I tried to put some of the things we said on this page on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Wikisource_Mailing_list
Feel free to discuss them. Basically, I summarised what Asaf, David and I said. There will another occasion for discussion, so feel free, again, to jump in at any time. Aubrey On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Andrea Zanni <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to bring back the discussion to the Wikimedia Strategy (of > course, you're free to fork this thread in several others: more > discussions, the better ;-) > > Last week I participated in the Wikimedia Conference, > this year focused on Strategy. > > We had several sessions in which 200 people from all over the movement > brainstormed and discussed freely about one single question: where do we > want to be, in 2030. > Personally, I advocated and pushed for a more "olistic" approach: not just > an encyclopedia, but a platform for accessing and creating knowledge, in > whatever form. > There is somewhat a general consensus on that, but as a Wikisource > community I think it's *fundamental* to give our input, and push towards a > Wikimedia that is *beyond Wikipedia*. > > Thus, I encourage you again to write here your dream about Wikimedia in > 2030: what would you like to see? where would you like to be? In the > Wikisource conference, we spoke a lot about language equity, community, > tech. I'm sure you're full of ideas and vision. > > There are *no wrong answers*, and we still have few days to give our input > before the first stage of this long process ends. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:03 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just >> like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :) >> >> >> >> Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit : >> >>> W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < >>> [email protected]> napisał: >>> >>> 2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD translations into each >>>>>> Wikisource >>>>>> language, including Latin and Sanskrit. >>>>>> It would be hard to find 10. Mostly ancient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlike Wikipedia, we present content that has already been created by >>>>>> somebody. >>>>>> We are not creating that ourselves. >>>>>> (except few ws accepting Wikisource translations) >>>>>> >>>>> How many Wikisources don't accept user translations? I'd guess that at >>>>> least >>>>> half of them do. >>>>> >>>> Good question. We should store clearly this information somewhere (on >>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19335648 and local pages ?). >>>> >>> We do: >>> https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination >>> At least 4 do not allow translations. >>> >>> It may not be universal, but you'll never know how many of those works >>>>> >>>> actually have PD translations until you actually search for them. A >>>> list can >>>> at least provoke the search. >>>> >>>> Exactly. >>>> I can easily find to 10 works in most languages of the planet (The >>>> Bible, the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Shakespeare, Conan Doyle, >>>> Dickens, Stevenson, >>>> Verne, some important international treaty and publication from the >>>> Vatican ; >>>> it's already a lot more than 10 works available in more than 100 >>>> languages) >>>> >>> most != all (Most Wikisource should have... != All Wikisource should >>> have...) >>> >>> Speaking of the UN, the UNESCO created the Index Translationum >>>> ( http://www.unesco.org/xtrans/bsstatlist.aspx ) that can be helpful >>>> here. >>>> Cdlt, ~nicolas >>>> PS: Latin or Sanskrit are not the thoughest challenges, try Breton or >>>> Venetian >>>> :P (by the way, the UDHR exist in these 4 languages and 500 more ;) >>>> only the >>>> Bible has more translations). >>>> >>> I have intentionally chosen dead languages to point out that "all" >>> should not >>> be the goal. >>> >>> Concerning, UDHR, we have unclear copyright status even for Polish >>> translation: >>> it is not considered to be an official legal act, no "official" >>> translation; >>> translated by a Foundation which say nothing about copyright. And even, >>> translations of foreign legal acts are considered copyrighted in Poland >>> (according to opinions we have). >>> >>> Translation copyright problems may exist for many translations of Conan >>> Doyle, >>> Dickens, Stevenson or Verne. >>> I also doubt we will get a Wikisource translation of "The Posthumous >>> Papers of the >>> Pickwick Club" into eg. Lithuanian (while ltwikisource seems to be like >>> a single-user project - at least recently). >>> >>> We can talk about 1000-100 "base" works in, maybe, 5-10 most active >>> Wikisources. >>> >>> Ankry >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikisource-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikisource-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
