
questions to all individuals who are eligible to vote at the forthcoming 
elections, and providing the sum of human knowledge in all languages.


In practical terms, every person who speaks Dutch and is a member of 
Wikimedia Nederland / Belgium also speaks English and would be able to 
understand the candidate statements. On the other hand, Dutch as a 
language is spoken by 20M people, and we need of course to consider 
support of Dutch Wikipedia / sister projects / Wikidata, Commons, and 
Mediawiki interface with a high priority. As another example, I believe 
we have zero Quechua speakers who are eligible to vote, and translating 
statements into Quechuan languages would be a loss of time. On the other 
hand, these languages have 9 million speakers, and definitely need their 
own projects.


I agree that both should be discussed, but let us separate the things. 
One issue is a global priority of languages in terms of the projects etc 
and whether they need to be supported, another issue is whether there 
are some languages the statements of the candidates should be urgently 
translated to in order to help the voters decide.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Sydney Poore]

I agree with antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv that broader translation of WMF BoT
election pages is important.

To reach the goal where "every single person on the planet is given free
access to the sum of all human knowledge" the wikimedia movement needs to
prioritize translation as a regular part of key processes.

We are failing at this today. The wikimedia movement lacks a clear strategy
to shift the cost (funds and human resources) from non-English speaking
volunteers to the broader wikimedia movement.

I welcome a hearty discussion about how the Affiliate-selected Board of
Trustee election can be made more accessible to more non-English speaking
people. And also a larger discussion as part of the WMF Strategic Plan
discussion, and the upcoming WMf Annual Plan.
Warm regards,
Sydney
User:FloNight

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:36 AM, attolippip  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
> far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
> people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process
> at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
> great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your
> statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
> translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
> deem the process broken.
>
> Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates
> eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees. I
> am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits
> to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
> use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
> translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
> into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it
> fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
> Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
> considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
> "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
> than the three "community" ones.
>
> The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of
> course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it
> well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members
> of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
> statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
> They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I
> am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
> and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision
> is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.
>
> And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
> issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and
> how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms
> of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
> moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
> offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
> poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
> choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
> based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are
> chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
> first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
> after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
> candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this
> option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
> accepted by us, as the Community.
>
> I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and
> suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
> community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
> have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
> see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So
> (at least) informing your own members is important, I believe.
>
> Best regards,
>
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> [1] There is a question about the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Lane Rasberry]

Nataliia,

You asked the WMF to fund and commission translations for the election.

I am not the WMF and do not know what they might think, but I wanted to
carry on the conversation. One part of your concern that I would like to
address is pricing. You suggested that for a small amount of money,
translation could be done of election writings. You say, "If WMF refuses, I
am going to use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a
page translated".

The active Wikipedia community needs perhaps 10-25 languages, and maybe we
could select 15. If we hired a translation service for this amount of text
and that many languages, the cost I would expect is not less than USD
$75,000. I think that if we discuss your request, we should begin by
imagining it as a request for $75,000 to go to a translation company. I am
not sure why you mentioned a $6 price. This would not be inexpensive.

Can you please clarify how much money you are proposing be spent on
translation?

yours,


-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Luis Sanabria]

Hello!

The pages were marked for translation but no notification was sent out
asking for help with them. A mass message to the translators via Meta and
an email to the translators mailing list might help to get extra help with
the translations.

Regards,
Luis
El 06/03/2016 03:56, "John Mark Vandenberg"  escribió:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
> > On 2016-03-06 09:26, Gnangarra wrote:
> >>
> >> You would think though that someone who wanted to represent all of the
> >> affiliates would endeavor to have their statement translated into as
> many
> >> languages as possible to ensure their message got heard by the most
> amount
> >> of people, even if they did it themselves using one of the many
> >> translation
> >> programs available.
> >>
> >> The affiliates if they are transparent will be asking for input from
> their
> >> members as to who they should be supporting, I'd consider it as
> important
> >> but also a courtesy to all communities
> >>
> >
> > Do we have a list of languages into which the statements REALLY need to
> be
> > translated? I would say, with all due respect, that translating it to
> > Swedish and Dutch is rather a waste of time, whereas translating for
> example
> > to Spanish and Italian might indeed help.
>
> We could use the same list of languages as the process for the
> community elected/selected seats?
>
> This is also being discussed at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016#Messy_list
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Nikola Kalchev]

The voters do not have to know English. The board members of a national
organisation do things for which they might or might not need knowledge of
foreign languages. As antanana pointed out, five of seven board members of
Wikimedia Ukraine know English. The situation is similar in other chapters.
Obviously those who know English take care of international projects, but
the others must have the possibility to read about all the candidates,
because they are also representatives of their community. I am quite sure
that each affiliate will be able to find a person to translate the resumes
from English into their own language, but I am also quite sure that not
everybody would like to do it in the volunteer time.

Лорд Бъмбъри / Nikola Kalchev

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com

<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:56 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
> > On 2016-03-06 09:26, Gnangarra wrote:
> >>
> >> You would think though that someone who wanted to represent all of the
> >> affiliates would endeavor to have their statement translated into as
> many
> >> languages as possible to ensure their message got heard by the most
> amount
> >> of people, even if they did it themselves using one of the many
> >> translation
> >> programs available.
> >>
> >> The affiliates if they are transparent will be asking for input from
> their
> >> members as to who they should be supporting, I'd consider it as
> important
> >> but also a courtesy to all communities
> >>
> >
> > Do we have a list of languages into which the statements REALLY need to
> be
> > translated? I would say, with all due respect, that translating it to
> > Swedish and Dutch is rather a waste of time, whereas translating for
> example
> > to Spanish and Italian might indeed help.
>
> We could use the same list of languages as the process for the
> community elected/selected seats?
>
> This is also being discussed at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016#Messy_list
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Gnangarra]

Agree with John here

we are talking about two distinct needs one is the candidates being able to
communicate within the boards hence the need for english,

the second which is equally important is the need for Affiliates to be able
to engage their community in the decision process and its here where
translations are necessary

On 6 March 2016 at 17:44, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> The affiliates should be engaging their members and their broader
> ccommunit/stakeholders in this process, and to do that the members should
> have translated material to evaluate.
>
> --
> John
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[John Mark Vandenberg]

The affiliates should be engaging their members and their broader
ccommunit/stakeholders in this process, and to do that the members should
have translated material to evaluate.

--
John
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Is it a written rule that one needs to know English to participate in
Wikimedia's governance?

If it isn't, then the word "need" must not be used about it. If it is, it
must be changed (and that would be a topic for a different thread).

English is an important practicality, but demanding it goes again the
Internationalism guiding principle. Most people in the world don't know
English.

Nat points out an important problem correctly. Rejecting it outright is
wrong.

Whether her proposed solution is right? - I'm not sure, because the
resources are limited, and we do try to stick to volunteers whenever
possible. Also, from experience, paid translation of Wikimedia materials
tends to be bad - professional translators who aren't Wikimedians are
remarkably bad at understanding our jargon (and I don't blame them!)

A reasonable compromise, which doesn't require a lot of discussion, for the
current case is to find a list of eligible voters who don't know English
and to proritize their languages somehow. Also, I'd imagine that a
potential board member should be able to find somebody to translate at
least her or his page ;)

The Foundation could think of a better way to accommodate this better in
the future; at the very least, prepare the lists of required languages
earlier.
בתאריך 6 במרץ 2016 09:45,‏ "Gerard Meijssen" 
כתב:

> Hoi,
> I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However,
> given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS
> to communicate in English, I disagree.
>
> It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding
> of English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying
> it.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> > process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> > somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
> > far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
> > people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the
> process
> > at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
> > great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate
> your
> > statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
> > translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
> > deem the process broken.
> >
> > Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> > nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the
> affiliates
> > eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees.
> I
> > am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are
> limits
> > to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
> > use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
> > translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
> > into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do
> it
> > fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
> > Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
> > considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
> > "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
> > than the three "community" ones.
> >
> > The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that,
> of
> > course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands
> it
> > well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board
> members
> > of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
> > statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
> > They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> > candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members
> that I
> > am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
> > and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this
> decision
> > is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.
> >
> > And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
> > issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates,
> and
> > how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in
> terms
> > of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
> > moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
> > offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
> > poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
> > choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
> > based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-06 09:26, Gnangarra wrote:

You would think though that someone who wanted to represent all of the
affiliates would endeavor to have their statement translated into as 
many
languages as possible to ensure their message got heard by the most 
amount
of people, even if they did it themselves using one of the many 
translation

programs available.

The affiliates if they are transparent will be asking for input from 
their
members as to who they should be supporting, I'd consider it as 
important

but also a courtesy to all communities



Do we have a list of languages into which the statements REALLY need to 
be translated? I would say, with all due respect, that translating it to 
Swedish and Dutch is rather a waste of time, whereas translating for 
example to Spanish and Italian might indeed help.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Gnangarra]

You would think though that someone who wanted to represent all of the
affiliates would endeavor to have their statement translated into as many
languages as possible to ensure their message got heard by the most amount
of people, even if they did it themselves using one of the many translation
programs available.

The affiliates if they are transparent will be asking for input from their
members as to who they should be supporting, I'd consider it as important
but also a courtesy to all communities

On 6 March 2016 at 15:44, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However,
> given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS
> to communicate in English, I disagree.
>
> It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding
> of English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying
> it.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> > process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> > somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
> > far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
> > people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the
> process
> > at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
> > great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate
> your
> > statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
> > translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
> > deem the process broken.
> >
> > Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> > nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the
> affiliates
> > eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees.
> I
> > am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are
> limits
> > to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
> > use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
> > translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
> > into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do
> it
> > fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
> > Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
> > considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
> > "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
> > than the three "community" ones.
> >
> > The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that,
> of
> > course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands
> it
> > well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board
> members
> > of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
> > statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
> > They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> > candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members
> that I
> > am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
> > and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this
> decision
> > is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.
> >
> > And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
> > issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates,
> and
> > how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in
> terms
> > of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
> > moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
> > offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
> > poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
> > choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
> > based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators
> are
> > chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
> > first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
> > after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
> > candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider
> this
> > option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
> > accepted by us, as the Community.
> >
> > I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request
> (and
> > suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
> > community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
> > have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
> > see, Board 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You need at least to be able to understand it in the written format. To be
blunt in the final analysis it is officials who elect these seats.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 6 March 2016 at 09:20, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
> You don’t have to be able to communicate in English to vote for the
> representative who needs to communicate in English
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 06 March 2016 9:45 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS
>
> Hoi,
> I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However,
> given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS
> to communicate in English, I disagree.
>
> It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable
> understanding of English and when they do not, this is not the place to
> start remedying it.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip <attolip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> > process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> > somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it
> > is far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state
> > that people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But
> > the process at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not
> > provided for. It is great to have dedicated friends across the
> > Movement that can translate your statement into German or Chinese, but
> > as long as not all statements are translated into the languages used
> > in all affiliates eligible to vote, I deem the process broken.
> >
> > Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> > nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the
> > affiliates eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by
> > the nominees. I am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it.
> > And there are limits to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF
> > refuses, I am going to use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around
> > 6 USD) to have a page translated into Swedish, for example :) I can
> > manage 7 pages translated into as many languages as my personal budget
> > will allow, but I shall do it fairly at least, so we won’t have
> > Susanna’s statement only in English and Spanish, while Osmar’s is also
> > in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends considerable resources
> > (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three "community-elected"
> > seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats than the three
> "community" ones.
> >
> > The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with
> > that, of course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody
> > understands it well enough to make an informed choice. But even among
> > seven board members of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so
> > they can read the statements only if they [the statements] are
> translated into Ukrainian.
> > They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> > candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members
> > that I am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as
> > wonderful and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where
> > this decision is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or
> reading instead.
> >
> > And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and
> > participation
> > issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other
> > affiliates, and how you make your decisions to vote for this or that
> > possibility (in terms of this, I believe that there are seven
> > possibilities presented at the moment, by us, as nominees. So you can
> > accept or decline what we seven offer). You (actually) do not know us
> > and if we are going to be great or poor as Board members of WMF, and
> > if we are the right-for-the-moment choice, but you are going to
> > choose. Are you really going to choose just based on your personal
> > contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are chosen more
> > objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them first
> > personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and after…
> > Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
> > candidates? A

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Peter Southwood]

Hi Gerard,
You don’t have to be able to communicate in English to vote for the 
representative who needs to communicate in English
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 06 March 2016 9:45 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

Hoi,
I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However, given 
that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS to 
communicate in English, I disagree.

It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding of 
English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip <attolip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats 
> process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken 
> somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it 
> is far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state 
> that people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But 
> the process at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not 
> provided for. It is great to have dedicated friends across the 
> Movement that can translate your statement into German or Chinese, but 
> as long as not all statements are translated into the languages used 
> in all affiliates eligible to vote, I deem the process broken.
>
> Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all 
> nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the 
> affiliates eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by 
> the nominees. I am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. 
> And there are limits to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF 
> refuses, I am going to use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 
> 6 USD) to have a page translated into Swedish, for example :) I can 
> manage 7 pages translated into as many languages as my personal budget 
> will allow, but I shall do it fairly at least, so we won’t have 
> Susanna’s statement only in English and Spanish, while Osmar’s is also 
> in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends considerable resources 
> (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three "community-elected" 
> seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats than the three 
> "community" ones.
>
> The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with 
> that, of course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody 
> understands it well enough to make an informed choice. But even among 
> seven board members of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so 
> they can read the statements only if they [the statements] are translated 
> into Ukrainian.
> They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my 
> candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members 
> that I am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as 
> wonderful and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where 
> this decision is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading 
> instead.
>
> And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and 
> participation
> issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other 
> affiliates, and how you make your decisions to vote for this or that 
> possibility (in terms of this, I believe that there are seven 
> possibilities presented at the moment, by us, as nominees. So you can 
> accept or decline what we seven offer). You (actually) do not know us 
> and if we are going to be great or poor as Board members of WMF, and 
> if we are the right-for-the-moment choice, but you are going to 
> choose. Are you really going to choose just based on your personal 
> contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are chosen more 
> objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them first 
> personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and after… 
> Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the 
> candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider 
> this option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not 
> accepted by us, as the Community.
>
> I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request 
> (and
> suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the 
> Ukrainian community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible 
> users on UKWP have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that 
> happen. As you can see, Board elections may be of great importance to 
> the whole community.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However,
given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS
to communicate in English, I disagree.

It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding
of English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying
it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
> far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
> people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process
> at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
> great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your
> statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
> translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
> deem the process broken.
>
> Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates
> eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees. I
> am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits
> to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
> use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
> translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
> into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it
> fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
> Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
> considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
> "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
> than the three "community" ones.
>
> The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of
> course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it
> well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members
> of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
> statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
> They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I
> am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
> and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision
> is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.
>
> And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
> issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and
> how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms
> of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
> moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
> offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
> poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
> choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
> based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are
> chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
> first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
> after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
> candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this
> option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
> accepted by us, as the Community.
>
> I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and
> suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
> community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
> have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
> see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So
> (at least) informing your own members is important, I believe.
>
> Best regards,
>
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> [1] There is a question about the ‘turnout in this selection process’
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Turnout_in_this_selection_process
> so you’d think that people care. But do they? Really?
> [2] I think that contacting each affiliate eligible to vote and asking them
> if they need help to translate the statements and if yes, what languages
> are required by memberships/affiliates’ leadership to read the statements.
> By doing this we also make sure that they are aware of the upcoming
> elections 

[Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[attolippip]

Dear all,

As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process
at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your
statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
deem the process broken.

Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates
eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees. I
am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits
to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it
fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
"community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
than the three "community" ones.

The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of
course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it
well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members
of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I
am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision
is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.

And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and
how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms
of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are
chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this
option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
accepted by us, as the Community.

I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and
suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So
(at least) informing your own members is important, I believe.

Best regards,

antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

Wikimedia Ukraine

[1] There is a question about the ‘turnout in this selection process’
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Turnout_in_this_selection_process
so you’d think that people care. But do they? Really?
[2] I think that contacting each affiliate eligible to vote and asking them
if they need help to translate the statements and if yes, what languages
are required by memberships/affiliates’ leadership to read the statements.
By doing this we also make sure that they are aware of the upcoming
elections and are engaged

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters

[4] Because they just may be not willing to do it

[5] well, I was going to translate into Ukrainian all statement anyway,
translating is the best way to read the statement thoughtfully :)
[6] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-May/077966.html
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Stats
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: