I am very happy to follow this thread as I believe it is addressing a
very relevant issue.
In my mind we can divide up the different language version into 5
categories:
1.Enwp,
2.the next 6-7 (de,fr, es,jp,pt,ru..)
3.the next 20 or so, where the basic workprocesses are applied
4.the next 40-50 which are struggling to generate more input then what
is vandalised
5.the rest which in reality is no viable online encyclopedias
And for me no 1 priority is to accept that there are these categories,
and that what is applicable for cat 1 and 2 is not so for 4 and 5.
I believe the grant model could easily make room for subsiding good
initiatives addressing the problem for cat 4 and 5 (and perhaps 3).
And I think it is very presumptuous to start talking of what technique
to use and things like translation. If we open up for creative
brainstorming (among the ones having the need) I think very many other
ways can turn up. Myself I am deeply impressed what you can create using
Wikidata as a base source of info, and being from a version of type 3 I
see how much my homeversion improve content with wikidata created infoboxes
Anders
Den 2018-02-24 kl. 13:51, skrev John Erling Blad:
This discussion is going to be fun! =D
A little more than seventy Wikipedia-projects has more than 65k articles,
the remaining two hundred or so are pretty small.
What if a base set of articles were opened for paid translators? There are
several lists of such base sets. We have both the thousand articles from
"List of articles every Wikipedia should have"[1] and and the ten thousand
articles from the expanded list[2].
Lets say verified good translators was paid about $0.01 per word (about $1
for a 1k-article) for translating one of those articles into another
language, with perhaps a higher pay for contributors in high-cost
countries. The pay would also have to be higher for languages that lacks
good translation tools.
I believe this would be an _enabling_ activity for the communities, as
without a base set of articles it won't be possible to build a community at
all. By not paying for new articles, and only translating well-referenced
articles, some of the disputes in the communities could be avoided. Perhaps
we should also identify good source articles, that would be a help.
Translated articles should be above some minimum size, but they does not
have to be full translations of the source article.
A real problem is that our existing lists of good articles other projects
should have is pretty much biased towards Western World, so they need a lot
of adjustments. Perhaps such a project would identify our inherit bias?
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
