Wikisource:New vote on language subdomains/archive1

Language Domains in WikiSource: A Proposal / Sprachdomänen in WikiSource: Ein Vorschlag / ウィキソースの言語別分割: 提案 / Domaines de langue dans WikiSource : Une Proposition / De Domeinen van de taal in WikiSource: Een Voorstel / Языковые разделы в Викисорсе: Предложение

The following is a new proposal for allowing language domains, followed by analysis of the proposal. Everything is open to discussion in wiki fashion. May the debate begin!

Im Folgenden ein neuer Vorschlag eigene Sprachdomänen (z.B. de.wikisource) zu erlauben, mit einer Zusammenstellung der Vor- und Nachteile und einer Abstimmung, an der jeder teilnehmen kann.

Ce qui suit est une nouvelle proposition pour permettre la création de domaines de langue, suivie de l'analyse de la proposition. Tout est ouvert à la discussion.

Het volgende is een nieuw voorstel om taaldomeinen toe te staan, die door analyse van het voorstel worden gevolgd. Alles is bespreekbaar op wikimanier. Mei het debat begint!

Далее представлено предложение о создании на Викисорсе разделов для текстов на разных языках, аналогично другим проектам Викимедии. За ним следует обсуждение предложения. Высказаться дозволено каждому.

The Proposal / Der Vorschlag / La proposition / Het voorstel

1. Any WikiSource user may contact a developer to set up a language domain for his/her language, with the blessings of the WikiSource community. (You can also post your Proposal here or here)

1. Jeder WikiSource-Benutzer kann einen Entwickler ansprechen, um mit dem Segen der Wikisource-Gemeinschaft eine Sprachdomäne für die eigene Sprache einzurichten. (Der Vorschlag kann auch hier oder hier gemacht werden.

1. Tous les contributeurs de Wikisource peuvent contacter un développeur pour créer un domaine de langue pour sa propre langue, avec la bénédiction de la communauté de Wikisource. (Vous pouvez aussi poster votre proposition) ici ou ici)

2. Language domains in WikiSource will function exactly the same way as such domains already function in the other Wikimedia sister projects (WikiQuote, WikiBooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia). This includes the user interfaces in different languages, as well as the interwiki links between languages within WikiSource, and links between WikiSource and other projects.

2. Diese Sprachdomänen funktionieren genau in der Art, wie bei den Wikimedia-Schwesterprojekten (Wikipedia etc.). Es gibt also auch eine Benutzerschnittstelle in der jeweiligen Sprache, und Interwiki-Links zwischen den einzelnen Sprachen und zu den anderen Projekten sind möglich.

2. Les domaines de langue de Wikisource fonctionneront exactement de la même manière que les domaines semblables qui fonctionnent déjà dans les autres projets Wikimedia (WikiQuote, WikiBooks, Wiktionary, et Wikipedia). Cela comprend les interfaces des contributeurs en différentes langues, aussi bien que les liens interwiki entre les langues à l'intérieur de Wikisource, et les liens entre Wikisource et les autres projets.

3. The current “neutral” multilingual domain (wikisource.org with English interface) may continue to operate without interuption. Besides its current uses, it can also function as a sort of WikiSource “embassy” area between whatever language domains are eventually set up.

3. Die derzeitige mehrsprachige Domäne (wikisource.org mit englischer Schnittstelle) könnte ohne Unterbrechung weitergeführt werden und neben ihrer momentanen Benutzung könnte sie auch als eine Art "Botschafterbereich" zwischen den verschiedensten Sprachdomänen, die letztendlich entstehen werden, funktionieren.

Explanations / Erklärungen / Explications

"Any WikiSource user" – There are users in other languages who manage to function (despite various levels of discomfort) in the current environment. For them, this proposal is not at all crucial. But what of Spanish users, say, who are so uncomfortable without a Spanish environment that they simply abandon the project? Such people never become members of a Spanish subcommunity at WikiSource. Allowing such people to set up a Main Page in their own language domain (es.wikisource.org) means we keep them, and promote the growth of a Spanish-speaking WikiSource community that includes them.

"Jeder Wikisource-Benutzer" - Es gibt Benutzer in anderen Sprachen, die (abgesehen von verschiedenen Unbequemlichkeiten) in der aktuellen Umgebung klarkommen. Für die ist der Vorschlag nicht entscheidend. Aber was ist z.B. mit Spaniern, die ohne spanische Umgebung so schlecht klarkommen, daß sie das Projekt verlassen? Diese Leute werden niemals Mitglied der spanischen Gemeinschaft bei Wikisource. Wenn man diesen Leuten erlaubt, ihre eigene Domäne zu nutzen, können wir sie halten und schaffen es, eine spanische Wikisource-Gemeinschaft mit ihnen wachsen zu lassen.

"With the blessings of the WikiSource community" – Note that this whole discussion has taken place mostly in English, from the very beginning (in December 2003, when “resistance” to language domains was first declared) until today! There are probably plenty of people to whom this discussion is or could be very important, but who will not even know that it is taking place, or who will find it quite difficult to participate! Therefore, this proposal argues that the WikiSource community should already give its advance approval (its “blessings”) to users who want to set up a WikiSource domain in their language, for no other reason than simply to be fair to them.

"Mit dem Segen der Wikisource-Gemeinschaft" - Bedenke, daß die gesamte Diskussion überwiegend auf englisch stattgefunden hat, seit dem Anfang (im Dezember 03, als zum ersten Mal Widerstand gegen Sprachdomänen laut wurde) bis heute! Es gibt möglicherweise viele Leute, für die diese Diskusson sehr wichtig ist, oder sein könnte, die aber nicht einmal wissen, daß sie stattfindet, oder es schwierig finden daran teilzunehmen! Daher ist mit diesem Vorschlag gemeint, daß die Wikisource-Gemeinschaft ihre Genemigung (ihren "Segen") an Benutzer, die ihre eigene Sprachdomäne schaffen wollen, schon im voraus gibt, einfach nur um fair zu ihnen zu sein.

"Language domains in WikiSource will function in exactly the same way such domains already function in other the Wikimedia sister projects (WikiQuote, WikiBooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia)" – We are a Sister Project! Users should have the full advantages of the code employed in the other projects, which they have already learned to use, and not have to learn to code a new way for this one (especially regarding the interwiki links).

"Diese Sprachdomänen funktionieren genau in der Art, wie bei den Wikimedia-Schwesterprojekten" - Wir sind ein Schwesterprojekt! Die Benutzer sollten alle Vorteile haben, die sie in den anderen Projekten haben, und von denen sie schon wissen, wie sie sie benutzen können, und nicht etwas Neues erlernen müssen (besonders, wenn man die Interwiki-Links bedenkt).

"The current “neutral” multilingual domain (wikisource.org with English interface) may continue to operate without interuption." – This especially means that the elaborate and thorough indices, in which so much passion, hard work, and good will has been invested by Eclecticology and others. Such an index can continue to be built at the "neutral" <wikisource.org> using interwiki links between the language domains. In fact, interwiki links between languages in the sidebars may make it even easier. (It is much better than the cumbersome "Category:German|Deutsch" model, which is frustrating for people in other languages.) This also means that articles in the current "neutral" domain need not be moved to language domains unless people want to move them or copy them.

"Die derzeitige mehrsprachige Domäne (wikisource.org mit englischer Schnittstelle) könnte ohne Unterbrechung weitergeführt werden" - Das bedeutet im Besonderen, daß die ausführlichen(?) Indexe(?), in die soviel Leidenschaft, harte Arbeit und guter Wille von Eclecticology und anderen investiert wurde. (?????) So ein Index kann in einer "neutralen" <wikisource.org> weitergemacht werden, indem man Interwiki-Links zwischen den Sprachdomänen benutzt. Die Interwiki-Links in der Seitenleiste machen es sogar deutlich leichter. (Es ist viel besser als das lästige "Category:German|Deutsch"-Modell, das die Leute in anderen Sprachen frustriert.) Das bedeutet auch, daß die Artikel in der derzeitigen "neutralen" Domäne nicht in eine Sprachdomäne verschoben müssen, es sein denn man möchte es so machen.

Advantages / Vorteile

• Ease of use: Each person can contribute to WikiSource in his own language.
• Leicht zu benutzen: Jeder kann in seiner eigenen Sprache zu WikiSource beitragen.
• Language communities: Separate language domains will slowly but surely foster the creation of language subcommunities, as they do at the other sister projects. These communities, especially because they include users who are most comfortable in their own language-environment, will in turn foster the more rapid growth of WikiSource in many languages.
• Gemeinschaften in den Sprachen: Getrennte Sprachdomänen fördern die Entwicklung von eigenständigen Gemeinschaften und Zusammenarbeit, wie es in den Schwesterprojekten der Fall ist.
• "Difficult" languages: We have already discovered that right-to-left languages cannot function in the current WikiSource, which is what already led to the creation of the first language domain (hewikisource:). Arabic and Farsi will face the same problem. Other languages may pose other problems. (Asian language users may or may not face technical difficulties here at wikisource.org right now, but if they do – who can they turn to in their own language?) Now, we could theoretically set up separate domains only for the “difficult” languages alone, while some European languages stay here. But why should certain languages be relegated to the sidelines while perhaps English and French continue to operate on the “main” project?
• "schwierige" Sprachen: In der derzeitigen WikiSource funktionieren Sprachen, die von rechts nach links geschrieben werden nicht. Dazu sind eigene Sprachdomänen erforderlich.
• “Recent changes,” “new pages,” “number of articles,” and numerous other functions will become less cluttered and far more useful within each language. Each person will use these functions in the languages s/he chooses, be it his/her native tongue, a second language s/he has learned, or a completely new language s/he wants to begin exploring. Exploring new languages is far more exciting (and far more real) when the interface is in that language.
• "Letzte Änderungen", "neue Seiten", "Anzahl der Artikel" und viele andere Funktionen sind sehr viel sortierter und nützlicher, wenn sie nach Sprachen getrennt sind.

Disadvantages / Nachteile

• Unified RC: The most useful aspect of a single project this size, is the ability to track the latest changes across all languages without resorting to using a third-party aggregator.
• Gemeinsame RC: Der nützlichste Aspekt eines gemeinsamen Projekts in dieser Größe ist die Möglichkeit die letzten Änderungen in allen Sprachen zu sehen, ...(?)
  • Counterargument: On the contrary, this is curbersome and confusing, and not useful at all. Of much greater use would be interwiki links between "recent changes" in different languages, so that each user can track changes in each language s/he speaks with a single click. "Recent changes" for each specific language is an important tool for the growth of language subcommunities.
  • Gegenargument: Andererseits ist dies beschwerlich und irreführend, und überhaupt nicht sinnvoll. Interwiki-links zwischen "Letzte änderungen" in verschiedenen Sprachen wären von wesentlich größerem Nutzen, so daß jeder Benutzer die Änderungen in der Sprache, die er spricht mit einem einfachen Klick nachvollziehen kann. "Letzte änderungen" in verschiedenen Sprachen ist ein wichtiges Werkzeug für das Entstehen von Speachen-gemeinschaften. {Translated from English by .../Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von ...} --Bodo Thiesen 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Until your interwiki link proposal has been coded it's not very useful. Co-ordination depends on being able to track RC changes in all languages. If something concerns me in a language that I do not know I can tell my concerns to someone who does. I may not yet be brave enough to work with Hebrew (ב and כ look so much the same) or Gujarati, but I do decipher occasional words in languages using the Roman or Cyrillic script ... enough to let me do some minor repairs. I also believe that if people are constantly exposed to another language they will learn something. Eclecticology 05:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Solange dein Interwiki-Link Vorschlag nicht programmiertechnisch umgesetzt wurde, ist er nicht seht sinnvoll. Koordination hängt von der Möglichkeit ab, Veränderungen in allen Sprachen nachzuvollziehen. Wenn mich etwas in einer Sprache die ich nicht verstehe betrifft, kann ich es jemandem mitteilen, der sie versteht. {DER FOLGENDE SATZ IST WAHRSCHEINLICH FALSCH ÜBERSETZT, ich habe da den Sinn nicht 100%ig auffassen können, bitte um Kontrolle, Anm. d. Übersetzers} Ich mag noch nicht mutig genug sein, mit Hebräisch (ב und כ sehen so gleich aus) oder Gujarati zu arbeiten, aber ich kann gelegentlich Wörter in Sprachen mit römischer oder kyrillischer Schrift gut genug entschlüsseln, um einige minimale Reparaturen daran vorzunehmen. Ich glaube weiterhin, daß die Leute etwas lernen werden, wenn sie permanent miteinander in Berührung kommen. Eclecticology 05:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) {Translated from English by .../Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von ...} --Bodo Thiesen 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • It already works fine on Wikipedia. No new coding needed. Dovi 05:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Es funktioniert bereits einwandfrei in der Wikipedia. Keine neuen programmiertechnischen Erweiterungen nötig Dovi 05:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) {Translated from English by .../Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von ...} --Bodo Thiesen 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Unified watchlist: Perhaps the second-most useful aspect of a single domain, particularly for users who contribute source texts in multiple languages. Wikisource is not, by its nature, a high-volume site; the most important task a contributor can perform is visiting regularly to make sure that any changes to his contributed originals have been appropriate.
• Gemeinsame Beobachtungsliste: Der vielleicht zweitnützlichste Aspekt, speziell für Benutzer, die Texte in verschiedenen Sprachen zusteuern. Von seiner Natur her ist Wikisource keine High-Volume Site; Die wichtigste Aufgabe, die ein Mitwirkender durchführen kann ist es, regelmäßig die Seiten zu besuchen, um zu prüfen, ob die Änderungen an seinen originalen Arbeiten akzeptiert wurden. {Second sentence translated from Englisch by .../Zweiter Satz aus dem Englischen übersetzt von ...} --Bodo Thiesen 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Logins – It is claimed that language-domains will “fragment” WikiSource, and that it will no longer be “one project”. This claim is not true for the most part, but it is still clearly true in one area: Logins. A user who wants to be active in more than one language has to log in separately on each one. (Users who just want to “browse” other languages or to contribute anonymously have no problem, of course.) This is a real problem, but it is not a terrible one. It is also just a temporary problem, because current plans have mediawiki being converted to allow a single login for all projects.
• Anmeldungen: Es wird benauptet, daß Sprach-Domains WikiSource Teilen wird, und daß es nicht länger "ein Projekt" bleiben wird. Diese Behauptung ist nicht wahr für den größten teil, aber es ist weiterhin in einem Bereich eindeutig wahr: Anmeldungen. Ein Benutzer, der in mehr als einer Sprache aktiv sein, muß sich für jede Sprachdomain erneut einloggen. (Benutzer, die sich die Seiten nur ansehen wollen, oder sowieso anonym beitragen, haben damit selbstverständlich kein Problem.) Das ist ein richtiges Problem, aber es ist kein wesentliches Problem. Es ist auch nur ein temporäres Problem, da aktuelle Pläne versuchen, eine einzige Anmeldung für alle mediawiki Projekte zu erreichen. {Translated from English by .../Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von ...} --Bodo Thiesen 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That seems to be not a problem with me on Wikipedia - I have the same username and links from each language userpage to most of the others and one login seems to work for the whole day. Robin Patterson 21:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Das ist für mich bei Wikipedia kein Problem - Ich habe denselben Benutzernamen und Links von einer Benutzerseite zu den anderen, und eine Anmeldung reicht für den ganzen Tag.
• "Navigation" in foreign languages. It is obviously hard to work within a language domain when you don’t even know its writing system. The present setup solves this problem, especially for English speakers. But we need to balance the interests and rights of different people: Why should my ease of navigation in the Japanese WikiSource (I do not know Japanese at all) be considered more important than the right of Japanese contributers to work within their own language environment? An alternative solution to this whole problem – a much better way to work together as “One Project” – is that when a French speaker needs Japanese information, or needs to create a link to Japanese material, s/he simply turns to the Japanese users in their domain and asks for assistance from someone there who also knows French (or maybe English)!
• Navigation in Fremdsprachen: Es ist schwieriger in einer anderen Sprache zu arbeiten, wenn man nicht einmal das Schriftsystem kennt. Die derzeitige Einstellung löst das Problem, besonders für Englischsprecher. Aber wir müssen die Interessen und Rechte verschiedener Leute ausgeglichen halten: Warum sollten meine Vorteile in der Navigation bei der japanischen Wikisource (ich kann kein japanisch) für wichtiger gehalten werden als das Recht der japanischen Benutzer in ihrer eigenen Sprachumgebung zu arbeiten? Eine Alternative zu diesem Problem - eine viel bessere Art als "ein Projekt" zusammenzuarbeiten - ist, dass ein Französisch-Sprechender, wenn er im japanischen Bereich Probleme hat, bei den japanischen Benutzern jemanden um Hilfe bittet, der auch französisch (oder englisch) kann!
• Unified categories: It is useful to have a single category page for all wikisource entries on a given subject.
• Gemeinsame Kategorien: Es ist nützlich, eine einzige Kategorieseite für alle Wikisource-Einträge eines Themas zu haben.
  • On the contrary, it is a confusing mess to have them all together. Much better would be a "Category" with interwiki links to the same category in other languages.
  • Im Gegenteil: Es ist eine verwirrende Unordnung, wenn sie alle zusammen sind. Viel besser wäre eine "Kategorie" mit Interwiki-Links zur gleichen Kategorie in anderen Sprachen.

Claims / weitere Ansichten

• Improve the software – The claim is made that instead of setting up new language domains (thereby “fragmenting” WikiSource), the current software should be improved to support other languages inside one domain. However, even if the software is ever “improved” enough to allow users to function comfortably within their own language environment (when will that happen?), then what will be the difference between “improving the software” on the one hand, and languages domains on the other hand? It all amounts to basically the same thing. The only true difference between the two is this: Language domains are already a reality in all the other projects except this one, while “improving the software” is nothing more than a wish.

• "One project" – The claim is that language domains will “fragment” WikiSource and it will no longer be “One Project.” Here the real question is what “one project” means: Is “One Project” the cooperation of various language subcommunities (as it is at all the Sister Projects)? Or is it a single community in which only those who are quite comfortable in a multilingual environment (i.e. you also need English or maybe French) may contribute the most? I remind people once again: This entire discussion, from the very beginning until now, has been mostly in English! (French contributors also added some comments, mostly in English.) We are deciding in English whether we want to "grant" a tool to others, or deny it to them. It should be up to them (and not just to the multilingual among them), not up to us!

• Indexing – Tremendous effort here has gone into indexing. I will not get into the debate of whether or not we should have “primary” versus “secondary” indices; whether things “must” all be listed in the primary ones; whether or not “primary” indices for all languages should be alphabetized according to the English alphabet. The bottom line is that a great deal of work and good will went into these indices, and they are really very useful! And that is great. But the claim being made is that the indices will become less useful in separate language domains. This claim is spurious, because there is no reason that a “primary” index cannot link to articles within each and every one of the language domains. (If the question is how to actually find links in unfamiliar language domains, then it is even more spurious: Why should language domains be denied just to support the compilation of an index? A much better community-like solution would be to find users in that language who can assist in linking articles to the “primary” index.)

• "This project is different!" – The claim is that since all we do here is add older texts, not create new ones on our own, that the only way to create a fascinating multilingual community with interaction between languages is by keeping everything in the same domain. Responses:
  • Even if this claim were true, it cannot justify denying our collective “blessing” for language domains for users who want them. Even if we are “different,” we still need language domains. Why should somneone be forced to add his/her French texts in a non-French environment, just for the pleasure of those who want to see all the additions appear together in “recent changes”? We need to give our blessing to anyone who wants to set up a French domain. If those whose native tongue is not French want the added “challenge” of working together with French users on French texts, then let them meet that challenge in a French environment at fr.wikisource.org!
  • It need not be true that “this project is different”. If all we do here is add old texts to an archive, that is sad. We should be creating new multilingual translations of texts in as many languages as possible, linked passage by passage! We should be editing and formatting the old texts in new ways, to make them more reader-friendly! We should be creating new study aids in a variety of languages for the texts: commentaries, introductions, summaries, charts, etc. (and of course new translations)! We should be fostering communal study and discussion of texts on the “Talk” pages. WikiSource has the potential to host all of these things (as I have started to try to show in The Open Mishnah Project). But such ideas can be best implemented only by language subcommunites working within their own environments, and supplemented by multilingual users who can link the work together between the domains in whatever languages they know. Language domains are crucial for this, and interwiki links in the sidebar for translations would also be a big help.
  • All of the above suggestions were made by various people in the early days of WikiSource, and accepted. (What was to differentiate us from "WikiBooks" was that we were to deal with the entire corpus of old texts in myriad ways, why they were to produce only what was useful for schoolbooks and manuals.) Unfortunately, here at WikiSource true multilingualism never took hold, because of the current setup and too much centralization. Some good people left the project in the early days because of these reasons.
  • This project should not be different than the other wonderful multilingual Wikimedia projects. Like the others, it should foster creativity and cooperation in working on old texts in new ways, not just simply uploading them. Like the others, individual languages should be encouraged to form their own subcommunities. Let's start "putting old wine into new vessels" at WikiSource!

Current Proposals and Domains / Derzeitige Vorschläge und Domänen

Current proposals (xx.wikisource.org) / Derzeitige Vorschläge

xx.wikisource.org - Please list your proposal here if you are interested in setting up a language domain in your native language.

• de.wikisource.org - The Proposal for a German Wikisource has been submitted both here (Sept. 5) and here (Sept. 9). So far six users have expressed interested in setting it up, but it has not yet been implemented.
• de.wikisource.org - Der Vorschlag für eine deutschsprachige Wikisource wurde hier (5. Sept.) und hier (9. Sept.) gemacht. Bis dato haben sich sechs Benutzer daran interessiert gezeigt, dieses zu realisieren, es wurde aber noch nicht verwirklicht.

Current domains (xx.wikisource.org) / Derzeitige Domänen

• he.wikisource.org Besides Hebrew, it is currently impossible to set up useful projects in ar: (Arabic), fa: (Persian) and other similar right-to-left languages because of the left-to-right orientation of the edit box.

Replies / Antworten

Anyone who has witnessed my activities here will know that I do not support the above proposal. I will, however, wait before giving a detailed response. At this point, because of the length of the above, and the anticipated even lengthier responses I would propose that the discussion be moved to a new subpage at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal. Eclecticology 21:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (Debate moved.) --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 03:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Technical arguments aside (I know that I shouldn't do that, but hear me out), I must confess that I like the "closeness" that having only one universal language namespace gives us here. I can edit a french page with an english summary, and a french speaker can do the same on an english page.

I agree, but edits like these can be and are done all the time in the wikipedia language domains as well.Dovi 03:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see recent changes in Chinese, Dutch, and Esperanto. Source texts in all of the world's languages are in the main namespace under their original titles, and we have a heirarchy that allows you to find them no matter what language you speak.
What I'm trying to say is that I see some aesthetic appeal to the flat namespace model. The languages just seem to mix more freely around here than elsewhere. I know it would never work for as big and dynamic a project as the Wikipedia, but it just may work here.... --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 03:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I guess that would fall under the "one project" counterargument that has been previously addressed, though I'd say it's really more of an observation than anything else. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 03:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Quick comment: I personally agree with this feeling myself, as well. There really is an initial sense of "closeness" when you first see it all together, but I think the novelty of "recent changes" soon wears off and it just becomes impractical. Overall, the gain is far outweighed by the loss. Some people not fluent in English may feel frustration more than "closeness". Who are we to dictate to them if they want to set up a domain in their language? Dovi 10:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Quick note, hopefully not too offensive: Wikisource works well single-language... just needs better interface options. Wikisourcerors should push the developers to implement interface-language as an option. Sj 01:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • How could that possibly be offensive? :-) You are right, of course (but also do see "Improve the software" above). Keep in mind that true multilingual "interface options" would need to include much more than what appears on the screen: It also touches upon coding, article names, category names, etc. For an amusing example of this, see the current WikiSource Main Page:Esperanto, and the discussion that took place there.Dovi 03:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Who knows (-: What do you mean by coding? Article names should be in the original language in a project like this; that is one of the arguments for maintaining a single shared project. There should of course be disambiguation pages for common translations of the title, and translations of an original should be located at the most common translation of its title. Yes, categories need to be more easily localized; that is an exception which a full schema update will likely fix, perhaps next year. Of course unified categories is another one of the arguments for a single shared project -- a Category page is significantly less useful when you have to visit a separate page to see related entries in other languages. Sj 04:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait until a multilingual interface is operational. This may happen soon as some developpers are already working on this. Yann 20:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never wait for something to be developed, it may never be. Split this project already into language domains. Maio 04:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tend obviously to agree with Maio, especially since there is a German domain request that has been waiting for quite a while for its stub mainpage. (Why the delay?) It is hard for me to understand why a domain that is available, and users want to work on it, should be delayed or denied, regardless of future plans.

Nevertheless I am very curious about the multilingual interface. Is there somewhere we can read about it? How does it deal with details such as article names, category names, coding, article counts, recent changes, etc? With RTL/LTR environment inside edit boxes? Dovi 05:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ich verstehe absolut nicht, warum die Trennung in de.wikisource immer noch nicht gemacht wurde. Es besteht doch üblicherweise überhaupt keine Verbindung zwischen den Texten der einzelnen Sprachen. Welcher Deutsche interessiert sich für chinesische Texte, welcher Russe für deutsche, etc.? Außerdem spricht auch nicht jeder englisch und diese Leute werden abgeschreckt. Schon allein das, was beim Editen einer Page unter "Summary" steht wird nicht jeder verstehen: "Wikisource are considered to be released" etc. Auch hier die Diskussion zu lesen (zur Hälfte auf englisch) ist für Nicht-Engländer abschreckend. (Englisch-Kenntnisse werden vorausgesetzt?) Und bei Übersetzungen eines Textes kann man doch wie in der Wikipedia einen "Interwiki"-Link setzen. Ich werde mich auf jeden Fall erst dann an Wikisource beteiligen, wenn es das auch als deutsches Projekt gibt. -- 80.133.83.95 11:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely do not understand why the separation of de.wikisource was not already made. There is usually no connection between the texts of the individual languages. Which German is interested in Chinese texts, which Russian in German texts, etc.? In addition not everyone speaks English and these people are deterred from contributing. To begin with, not everyone will understand what should be entered next to "Summary" in the edit screen; "Wikisource [contributions] are considered to be released[...]" etc. Also here the discussion (mainly in English) is deterring for non-Englishmen. (English knowledge is presupposed?) And in the case of translations of a text, one can always set up an "Interwiki" link. I will only take part in Wikisource when there is also a German project for it. 80.133.83.95 11:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

English-language discussion about other languages / Englischsprachige Diskussion über andere Sprachen

This entire discussion has been going on entirely in English, with participation by native English speakers and a couple of non-native speakers who are nevertheless comfortable writing in English. I think all of us suspected this would happen from the beginning, and it is quite likely that most users (or would-be users) in other languages are completely unaware of the debate going on here about them.

For this reason, I have begun to post queries on the talk pages of the various language main pages, so that those who are interested in a domain can list themselves. I also propose the following on the multilingual mainpage (in small font after "Languages" and before "Sister projects"):

"Languages are currently cooperating within a single domain (wikisource.org). If you would like a separate domain in your own language (xx.wikisource.org), please list it here."

The above is important so that multilingual users will know there is an alternative to the present setup, and can act upon it if they so desire. Or they can stay with the present setup - each language can decide. I obviously will not add the above to the main page until there is agreement on adding it. Dovi 07:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dovi's insistance on separate language subdomains is taking on the nature of an obsession. He is one of the proposers for the German domain despite being unable to write in German himself. The very strong argument for a separate Hebrew Wikisource because Hebrew is an RTL language just does not exist in many of these other languages. This project now has just surpassed 4100 pages, with many of these pages being different chapters of one book. The number of independent pages is much less than 4100.

Just to clarify: I have some old German texts which I would like to add. I cannot reliably compose text in German, but I can copy and format. One of the advantages of WS is that one need not compose independent texts oneself in German, as Eclecticology has often pointed out. I hope working on editing them will help improve my German!

Sorry if going to the main talk pages was too much for you. My goal was to try to get a reaction from people who would otherwise not participate in this discussion. Now let's wait and see if and how they react. This can serve as a sort of test: If there are requests for certain language-domains, then we should meet that need for those languages. If no one reacts positively for quite some time (this is not a fast project) then perhaps that will prove Eclecticology's own point, namely that the current format meets peoples' needs, and there is no need for further action. Dovi 03:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does Dovi now expect to accomplish by agitating for separatism on a series of language main pages? How many of those languages is he even able to read himself? I don't know anything about the technical and administrative expertise of the other four proponents of a separate German Wikisource, but they should be ready for a lot of work if this goes through. And this is for one of the languages that has a better chance of succeding than most.

There are people working on better multilanguage access. This is a challenge that has many facets, and it is not easy one. These innovators are not helped by the kind of impatience that a few have shown. Wikisource is as much about people finding ways to work together as it is about the texts. It is about making the world's literature available to others who do NOT speak the language of the original text. The Berlin Wall divided people, and building other walls, including virtual walls, can only serve to promote further divisions. It is far more constructive to stay to try finding common solutions. Those who have mode no significant effort to resolve differences are not helping when they promote division. Eclecticology 18:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right, it is not easy, for one single person, but once it has been divided into their own domains people will be able to edit in a language they understand. Right now, a Spanish or German speaker that doesn't understand English at all is unable to cooperate for WikiSource because the interface is in English. Splitting a domain name into sub-domains by language is fairly common, as it is common to split content in different languages. For example, I'm developing a website right now which has asked me to locate all the English content in one sub-domain and all other Spanish content in a different domain. They asked for it, I didn't even suggest it. Do you imagine if the website had all its files on the same directory? That is what we are doing with WikiSource right now. Sincerely, I don't know any reason to object to this at all, especially when we are the only project to remain as a whole multilingual domain. I already asked for es.wikisource.org to a developer, lets just hope it is setup one day in the not-so far future. Maio 23:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Software update

The next version of MediaWiki software supports:

• Individual user interface language choices for everyone - you can view an English language project with French menus.
• Single login, for all projects.

Being discussed:

• How to get cross-project, cross-language watchlists, recent changes, user contributions, search, so that each person can see the projects and languages which interest that person, without seeing the others normally, but with the ability to se them for dealing with vandalism, perhaps. Jamesday 22:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Single login is great. Should make multiple language-domains even better and easier to coordinate.

The language-interface option is a great tool for a multilingual wikipedia (seeing the English one with French menus), but it misses the "guts" of the issue here: The "guts" are the Languagexx.php files. These are the central codes that truly enable a language-specific environment. It is only with these codes operating for each language that we can get rid of such ridiculous conventions as "Category:German|Deutsch". The point here is not to see an English project through a French interface, but to enable the creation of a truly French project in the first place. Remember that we are talking about actively typing, formatting, editing, and translating texts here, not uploading images.

Can Languagexx.php files be made active for many languages at once in a single domain? With even the namespace in many languages? It makes much more sense as used in single-language domains. Dovi 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion / Diskussion

Both fairness and future growth demand that we enable language subcommunities to emerge, cooperating with one another across domains just as in Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikiquote. Working on texts is something that clearly requires language-specific environments. It is wrong to to deny such an environment to those requesting it. Dovi 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your proposal has bugger all to do with fairness. And don't confuse your demands with those of future growth; there is absolutely no evidence that this is a requirement for future growth. A single project has been important for Meta. Individual texts already have their own environments, and no-one has been denied consideration just because he wishes to write in a different language; efforts are constantly being made to accomodate those who wish to work in other languages. You asked for a separate Hebrew wikisource and got it, but rather than being satisfied with that and working there you want to keep agitating for this treatment in other languages which you don't speak yourself. I don't see this move as being promoted by the de: community at all. It's like Mark on the mailing list who keeps pushing for Wikipedias in languages for which we do not yet have a viable community. Eclecticology 12:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better to wait for the software upgrade. Yann 09:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The software upgrade doesn't provide the benefits of this split. You're still stuck with lots of articles in languages you can't read and people whose language you don't understand trying to tell you how to do things. After a split it's also very easy to get a database dump for just the languages which you want, to publish a wikisource for readers of those individual languages. Jamesday 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the software upgrade should. I'm not so anglo as to be intimidated by having material in a language that I don't understand, so I don't consider myself as being "stuck" with them. As for telling people what to do, those who are regular contributors are committed to a multilingual approach where all sides can be heard, not the dictatorial model that you suggest. But then how would someone who only comes here to vote with negligible Wikisource experience know anything about that? Eclecticology 12:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. This is a good community for testing the software upgrade. The originals of a source text I am interested in are rarely going to be in my mother tongue; unlike most other wikimedia projects, quotes from the original are of regular importance here, as are contributions by (say) italian speakers of large chunks of non-italian text. Sj

Because you want to "test" the software uprgrade here, you are ready to deny other-language users the available option of a language-environment coded in their own language? And you would deny it for this project specifically, a project which deals with the language-specific task of typing, editing, formatting, and writing study aids on texts? Sj, I urge you to reconsider. Dovi 04:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, the primary reason for not forking -- the default reason not to start new projects off in a hundred different languages -- are those tools that make a wiki a community : RC, a unified Scriptorium, unified watchlists. You want to remove this powerful community interaction, and have yet to address any of these advantageous properties of a single-domain project. Sj 05:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You consider each new wikipedia language a "fork"? Each of the things you list here as advantages has been addressed at length already in the proposal. They are actually disadvantages. Dovi 05:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a webmaster you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER want a discussion in several languages on a same page. Wanna know why? *bling bling* the <meta http-equiv="Content-Language"> header. Automatic translators are one of the most awesome tools on the net, when you have a discussion in several languages on a same page (like this one) people looking for a translation become frustrated. Have you noticed how many people have been active in the WikiSource? Not many, wanna know why? Language barrier, nothing else. Maio 05:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As to interlinks : interwiki links are not currently used, in any project, to indicate translations. They are used to indicate work on the same subject in another language; users will at some point find it useful to differentiate between these two types of language-transitions. In the meantime, this is not an ideal argument for splitting into multiple domains. Sj 04:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Work on the same subject in other languages" - here at WikiSource this can and may mean translation and/or commentary, study aids, etc. on specific works or even on specific chapters or passages. Interwiki links would be a wonderful, powerful took for doing this. The analogy to inerwiki links in the sister projects not only makes perfect sense, but it would be even more useful here. Dovi 04:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you point me to active wikisource commentaries and study aids? In sister projects, changes to one language do not necessitate a change in others. On wikisource, where most content is currently primary-source material, changes to the original do indeed necessitate changes to the translations, and changes to the translations are things the uploader of the original may regularly wish to double-check. Sj

Yes, here you have actually caught the one true weak spot in my argument. Besides the one project I began, these commentaries and study aids do not actually exist yet. (Though the interwiki links are enourmously useful even just to link passages of translations.) That they do not yet exist, in my opinion, is partially because the model has not yet really been tried and people don't even consider the option, and also because this kind of this cannot happen without developing focused language subcommunities. One thing is clear: If this remaims one domain, the language subcommunities will never emerge in the same way as, say, on wikiquote or wikibooks, and as a result "study communities" for texts in many languages will never emerge, either. Dovi 05:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This project is much too small for fragmentation. Being together promotes co-operation. Eclecticology 10:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's more than large enough for splitting on request to encourage speakers of each language to expand content in that language. The combined project has been a good starting place but you don't remain in the nest forever. All projects can be expected to follow a transition from starting in a big project, to generating their own project and eventually the individual languages spliting as interest grows. If de speakers feel that they are ready for that transition, that's a good thing. Jamesday 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent anybody from putting things in any language on this project. So what are the criteria for "large enough", considering too that there are separate articles for each chapter of many books, including the Bible. If this project is going to have any special value in the outside world it needs to offer more than what every other e-text provider has. I would very much prefer having the capacity to show parallel texts where the English and German (or other language) versions can be seen side by side. I am not at all likely to read Goethe in the original German, but in reading the English translation there may be times when I would like to refer to the original text. It is perhaps a dream because it involves new software that I am incapable of writing, but I can be patient in the hope that some day someone with the needed skill will pick up the task. That kind of development is far less likely in an environment where the language communities have had a wedge driven between them. If this project is to fork that should be at some future time when genuine attempts to work together have failed, and there is no other choice. Splitting off German because one non-German speaking person is agitating for it just can't be productive. Eclecticology 12:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not everybody is able to read English. What would you say, if there were a majority, that wants to switch the current language of this wikisource from English to e.g. Norwegian? If you would like to see the texts in different languages, the easiest way would be the Interwiki links as used in Wikipedia. Therefore you need to use language domains. If Wikisource ist "too small", has too little articles for a split, one could rather think about merging Wikisource and Wikiquote. A quote is kind of a source, wikiquote has articles of the authors and wikisource has, some quotes are from texts, that are here in Wikisource. The later language domains are enabled, the more work is it to move the texts from the "main domain" to the language domains. 80.133.85.71 21:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

Nicht jeder kann englisch lesen. Was würdest Du sagen, wenn eine Mehrheit dafür wäre, die derzeitige Sprache von Wikisource von englisch auf z.B. norwegisch zu ändern? Wen Du die Texte gerne in verschiedenen Sprachen ansehen möchtest, dann wäre es das Einfachste, die Interwiki-Links wie in Wikipedia zu nutzen. Dafür müssen aber Sprachdomänen existieren. Wenn Wikisource "zu klein" ist, zu wenig Artikel für eine Aufteilung hat, dann wäre es eher überlegenswert Wikisource und Wikiquote zusammenzulegen. Ein Zitat ist auch eine Art Quelle, Wikiquote hat wie Wikisource Artikel über die Autoren, manche Zitate sind aus Texten von Wikisource. Je später die Sprachdomänen eingerichtet werden, desto mehr Arbeit ist es, die Texte von den derzeitigen Seiten in die Sprachdomänen zu übertragen. 80.133.85.71 21:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

I think the voting should last more than two weeks. It's too little time for such an important decision. An information about the voting on the main pages would be useful to get more vote. (I've put it only on the German page.) 80.133.82.148 15:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

Ich finde, die Abstimmung sollte länger als zwei Wochen dauern. Das ist zu wenig Zeit für eine so wichtige Entscheidung. Ein Hinweis auf die Abstimmung auf den Hauptseiten wäre sinnvoll, um mehr Stimmen zu bekommen. (Ich habe nur einen auf die deutsche Seite gesetzt.) 80.133.82.148 15:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

While I understand the desire to split off projects for languages with large corpus and living speakers who'd like navigation in their language, there are a few efforts to put create articles that are source texts in fairly obscure dead languages, like the Gothic gospel effort in Patrologia Latina and my own efforts in Codex Hamurrabi. Some of the advocates for a Gothic project may disagree with me, but I think that while: 1) collecting source texts in dead/obscure languages is a worthy and useful effort, 2) creating the entire navigation system associated with a project would be more than an impediment than anything else. I'm an English speaker, working from German PD texts to create a source article in Akkadian. This is an article that can use plenty of help from speakers of any language, but each of them would prefer to navigate the source site in their own langage, rather than in Akkadian. Ben Brumfield 14:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the very few people, that are able to read gothic and akkadian (how many are they? a few hundred worldwide?) you want to exclude millions that are not able to read english? How many people should take part in Wikisource? The more I follow the discussions here, the more I think the people at Wikisource don't want any new contributors. They want to stay alone with some multilingual language scientists, but in no way there shall come "normal" people to Wikisource, who are only able to speak one language and only interested in texts in their language. 80.133.81.179 22:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

On the contrary -- I don't care whether or not your environment is in German or English, or whether you see texts in a language you don't know. As you point out, we should maximize the usability of the site, and certainly a monoglot environment can do that. What I do care about is whether texts in Akkadian, Hittite or Gothic will be evicted from a multi-lingual wikisource into their own projects by policies that specify wikisource.org to be English-only. Some people may be enthusiastic about inventing an Akkadian word for "Recent Changes", but I would consider it beyond a waste of time. Furthermore, I'm not saying that the obscure language source-text issue is a reason to ditch the independent project issue, just that we should realize that this is a cost -- perhaps there's a way to do both.

what about using subdomains for texts in languages that have a user base to maintain index pages in that languages, while keeping texts in obscure languages that do not have their own main page / environment in the subdomainless namespace (with the option to move them to a subdomain in the future, if somebody were to start navigation pages in that languages). This would seem more satisfactory than to have "refugee texts" like "Hethitische Texte in Umschrift" that need to find a subdomain to host them. 130.60.142.62 16:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps de.wikisource.org would give Hethitische Texte in Umschrift a home? I'm not so sure. In Replies/Antworten, you write: Welcher Deutsche interessiert sich für chinesische Texte, welcher Russe für deutsche, etc.? Where would you put the only Public Domain text of Kodex Hammurapi -- Hammurabi's Gesetz von J. Kohler und A. Ungnad; 1909? Nach der Trennung, wo sollten diese texte bleiben?

If we must choose between a much better user experience for German speakers and evicting Akkadian, Hittite, and Gothic texts from wikisource, obviously we should. You're right that the numbers favor that solution. But I'm just hoping that that's not a choice we'll have to make.Ben Brumfield 04:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

there is not. like on Wikipedia, in a digital collection, you are not forced to even see the pages you don't want to see. 130.60.142.62 16:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The English texts could be moved to en.wikisource.org. This could be possibly done automatically (it seems that they did it that way at wikibooks.org). The main domain could then be used for rare languages where an own language domain isn't useful. At Wikibooks some languages have subdomains, others don't. Why shouldn't this be possible at Wikisource? On the other hand: Texts in e.g. Gothic need translations anyway, because hardly anybody is able to read it. If it is translated into English, it could be put into the English Wikisource with the translation (as it's done in German / Italian with Dante - Goettliche Komoedie:Hoelle 1.Gesang). I can't imagine that anybody really would want to delete the texts in Gothic etc. if there are subdomains. 80.133.94.203 08:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

The main domain could then be used for rare languages where an own language domain isn't useful That's an excellent proposal, and leads to the possibility of standardizing things like titles within the multi-lingual version. I will remove my "Oppose" vote. Ben Brumfield 14:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On ancient languages: Most classical languages are still used enough today to get domains of their own on other wikimedia projects, namely: Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew. As far as ancient languages which are no long used at all, I would suggest the following (as someone who has had to deal with Akkadian in the past when I was a student a very long time ago :-) - such texts are not useful in and of themselves, but only as annotated critical editions. Annotated critical editions are done in modern languages (or sometimes in Latin). If someone produces a digital edition of an Akkadian text with the notes in German, it belongs on a German domain. If the same text is annoted in French, it belongs on a French domain, and the two should be linked. Etc. Dovi 05:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the notion that such texts are not useful in and of themselves, but only as annotated critical editions. There are plenty of uses for an online, PD version of texts -- particularly in pedagogy and as inputs for software. These may be unusual uses, but they're still valid and poorly served by shoving an Akkadian article onto an English or German domain. For example, a PD English translation of the Code of Hammurabi exists already. One may well also exist in German. But no PD version exists in any form of the original Akkadian. Your suggestion would require someone assembling an intralinear German version to extract the Akkadian text from a PD version living on the English project, rather than having the text exist independently. I'm going through a similar process myself, extracting the Akkadian text from Hammurabi's Gesetz, an annotated German edition from 1909. Under your proposal, I'd have to enter the article on de.wikisource.org, rather than here. I think I'd even prefer putting the article on akk.wikisource.org instead. Ben Brumfield 22:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

since I am only entering the discussion now, I will not vote. It is not clear to me whether the vote is just about the navigation pages namespace or also about the source text namespace. It is obvious that navigation pages in gothic or akkadian would be a joke. I mean, why not, but the collection of ancient texts seems much more serious than the creation of user interfaces for hypothetical users of the gothic or akkadian tongue ;o) On the other hand, the cumbersome multilingual discussions make it clear that "meta-wikisource" texts could use subdomains. I would advocate the creation of subdomains for the navigation pages, but not for the texts themselves. Multilingual texts (dictionaries etc.) could be in multiple [[Categories]], but they should not appear under multiple subdomains/urls. Sorry if this is beside the point/redundant, I didn't read all of the above. 130.60.142.62 15:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) .

I would advocate the creation of subdomains for the navigation pages, but not for the texts themselves. I agree, though if there were a way to filter the texts by language, it might improve the user experience. Ben Brumfield 04:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. I certainly would want a way to browse all texts on WS, regardless of whether or not there are subdomains, and regardless of what language navigation pages I am using. One does not exclude the other. There are Categories. Ther can be "$LANGUAGE texts only" list pages etc. I just want to see a complete index, and I can find my text from there, no problem.

So you are really able to read Polish, Hungarian, Frisian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Interlingua and so on and you really need pages like this [1] ? It's really admirable, if people know so many languages, but you are in a minority. I don't know any Japanese and for me it's disturbing to have to filter the language I know out of many Japanese (and other) edits. I absolutely can't decide, if edits like this [2] are vandalism or not and so I don't need to see these pages and their edits. 80.133.72.59 23:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

The point is not how many languages I or anyone is fluent in. There are many uses for etexts. One might be to find the original to a particular quote. In that case, I do not read the foreign language text, but I locate the sentence I am interested in, and then I analyse it with the help of dictionaries and what not. Look, I don't see the problem. We can have [[Category:Deutsch]] where you can go if you are interested in German texts, and German texts only. It's still obvious that we want a conveniently organized index to all texts on WS, I just don't think the desirability of such an index can be reasonably disputed. If someone makes a chinese edit to a chinese text, I don't think you and I as non-Chinese-speakers are expected to decide whether or not it's vandalism. .

One of the problems is that all people who can't read English, can't follow the discussion here. Wikisource is an English project that allows other languages, and knowledge of English is required to take part (it's not an official requirement, but in fact it is). 80.133.84.4 09:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

A strong argument for subdomains for the meta/index/navigation pages. The discussion for any given text, otoh, will by default be in the language of that text (if it is a modern language). / Ein gutes Argument fuer subdomains, und zwar fuer Index-Seiten etc. Die Diskussionen ueber konkrete Texte hingegen wird normalerweise wohl immer in der Sprache des Textes selbst gefuehrt werden (bei Texten in modernen/lebenden Sprachen) 130.60.142.62 16:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Da bleibt das Problem mit den hellblauen Links. Wenn die Texte in einer anderen Domain als die Navigation sind, sind alle Links dorthin hellblau und man kann nicht erkennen, ob der Artikel schon existiert, geändert wurde, gelöscht wurde. 80.133.78.194 22:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

it would be up to each language's navigation pages to arrange the texts conveniently for users of the respective language. the point is that while english texts may be most interesting to users using the english navigation pages, texts in other languages (especially original texts to english translations) should not be invisible but listed as alternatives. 130.60.142.62 10:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If texts in other languages "should not be invisible but listed as alternatives" one should use Wikipedia:en:InterWiki links. For this there have to be subdomains. 80.133.94.203 10:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

why? the text titles should be unique, and should be in the language of the text itself (ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑ, not The Odyssey (Greek)).

I think, I simply don't understand what you mean. Perhaps you could write it in German? 80.133.78.48 21:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

(see also my answer above, re Categories vs. global index). Mein Vorschlag ist, die eigentlichen Wikisource-Texte namespace-maessig zu trennen von "Meta-Wikisource" Navigationshilfen und Indizes. Die Navigationshilfen sollten in einer bestimmten Sprache sein, und allenfalls so organisiert, dass Texte der betreffenden Sprache bevorzugt behandelt werden. Es sollte aber moeglich sein, von den Navigations-Seiten jeder beliebigen Sprachen jeden beliebigen Text zu finden: (a) manche Texte werden in seltenen/toten Sprachen sein, die keine eigene Subdomain erhalten. (b) Selbst wenn ich einen Text in deutscher Uebersetzung lese, kann es sein, dass ich am nicht-Deutschen Original, oder an anderen Uebersetzungen interessiert bin. (c) manche Texte werden mehrsprachig sein (z.B. Woerterbuecher). (d) Subdomains sind nicht noetig, um die verschiedensprachigen Texte zu disambiguieren, weil die Titel eben auch verschiedensprachig sein werden, wie oben am Beispiel der Odyssee illustriert. .

Die Trennung der Navigation und der Texte in verschiedene Namensräume dürfte deshalb ungünstig sein, weil dann Links zu nicht existierenden Seiten nicht mehr rot wären und "What links here" und "Related changes" nicht mehr funktionieren. Zu (a): solche Texte könnten in einen internationalen Wikisource-Bereich übernommen werden (bzw. mit Übersetzung in die Sprachdomain der Übersetzung). Zu (b): Dazu sind dann Interwiki-Links ideal. Zu (c): Mehrsprachige Texte sind eher selten und meist gibt es eine Präferenz für eine Sprache. Ein deutsches Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch unterscheidet sich von einem englischen Dictionary English-German. Solche Artikel könnte man in der "Haupt"-Sprache anlegen und von der anderen Sprache verlinken. Zu (d): Die Titel sind nicht immer unterschiedlich (manche werden nicht übersetzt, bei anderen ist die Übersetzung in eine ähnliche Sprache mit dem Original identisch). Das ist aber kein Problem, man kann in Klammern die jeweilige Sprache dahinter setzen (z.B. "Faust (deutsch)", "Faust (english), "Faust (nederlands)" etc).

Ein gemeinsamer Namensraum ist meiner Ansicht nur sinnvoll für die Funktionen "Recent change" und "All pages", und da stören mich die Einträge in unbekannten sprachen eher. 80.133.84.4 09:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

• Ich bin nicht gegen subdomains (und habe nicht abgestimmt). Ich argumentiere nur fuer einen uebersichtlichen Zugang zu allen Texten, Subdomains hin oder her (der im Moment eher ncht gewaehrleistet ist). 130.60.142.62 11:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I am not arguing against subdomains here (nor have I voted). I'm just propagating convenient listings to access all texts (regardless of language), subdomains or no subdomains, which at the moment is not really realized satisfactorily. 130.60.142.62 11:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Und da bin ich eben der Ansicht, dass es am übersichtlichsten ist, wenn die Texte nach Sprachen getrennt sind (in Subdomains), da die meisten ohnehin höchstens 1-2 Sprachen beherrschen. Ein Überblick aller Texte in allen Sprachen (also das, was jetzt Special:Allpages ist) kann man dann allerdings natürlich nur noch per Hand erstellen. 80.133.78.194 22:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

Dass bei der unteren Abstimmung verhältnissmäßig viele, die für Sprachdomains sind, nichtangemeldete Benutzer sind, sondern "anonyme", ist für mich ein weiterer Beweis, dass die Sprachbariere viele Leute davon abhält sich stärker für dieses Projekt zu engagieren (wer sich stärker hier beteiligt, der meldet sich in der Regel auch an). Man sollte diesen Leuten die Angst vor dem Einstieg nehmen und die sprachlichen Schwierigkeiten ersparen, indem man getrente Sprachdomains einführt. --Kaiser Bob 13:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Die Frage ist halt, wie "echt" all diese Stimmen sind... Ich koennte problemlos von verschiedenen IPs ein dutzendmal fuer die eine oder andere Option stimmen.... 130.60.142.62 12:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Das selbe Problem gibts auch bei Benutzernamen, da sich jeder so viele machen kann wie er will. Aber das gehört eigentlich nicht in diese Diskussion. --Kaiser Bob 19:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote / Abstimmung / 投票 / Stemming

Please indicate if you are for or against this proposal (using subdomains for languages like Wikipedia), by signing your name with ~~~~. The vote will end two weeks from the date of my signature. -- Tim Starling 09:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bitte hier mit der Unterschrift ~~~~ für oder gegen die Benutzung von Unterdomänen für Sprachen, wie in der Wikipedia, abstimmen. Die Abstimmung endet am 28.10.2004.

この提案（Wikipediaの様に言語別でサブドメインを使用する事）への賛否を、~~~~ で署名する事で示してください。

Veuillez indiquer si vous êtes pour ou contre cette proposition (employant des subdomains pour des langues comme Wikipedia), en signant votre nom avec le ~~~~. Le vote prend fin le 28.10.2004.

Gelieve stemmen hier voor of tegen dit voorstel (gebruik subdomains voor talen zoals Wikipedia) door uw naam met ~~~~ te ondertekenen. De Stemming eindigt 28 october 2004.

Please keep discussion in the section above. Do not reply directly within the voting area.

Die Diskussion bitte im obigen Abschnitt führen.

議論は上記セクションで続行してください。投票エリア内でしないで下さい。

Conduire s'il vous plaît la discussion dans la section ci-dessus.

Gelieve te bespreken hierboven in de sectie.

The number of edits other than in this vote by each voter have been added.

Support / Dafür / 賛成 / Pour / Stemmen voor dit voorstel

1. Jamesday 09:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (1-20 edits)
2. Dovi 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (>500 edits edits)
3. Phil Boswell 13:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
4. CdaMVvWgS 19:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
5. 80.133.85.71 21:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ) - (>450 edits)
6. Maio 05:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (251-500 edits)
7. Xarax 09:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
8. Pythagoras1 17:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (1-20 edits)
9. Kaiser Bob 18:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
10. 193.171.143.195 13:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
11. 213.61.225.118 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
12. B 06:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
13. 217.160.168.89 06:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
14. 62.132.1.121 07:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
15. 194.39.218.248 08:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
16. Buxul 08:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
17. Indication 00:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
18. Merclien 12:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (1-20 edits)
19. Millenium 20:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
20. Bert 21:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
21. 62.156.152.71 05:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
22. 195.158.174.29 11:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
23. ThomasV 11:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (>500 edits - voting when the party is over!)

Analysis

13 with 0 edits other than this vote, two of which was late

3 with 1-20 edits

0 with 21-50 edits

4 with 51-100 edits

0 with 101-250 edits

2 with 251-500 edits

0 with >500 edits

Total 22

Note: You cannot count only the edits of the dynamic IP that people without user name have, when they vote. I have counted some of my edits, and this are more than 450. (e.g.: [3], [4], [5]). I don't know about other IP-users. If they did more than only voting here, they should say it. 80.133.65.126 21:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ).

Anmerkung: Bei Benutzern mit dynamischer IP-Adresse kann man nicht nur die Bearbeitungen der IP zählen, die der Benutzer bei der Abstimmung hatte. Ich habe einige meiner Bearbeitungen gezählt und kam auf über 450. (siehe oben). Ich weiß nicht, wie das bei anderen IP-Benutzern aussieht. Wenn die hier auch mehr gemacht haben als abstimmen, dann sollten sie es sagen. 80.133.65.126 21:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

I agree. I saw that your total was too low, but was sure that you would fix that. Still being registered would make things easier for you. Eclecticology 21:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Query: I do not support the whole vote counting thing. But for those who do, do hundreds of edits on hewikisource: count? How about the edits by active other users of the Hebrew domain, who didn't vote, but who would not be using it had it not been set up?

Oppose / Dagegen / 反対 /Contre / Stemmen tegen dit voorstel

1. Yann 09:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (251-500 edits)
2. Eclecticology 10:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (>500 edits)
3. Sj 04:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (21-50 edits)
4. Shin-改 10:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (>500 edits)
5. Kzhr 12:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (21-50 edits)
6. kahusi - (Talk) 15:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (101-250 edits)
7. Shizhao 18:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (251-500 edits)
8. Johncapistrano 05:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (1-20 edits)
9. Suisui 05:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
10. dopefish 12:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (0 edits)
11. JYOQ 09:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)　-　(0 edit)

Analysis

3 with 0 edits other than this vote

1 with 1-20 edits

2 with 21-50 edits

0 with 51-100 edits

1 with 101-250 edits

2 with 251-500 edits

3 with >500 edits

Total 13

Neutral

1. Christian S 07:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (>500 edits)

Last comments

I have taken the time to read through all the arguments again, and there are many good arguments either way. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and my opposition is far from total. If we choose to create language domains, I will work at creating a Danish WS. My biggest concern is the small language domains becoming one-man-projects - some languages have very few editors here. I have no idea if this will change with language subdomains, but if the argumentation that language barriers keeps people away from the project is valid, then it will change with the domains and interfaces! Of cource there is no proof that this barrier exists, but there is no proof either that it doesn't. The results of the vote defininitely shows a majority wanting language subdomains, when counting only the number of votes. Looking at the voters activity at WS it clearly shows that those with many edits are the ones who wants to keep things as they are, while those who support language domains have not edited much. The distribution in regard to number of edits is actually to be expected - if I didn't feel comfortable with the interface and the general "multilingual-but-mostly-English" environment here, then I wouldn't have made 500+ edits either! As I see the results of the votes there is a demand for language subdomains.

If the subdomains are created it will be important to have some kind of meta-WS, either at wikisource.org or meta.wikisource.org to handle such things as interlingual coordination within the Wikisource subdomains as well as funtioning as a repository for texts in languages too rare to validate their own subdomains, or a hatching place for languages for which the domains just haven't been implementet yet.

Whether the wikisourse project as a whole will gain or loose from the creation of subdomains is an open question. Keeping the project in one domain has it's own problems - English dominance will probably allways prevail to some extent wiht the linguistic barriers it contains, creating subdomains will have others - like keeping the project as multilingual as it is at present, with easy access to source texts in all languages. Christian S 09:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for your balanced comments. On the issue of whether it will be a one man project - take a look at hewikisource:. It indeed began as a one-man project (unlike the German one, which will apparently begin with a number of already interested users), and more or less stayed that way for about two months. But as time went on people learned about it and started to participate. Take a look at recent changes there. Currently there are two extremely active users who look like they will push project forward much more actively than I did so far, and I think that is fantastic! Plus a few other people who show up occassionally. It is a good start, and also it feels good to know that while I am away others will keep building it, and that it is in fact no longer dependent on me in any way at all. It also shows that the wikimedia process works: Set up the infrastucture, and sooner or later people who are interested will start using it. You just have to make it available and let them come. Dovi 19:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also ich finde diese Abstimmung eine Farce. Entweder ein Nutzer kann gut genug Englisch, um sich jetzt schon zu beteiligen und stimmt hier dann vielleicht eher gegen den Vorschlag ab (da wohl eher Englisch-Muttersprachler). Anderssprachige (mit wenig Enlischkenntnisse) haben diese Abstimmung wohl gar nicht erst wahr genommen, da wie auch bei mir schon das englische Interface klar macht, dass es sich hier wohl eher um ein amerikanisch/englisches Projekt handelt. Menüpunkte auf der Hauptseite in deutsch können nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass man hier ohne Englischkenntnisse nicht recht weit kommt. Ich frage mich, was die Initiatoren nun aus dem Abstimmungsergebnis für Konsequenzen ziehen. Weil die Haupteditoren dagegen sind, wird die Aufsplittung abgelehnt, obwohl die, die eben nicht Englisch sprechen, gar keine Editoren sein können. Ich sage ja, die Abstimmung ist meiner Meinung nach vollkommen nichtssagend und brachte überhaupt nichts. Wenn die Aufsplittung abelehnt wird, werde ich außerdem fordern, das Interface auf Deutsch umzustellen. Dann sollen die Befürworter sich mal in Deutsch zu recht finden, so wie ich mich jetzt im englischen Interface zu recht finden muss, geschweige denn dass viele Diskussionen und Erklärungen in Englisch abgefasst sind. --80.128.44.220 16:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wann wird das Ergebnis denn endlich umgesetzt? ich habe keine Lust mehr hier länger nachzusehen, wie die Diskussionen sich denn entwickeln. Entweder es wird eine deutschsprachige Umgebung für die deutschsprechenden Benutzer eingerichtet, oder eben nicht. Ich hab den amerikanischen Multinationalismus satt, der sieht nämlich auch meist nur so aus, das sich alle anderen unterzuordnen haben. Ich hoffe hier wird endlich mal Tacheles geredet. --217.231.46.158 14:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to draw a final conclusion? I believe that I am not the only one looking forward to the conclusion of this matter, subdomains or not. Should we ask Tim Starling to comment on the vote? --Christian S 16:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd be inclined to include the people who are active on other projects, but not to include anons or users who have no significant contributions on any other project. The result under those rules is the same as the result if you only count Wikisource contributors, as the analysis sections imply. I'd have to call it against splitting. There's certainly no signficant supermajority. Let's just leave it as it is, for now at least.

80.133.87.121 asked on my talk page:

Could the decision be moved to a kind of higher level? Are there some "bosses" at international Wikipedia, or anything else, who could decide?

There is an international leadership, namely the m:Board of Trustees. I asked Angela about this before the vote, and both Angela and Anthere recently on IRC, but they wouldn't be drawn into giving an opinion. They don't want to get involved. I can't remember if I asked Jimbo about it or not, but if I did, he didn't give a conclusive answer. So it's up to me to organise it.

Or should the voting last until there is a clear majority?

I'm not saying the issue is closed. If the circumstances change, for example a new feature in MediaWiki which impacts on this debate, it might be better to start a new vote than to continue the current one, if a vote is necessary. -- Tim Starling 06:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diese Antwort von Tim Starling (falls ich es richtig versteh) zeigt doch schon wieder klar die Ignoranz der Englisch-Muttersprachler gegenüber anderen Sprachen. In der Hauptsache sie können alles lesen und nutzen! Warum gabs eigentlich bei de.wikipedia.org oder de.wiktionary.org keine vergleichbare Abstimmung? --80.128.40.37 17:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vielleicht definiere ich ja Mehrheit falsch, aber aus meiner Sicht liegt diese klar auf der Seite der Befürworter der Sprachdomains. Mir ist auch klar, dass das Wikiprojekt keine Demokratie ist, wesshalb das mit der Mehrheit auch kein wirklicher Punkt für oder gegen diese Domains ist. Aber eben weil das Projekt keine Demokratie ist, sollte es auch möglich sein, zumindest im kleineren Ramen, einen Test zu starten ohne die Zustimmung aller "Wikiautoritäten".
Also mein Vorschlag: Man könnte zum testen ob Sprachdomains erfolgreich sind oder nicht eine de-domain aufbauen und dann schaun ob der Zulauf zum Wikipediaprojekt (Sowohl Neuanmeldungen als auch Zugriffszahlen) zu- oder abnimmt oder gleich bleibt. Damit die anderen Sprachen nicht benachteiligt werden würde ich gleich auf der Startseite eines solchen Versuchs einen Kasten mit "Übersetztung der Woche" o.ä. (in Anlehnung an "Artikel der Woche" der Wikipedia) anbringen und auf anderssprachige Texte hinweisen. --Kaiser Bob 20:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should transfer the whole wikisource to german. That makes it easier to understand and write. We can discuss an vote as we like. We have less problems with the english native-speakers, they will not take part in discussions or votes and we can tell them, what's the best for them. No one would try this, of course. But the english speaking majority seems to ignore the problems of people like me. Diskutiert doch einfach mal in Deutsch mit mir. Dann können wir sicher sehr schnell ein anderes Ergebnis erzielen, weil das eben für fremdsprachliche Teilnehmer schwer zu verstehen ist. Nicht nur die Navigation, auch die Diskussion oder gar eine Abstimmung ist für uns Nicht-englisch-sprechenden ein Hindernis. Solche Hindernisse entsprechen aber gerade nicht dem Gedanken der Wikipedia, freie Information zur Verfügung zu stellen. English only. Foreigner - this is our wikicource - keep off. Try to think about my thought to transfer wikisource to german and then you might come to a different oppinion. --Steschke 20:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um mich auch noch einmal abschliessend zu äussern:

1. Soweit ich das beurteilen kann, sind es nicht überwiegend Englisch-Muttersprachler, die sich gegen Sprachdomänen ausgesprochen haben. Die Kontra-Stimmen sind ebenso international wie die Pro-Stimmen, wobei ich aber davon ausgehe, dass auschliesslich Personen abgestimmt haben, die englisch verstehen.
2. Dass manche offensichtlich mehrfach abgestimmt haben, war nicht gerade hilfreich. Wiki-Abstimmungen sind zwar nie wirklich demokratisch, aber argumentative Überzeugungsarbeit bringt mehr.
3. Es gibt im Internet bisher kein freies deutschsprachiges Projekt, das freie Texte sammelt (auch w:de:Projekt Gutenberg-DE ist nicht frei verwendbar), aber wer sagt denn, dass es ein solches Projekt im Rahmen der Wikimedia geben muss? Wer die technischen Möglichkeiten hat, kann jederzeit ein "www.wikiquellen.de" starten und auf der deutschsprachigen Hauptseite von Wikisource darauf aufmerksam machen. Ich würde daran teilnehmen. Man könnte dann den deutschsprachigen Bereich von Wikisource aussterben lassen und "Wikiquellen" als inoffizielles "de.wikisource" etablieren. So haben die Deutschsprechenden die Wahl, ob sie beim internationalen (englischsprachigen) Wikisource oder bei den deutschsprachigen Wikiquellen mitmachen wollen. www.wikitravel.org z.B. ist auch nicht von Wikimedia und läuft trotzdem. 80.133.94.162 22:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)(+1=MESZ)

Hast du die nötigen technischen Möglichkeiten? Wenn ja könnte man dort den von mir vorgeschlagenen Test einmal durchführen. Wenn er Erfolg hätte wäre bestimmt auch die Wikimedia überzeugt, die meiner Ansicht nach viel bessere Möglichkeiten hat als die meisten Privatpersonen --Kaiser Bob 16:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Rights of the Majority?/Minority? (it doesn't really matter)

Hi Tim. I am home on a one-day break from what might be called an enforced "vacation" (I won't go into the details), but the bottom line is that I won't be able to participate fully until sometime next week. In the meantime, here is my reaction to what you wrote above.

Despite the large numerical majority for subdomains, to be fair I think a lot of us would still agree with you that the vote was inconclusive. Not because of Eclecticology’s edit-counting, but because too many of the voters were anons. (I really wish the fantastic German anon who contributed so much to the discussion would have simply logged in! I think a lot of the anons were contributers to other wikimedia projects who had no account here, something that is absolutely clear for at least a couple of them.) But there was still a majority for subdomains, and I don’t think many of us will agree with you that just because it wasn’t a strong one, that the project should remain as it is now. Had it been a true minority (which it wasn’t), I think we would have let the matter rest, even though I personally am still not the least bit convinced that a request for language domains should need anyone’s permission in the first place, or even be subject to a vote at all. But that is irrelevant, because in any case it wasn’t a minority but rather an inconclusive(?) majority.

It is natural enough to say, as you did, that if there is no strong vote for change, then just let things stay the way they are for now. That is true for a lot of things in life, but this case is different, because it is a clear-cut case of discrimination. Here it is a matter not of what the rather monolithic majority currently dominating this small project wants, but rather of the rights of various minorities to use tools that should be readily available to them. A veritable German-speaking community wants a domain, yet a wikimedia project is actually selfish enough to deny it to them, although it is easily available and does no harm to anyone? Arabic users find out on their own (too late for the vote) that they cannot properly edit their version of the Quran on the current LTR Wikisource, and now they will have to beg here for a domain of their own (and perhaps even be denied it)?

Future software is irrelevant and will change nothing. There is nothing to wait for: All of us can already try out the new interface language-option at the test-wiki (log in and click "Special:Preferences"). It is a neat tool for looking at the English Wikipedia through a French or German lens (though it won’t work properly in Hebrew and Arabic for obvious reasons). But the interface option does nothing whatsoever about the real issue here: providing a language-environment that lets subcommunities develop and work on texts together. Do we deal with “Category” or “Kategorie” or “קטגוריה”? That, along with dozens of other seemingly minor examples from the php codes of the language domains are the real issue, along with the sense of community and common culture that the domains encourage. It is these details, within separate domains, that make it possible for monolingual users to use and enjoy the various sister projects, and without this far fewer language-projects would ever have grown within them. The infrastructures of the language domains with their php files are, in fact, probably Wikimedia’s single most extraordinary and wonderful contribution to mankind! (No, I really don’t think I am exaggerating on this one. It is a truly incredible achievement. :-)

I have done most of what I can already on this topic. I suggest to the German-Spanish-Arabic and other users who still want domains to keep pressing the issue here and on Meta. Don’t let up! There will be a change in policy very soon if a number of people keep pushing for it. In the meantime, I also suggest that contributors start providing all of their texts with some annotation (e.g. introductions), so that they can legally put them on Wikibooks instead of here on Wikisource.

(Explanation: Wikibooks already has proper language support with domains and interwiki links. Wikibooks supports annotated texts as its official policy. At the same time, early Wikisource discussions agreed to host annotated texts here as well, but it was never actually implemented. Thus, the line between the two projects regarding annotated texts is currently blurry. So let’s now decide the issue of where “annotated texts” belong by creating facts: Let’s annotate our texts and put them on Wikibooks instead of here in the meantime, while at the same time we press for change on Wikisource.)

Bottom line, this is a case of discrimination that simply has no justification at all. It is entirely against the spirit of wikimedia. And even the vote was inconclusive, to say the least. So let’s all of us keep pressing Tim, and on Meta, and on the mailing lists, and on Scriptorium here (and maybe even Jimbo?) in a variety of languages, until there is a change in policy. Dovi 23:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It won't do you much good pressing me, I already agree with you. I've always been in favour of splitting, it would make the project easier to manage if it was like the others rather than a special case. But my personal opinion doesn't come into it, I can't take sides. I suggest you spend your time convincing the people who voted against the proposal. Their opinion counts, not mine. -- Tim Starling 00:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that Ec is likely to change his mind. "Pressing" is based on the idea that subdomains, when requested by reputable users for clearly valid reasons, are not something that the other current users have a right to deny, and they need not be subject to a vote in the first place. It is also based on the idea that the proper response to an inconclusive vote on this topic (if there must be one) is not the status quo. Dovi 00:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reached more or less the same conclusion as Dovi, that there is a great demand for splitting into language subdomains and that it should be done. I voted against splitting, as i quite like it as it is, but it is clear that a lot of people don't, and they want change. They have many good arguments in support of the splitting, and as my opposition is far from total I will not work against that demand and will thus change my vote of opposition to a neutral vote. I think the people who wish to keep the project as close and international as it is at present is a good basis for great meta work with multilingual coordination and binding the language domains together in an international network. What I would really like to see when (yes, I mean when, as I think it is just a matter of time) Wikisource gets language domains is the establishment of a meta.wikisource.org to handle wikisource-specific meta work. --Christian S 07:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Christian S. Thanks for your comments and I totally agree with your idea: It seems to me too that each project, even with subdomains, must also have a neutral multilingual space for "meta" type discussions, coordination, and various languages helping each other. Both meta (for planning and policy) and also a kind of embassy (to assist those who want to navigate among the various languages). Let's say there are subdomains with prefixes en:, fr:, de:, etc. on this project or any other. It seems natural that the "neutral" domain would be the original one left without the prefix, namely: wikiquote.org, wikisource.org, etc. And the fact that there is not totally satisfactory language-support is not even so crucial for multilingual discussion (as opposed to detailed work on content). Even if and when there are subdomains here, Wikisource's highly active "Scriptorium" can and should keep on going exactly like it has been doing until now, and other neutral forums can be added as well. 132.74.99.82 07:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From an "official" point of view, the board isn't going to make a decision that goes again the wishes of the community, and from the votes above there is not a consensus to change. From a personal point of view, I support splitting, and I oppose the fact that people with no involvement with Wikisource are voting. If you look at those with at least 100 edits, it seems only 2 are in favour of splitting and 8 are against. I don't feel it would be sensible for the board to overrule this vote. People interested in this need to try to come to a consensus about it on the project.

Angela, thanks for your comments. (It's good to see you here :-) What you say is common sense in a normal situation. But here you have the unusual situation of people who simply cannot participate in the current setup (or find it difficult or uncomfortable to do so). They are asking for domains in order to enable (or greatly ease) their very participation, and therefore shouldn't need 100 edits (or any) on the current project in order to get what they are asking for! You are also not being asked to overrule the vote. The vote was inconclusive (depending on how you evaluate it), and in fact those in favor may even have technically won.

On the on hand, the board needs to abide by the wishes of the community in normal situations. On the other hand, the board needs to realize that we have a situation where users are being denied an appropriate place on Wikimedia to upload sourcetexts in their own languages. That is a situation that should not continue, even if long-time users support the current setup. 132.74.99.80 14:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the votes against splitting seem to be under the assumption that some new interface is going to come along and magically solve the problem. How about a compromise situation whereby Wikisource is split until that happens? It could be merged back if and when that ever does happen. Considering the fact that the current code for doing this is resulting in fatal errors and that the translations in the MediaWiki namespace can not be applied back to the language.php files which would be used for the interface, I don't see this happening any time soon, so the discussions above claiming all this will be solved with the new interface are misleading, and the voting ought to be taking into account the idea that this multilingual interface might not be part of the new MediaWiki. Angela 08:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ich habe gerade mal das test-wiki ausprobiert. Es scheint noch Probleme zu geben, denn wenn ich mit deutschem Interface versuche Seiten aufzurufen, kommt immer eine Fehlermeldung. Das System sollte schon ausgereift sein, bevor man es einsetzt. --Kaiser Bob 16:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's fixed now. -- Tim Starling 00:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ist es möglich, die Software des Testwikis für Wikisource anzugleichen? Meiner Meinung nach müsste die Software Folgendes zusätzlich beherrschen, um alle Sprachen gleich zu behandeln und um alle Vorteile einer eigenen Sprachdomain zu haben:
Es muss auch Gästen möglich sein, die Interface Sprache den eigenen Bedürfnissen anzupassen. Noch bevor ein Gast die Hauptseite sieht, sollte er wählen können, welche Sprache er bevorzugt. Die Sprachänderung sollte sich auch nicht nur auf das Interface beschränken. Bei entsprechender Wahl sollten auch die Hauptseite so wie alle anderen Spezialseiten auf dieser Sprache sein. Bei Diskussionen währen so etwas wie „ehrenamtliche Übersetzter“ nötig, damit wirklich alle Benutzer an den Diskussionen teil nehmen können und damit sie sich gegenseitig verstehen. Bei einer Suchanfrage währe gut Treffer in der jeweiligen Sprache den anderen vorzuziehen und erst bei einer erweiterten Suche die anderen zu berücksichtigen (z.B. mit einer Funktion, mit der sich der Sprachbereich eingrenzen lässt). Perfekt wäre im Interface eine Auswahl zu integrieren, mit der man Texte, die in mehrere Sprachen übersetzt wurden parallel anzuzeigen. So ließe sich z.B. auf der linken Bildschirmhälfte die Übersetzung lesen und auf der anderen der Originaltext. Eine aufwendige Formatierungsarbeit wie bei Göttliche Komödie wäre dann nicht mehr nötig und jeder könnte selbst wählen, ob er das Original, die Übersetzung oder beide sehen will.
Ich denke mit diesen Veränderungen würde eine Softwareänderung den Sprachdomains gleich kommen und diese vielleicht sogar noch übertreffen. Mich würde nun die Meinung eines Entwicklers dazu interessieren. Wären diese Veränderungen schnell und einfach durchführbar? Wenn ja, dann würde ich mich damit zufrieden geben, da das meiner Meinung nach genauso gut, vielleicht sogar besser ist als Sprachdomains. --Kaiser Bob 16:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may be possible to allow anonymous users to choose their interface language, or perhaps to take the default language from the browser's settings. This would be a fairly simple task. I suggest you post a request to wikitech-l, or to http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org .

I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in writing software specifically for Wikisource. However it doesn't hurt to ask. Allowing users to select the content language in the same way they select the user interface would certainly be good, and I like your idea of displaying the text in the source language next to a translation. But don't hold your breath waiting for it. -- Tim Starling 11:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Got some computer access now, and will respond to Ec's recent comments below with indents: Dovi 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think that speaking of these issues in terms of discrimination, or of continuing pressure until you get the result that you want is at all helpful. It just draws energy away from finding solutions that will truly be satisfactory to a larger part of the community. The efforts to get an international version of the Mishnah were a far more important contribution to getting people together than any debate on this page.

Sorry, but whether you like it or not it is discrimination. The international version of the Mishnah will, when I get back home and am able to do it, be moved to Wikibooks, where it will have the language support and interwiki links that will enable future contributors to more easily expand it to other languages. Dovi 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that our one highly productive German contributor would have done well to log in, and that we should find better ways to encourage annotations. Still, I don't think that experimenting with a separate German project with the hopes of merging back together later when the software can handle it will work. It's contrary to human nature. In the interim each separate group will have developed its own formats which will be difficult to reconcile.

In all the other interwiki projects, each domain is free to develop the format most appropriate for its own language and culture. However, the projects also learn from each other, influence one another, and help each other out. Your terrible fear of complementary formats in parallel projects is related to the over-centralization that you have enforced here, which is mostly (it seems) because of your indexing project. What you fail to realize is that your indexing project, which is a great thing (yes, I really mean that), would actually benefit from being far less rigid, and by letting interwiki links work freely between domains rather than enforcing a single domain with a single format. Dovi 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am unfortunately a software techie, and I can barely understand some of the software related issues. Though I would welcome them, I therefore try not to depend on software based solutions. I may even suggest things that I would like to see, but I have no illusions about being able to develop them or about believing that some developer will immediately think that mine is such a wonderful idea that it must take all his attention. The software solutions will come in their own time.

From the start I have been fully aware that access by monolingual individuals must be considered, and have been regularly taking that into account in what I do. Maybe I was wrong to so quickly agree to a separate Hebrew project; it is perhaps my weakness to be unable to cope with the requirements of RTL languages. The issue of combining forms in Arabic script would be even more daunting. Prejudging what might result if an honest request were made for an Arabic script project in any language that uses that script is putting up a straw man argument. No-one with a commitment to work on such a language has made any such proposal.

I have been fully aware that access by monolingual individuals must be considered, and have been regularly taking that into account in what I do. Maybe I was wrong to so quickly agree to a separate Hebrew project... - Your comments here reveal something that I became aware of (and very troubled by) from the very beginning: namely, that you are the real issue here, and nobody really wants to simply stand up to you and say no to you. When I initially requested the Hebrew Wikisource, I was quite surprised that the whole thing initially depended on asking, not the "Wikisource community" but you, and getting your permission (which you so kindly gave). The real problem with language domains seems to be that you are afraid of the project as a whole slipping out of your hands, and being free of your control. Case in point: Arabic. Why should an "honest request" even need to be made in the first place? (A request to you - for Hebrew no one else was asked.) Instead, let people simply be free to do what they want in Arabic, by providing them with the domain and letting them start typing there if they want to.

As far as taking monolingual access into account, from the very beginning (you can check the histories) you have claimed to be doing so, but have in fact been doing the opposite, and have made only small concessions when actually pressed to do so. You firmly believe, as I do too, that having English speakers deal with other languages is a healthy learning experience for them. The problem is that this learning experience for English speakers is far more important to you than the participation of people who are not comfortable in English. Dovi 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is a fact that Wikisource already has a collection of texts in an amazing variety of languages, including German. A quick look at Recent Changes shows just how many are really active, and that's great. The most insistent and uncompromising arguments for splitting off a de:Wikisource have come from a person who is not a German speaker. At the same time, I have seen User:80... making efforts to make the present project more usable to Germans, another person has put considerable effort into having bilingual German-Italian pages for the Divine Comedy, and now Kaiser Bob has put forth suggestions that could really help to resolve some of the differences.

I admit that after seeing the Babelfish translation, I can't be sure that I understand his ideas thoroughly, (though with each such exercise I am a little closer to understanding a few more words of German:-)). This adds a very strong appeal to having someone's original comments appear side by side with a translation of one's choice. If that could be done with all of the world's iterature the result would be phenomenal. Using Babelfish (for example) as a standard for first level translation would give a structural start to other language version. That level of translation would still be of extremely poor quality, but it would give something which human translators could improve.

I can't knowledgeably comment on the software requirements, though I suspect that with enough will something is feasible. As long as those of us involved with this project in any language are seen to be attempting to work together at finding solutions to make the whole site available to all we can perhaps begin to draw in developers - not because we demand it of them, but because we have inspired them. Eclecticology 19:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Majority or minority? I've left it with question marks for Ec's sake. But in terms of numbers, especially after the discussion and vote changes above, we are left with a slim majority for language domains. (The problem is that it is a slim majority versus a minority that includes Ec.) And the issue, once again, is one of principle: the very existence of language domains shouldn't need a vote in the first place. This is not an edit war or a small detail of policy. Rather, it is a fundamental part of making wikimedia a truly multilingual project. Dovi 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no login here but I read all this and found it greatly interesting. German users should write letters to Jimbo and board and say this strange decision by board does no honour to Wikipedia. 132.74.99.80 14:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the very least right-to-left subdomains should be allowed

Did you ever try to enter an English text into the editbox of the Hebrew Wikisource? It's impossible to do it with correct layout (left to right). People writing in a right-to-left language will face the same problem here (at "international" Wikisource). So at the very least those languages should have own (right-to-left) subdomains. (OK, some Arabics are terrorists, but that should not mean that all Arabics aren't allowed to take part in Wikisource ;-)) 80.133.68.183 23:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)(+1=MEZ)

This has never been a part of the argument. The he.wikisource went through without a problem as soon as Dovi asked for it. The debate arising out of the German language request came later. The Arabic and other RTL communities have not yet made any requests. The criteria that I would look at there are whether the request is being made by people in that community, and whether that community is big enough to sustain itself. I'm not going to touch the terrorist issue. Eclecticology 01:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not subdomains, only one right-to-left subdomain for Jews and Arabs together. 195.93.60.7 01:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, one RTL subdomain or multiple LTR subdomains! --201.3.154.38 16:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been consistent in my support of a single LTR subdomain, and I suppose that consistency would suggest that I also support single RTL (and TTB and BTT and boustrophedal) sub-domains. In reality, since I don't understand any of those languages at all, my support for these others will be fairly low-key. Eclecticology 18:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You wrote in the discussion above: "Maybe I was wrong to so quickly agree to a separate Hebrew project...", so I thought, that other RTL languages should not get own subdomains and that the Hebrew perhaps should be stopped. But I simply don't understand everything that is written here in English and so I may have misunderstood it. If there are no Arabic people who want to contribute, there is no need for an own subdomain. But perhaps the Arabic main page should be moved to the Hebrew domain, to make it clear for potential contributors, that they can write in a RTL system. 80.133.72.125(+1=MEZ)

that's so cool! I'm sure all Arabs will love to belong to the "he.wikisource" subdomain :-) --ThomasV 19:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe that this never even occurred to me! It was so obvious to me that Arabic would need its own domain that I never realized the following: The "binational" Arab-Jewish state that seemingly will never happen in reality, can at least be created virtually for a wikiproject on national literatures... :-) I like it!!

Most (but not all) of my colleagues and friends who are Israeli Arabs could make due with the Hebrew interface and coding. It is not the language they themselves would have chosen had they been given a choice (Ec's policy doesn't allow them a choice), but it would still be a wonderful social experiment! Arabs from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc. will presumably have much more trouble. But that is their problem (Ec doesn't care). Or, if we switch to Arabic coding, the Israelis and other Hebrew-users will need to learn read Arabic. That is a very good thing! Let people learn other languages! So according to Eclecticology's logic we must of course do it (whether the Israelis like it or not... :-)

I suppose that consistency would suggest that I also support single RTL (and TTB and BTT and boustrophedal) sub-domains. In reality, since I don't understand any of those languages at all, my support for these others will be fairly low-key... (Ec's words above). In other words, for languages that Ec doesn't give a hoot about, he doesn't care much about policy either. But he will never release the hostages he does care about, i.e. those languages he does somewhat understand. He will keep them captive even against their will, even after an entire community has asked for a domain... Dovi 04:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This sort of unethical word twisting is to be expected from one whose only interest here is fulfilling his own obsessions. Eclecticology 17:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for letting my passion carry me away, and using exaggerations like "hostages" and "kept captive". Eclecticology, if you want these words to have no meaning at all (not even as exaggerations), then simply let the German users go and set up their project where they would like to do it, instead of forcing them to do it here against their will. Dovi 12:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is this debate so passionated? If we cannot reach an agreement on language subdomains, I think we should just wait. With more users, more opinions will be expressed. I believe, as Christan S mentioned earlier, that it is just a matter of time. In the meantime, there is no reason to have such a dispute. It would be more constructive to work on Wikisource as it is now, rather than to call for a boycott. --ThomasV 10:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your question "why the passion" is a very good one. See my reply at #Why_the_passion.3F. Dovi 04:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consolidated/selective watchlists available

Consolidated watchlists are part of kate's tools. You can combine watchlists across any projects and/or create multiple kate's tools accounts to make watchlists with different project mixtures in each. Want to look at only German or only English this evening? Just create a kate's tools account with only projects in those languages linked. Want to add French and Spanish? Use your kate's tools account which also links those projects. kate's tools logins are different from project logins - you create independent kate's tools accounts, then add in the projects you want to watch, giving your user name and pasword in each of those projects. Consolidated and language/ project filtered recent changes is not yet available. Jamesday 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But this doesn't work at Wikisource. Or is the tool able to recognize wether a Wikisource page is in English or in French? 80.133.88.121 01:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)(+1=MEZ)

A Challenge to Ec

Original discussion moved from this page to the Scriptorium.
Moved back during archive --19:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the following on the German Main talk page, but I want to put it here for the general public:

“I think the whole bunch of you should also post a note to w:User talk:Jimbo Wales about how unfair this whole thing was: The policy is unfair, the very need for a vote was unfair, and the decision after the vote was most unfair (why vote in the first place if you are not going to abide by its results)? It was clear from the very beginning that the people voting to support domains were people for whom the present system is inadequate.”

Let us make the point absolutely clear:

We currently have 12 valid votes (logged in and on time) saying Yes to language subdomains. (I think even those who oppose will agree that we count our friend 80.133… who didn’t log in on principle but made hundreds of edits.)

We have 8 valid votes currently opposed.

If we count those who were anons or who voted late – then the majority in support is even bigger!

When the voting began, it was clear from the very beginning that those in support were people who would like to participate if they had a domain supporting their language. No one ever suggested (in the beginning) that their votes were less important than those who find the current project adequate. Not until Ec starting edit-counting in the middle of the vote. Why does the Wikimedia board bend over backwards for him after the fact?!

A vote should not have been needed in the first place – that was Tim Starling’s surprise decision, though we can all understand why he did it. But after a vote was then taken, why disregard it?

What this vote was really about is clear: Are potential monolingual contributors, who need language subcommunities, important to Wikisource or not? Those comfortable here now said no, but the potential contributors said yes. And then board then decided to listen to Ec after the fact and not to count the votes of potential contributors! This is a sham!

A challenge to Ec: Let people vote with their feet. Allowing subdomains doesn’t force the French, for instance, who seem rather comfortable here now, to move. But who are you to say that “potential” contributors who have expressed positive interest are not important without seeing what they can do?

Let’s set up a parallel wikimedia project “Wikitext” (unless someone can suggest a better name) complete with subdomains. Give people the open choice to use the current WS system (already running) or a blank new system with subdomains, and see what they do. Will they continue adding texts within the existing Wikisource setup? Or will they reproduce Wikisource languages on the new subdomains and choose to work there? If they do the first, then you have lost nothing, Ec. If they do the second then you will be forced to admit that potential monolingual contributors are worth something, and the board should count their votes. But if you are afraid of trying, then you are a sham. Dovi 05:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder about Dovi's obsession with this issue. His last constructive edit (about the Mishnah) was in early September, and he has since seen fit to move his Mishnah project to Wikibooks. In the last two and a half months his contributions to Wikisource have been devoted exclusively to campaigning for his idea; this includes posting to the main talk pages of several languages to campaign for votes.

The little time I have had I have devoted to he.wikisource.org, instead of to the messed-up setup here. As for campaigning, except for my interactions with the German-speakers (plus Maio), who I once again reming you began looking for alternative on their own, the rest was people coming on their own.Dovi 13:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that accounts for the high proportion of sockpuppets that participated in the vote. I can do no more than wonder what the outcome would have been if I had chosen to campaign so energetically. I really don't need a personal pissing match with Dovi; I very much prefer spending my time here looking for constructive solutions, and supporting the positive people. Eclecticology 09:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am "pissed." You have a vote about something that should not have needed a vote in the first place, then you win but the board decides not to honor the vote for fear of upsetting Eclecticology. That's "constructive"? Your rejection of people who are looking for a place in Wikisource that is adequate to their needs is "constructive"?Dovi 13:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ec, you should acknowledge that there is a problem. Dovi is not an isolated case, most german users feel pissed off. Although I do not support their idea of a boycott, I think that you should admit that what is at stake is your degree of control over that organization. As I already mentioned to you, I believe that you should not try to impose the same monolithic system of organization to all languages, but rather favor diversity. Having language subdomains would probably allow them to have more freedom. --ThomasV 10:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should add that you are wrong to believe that Dovi's contributions in the last 2.5 months have been exclusively devoted to campaining for his idea. Just check the logs of he.wikisource.org, and you will see how active he was in that subdomain. I guess he would be just as active in de.wikisource.org if that subdomain did exist. In addition, the he.wikisource.org subdomain is quite active in itself, there are more contributions there than there are to french pages in wikisource.org. To me, this clearly demonstrates that setting up a subdomain does encourage monolingual users to participate. --ThomasV 10:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Thomas, for stating what perhaps should be obvious in and of itself, but doing so in such a nice way so that the truth can speak for itself based on the evidence. If a small language like Hebrew is doing so nicely, what would happen in Spanish, German, where we already have interested participants?Dovi 13:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why the passion?

Hi Thomas. At the Language Domain proposal, you wrote:

"Why is this debate so passionated? If we cannot reach an agreement on language subdomains, I think we should just wait. With more users, more opinions will be expressed. I believe, as Christan S mentioned earlier, that it is just a matter of time. In the meantime, there is no reason to have such a dispute. It would be more constructive to work on Wikisource as it is now, rather than to call for a boycott. --ThomasV 10:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Look, we had a fairly civil debate where every single aspect of language-domains was discussed at length. No stone was left unturned, and there is little or nothing left to be said about the subject. Then there was a vote, and a lot of people wanted language domains, including people willing to take responsibility for German and Spanish. But a smaller group (!) wanted to deny them the option, and the board decided to give that group veto power. Fairness dictates that language domains are a basic right for anyone on a text-based Wikimedia project, but the Wikisource "community" (just 8 people!!) denied them that right, and the board blatantly took sides by supporting them. I guess that is the main reason for my current "passion."

I no longer think that it is "just a matter of time." No, it will not happen. The board has basically given Eclecticology a permanent veto in this matter. Even if more new people come and ask for domains, the fact of that veto will not change. With his absolute veto power, nothing will ever change until Ec finally admits, as you have asked him to, "that there is a problem here."

So there will never be change unless there is a very strong protest. That also accounts for my "passion." A boycott, I agree, cannot be effective in a wiki environment, and it also hurts the project when people have texts to contribute.

Compare the unwelcoming attitude here at Wikisource with the very open policy for the new Wikinews demo:

"The internationality of the Wikimedia foundation is one of our biggest strengths, and the Wikinews projects will build on this strength right from the start. Our first requirement is that Wikinews will be set up like Wikipedia, with a language domain for every Wikinews project: de.wikinews.org, en.wikinews.org, fr.wikinews.org, and so on. A Wikinews project in a language will be started under two conditions: a) that the language is accepted as one of the Wikimedia project languages, b) that there is at least one person who expresses an interest in working on that language edition…"

Now that is an attitude clearly telling people from all around the world that they are truly welcome from the start!

Wikimedia's goal is "making the sum of all human knowledge available to the world for free." I personally am convinced that it will really happen, too! The source-texts of the world’s languages and cultures are one of the most important parts of that great sum of knowledge, and can only be contributed by the very people who speak and write those languages. Unfortunately, the current Wikisource stands in the way of that goal.

Goodwill and Cooperation

Eclecticology: Open your closed fist into an open, outstretched, welcoming hand. Open the door here for people of many languages and cultures to come and contribute their historical texts on their own terms, even if their system or style is not the same as your own. When they come and ask to participate, do not condition their participation on their acceptance of anyone else’s way of doing things. Accept them on their own terms, and give them whatever support and language tools they ask for from the start, even if you yourself have not asked for those tools. Go ahead and give a true welcome to the great texts of all the world’s cultures at Wikisource. Dovi 04:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence 50 times?

There is no need for personal attacks. What we need is a MediaWiki feature whereby different language interfaces could be used within a single wiki (it would all be a matter of user preferences and maybe page tags for anons). It would be absurd to have the exact same text in 50 different wikis of say the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Keeping one reference version and calling upon that via a template so that it could be annotated in whatever language you wish, would be a killer feature. --Maveric149 06:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh - nevermind. Somebody already did that. This whole thing is now moot. --Maveric149 06:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Maveric. Yes, the new interface is a cute tool, but unfortunately it does nothing at all about the true multilingual problems at WikiSource. The two real problems here are the PHP codes, and the lack of separate spaces for language subcommunities to grow, as found in all the other Wikimedia text projects. It’s not the interface that matters.

Who ever suggested uploading the American Declaration of Independence 50 times on 50 different sites in English? This is a basic misunderstanding of how domains work on text projects. The way a project like this one naturally develops is that someone submits a German translation of Declaration of Independence on de.wikisource.org, giving it an interwiki link to the English original on en.wikisource.org. No one here ever contemplated anything else.

In a normal community, when a very serious group of users comes along with a deep desire to use a tool which is readily available, which they definitely need, which works wonderfully elsewhere, and which will foster the value-system behind the project (in this case, real multilingualism), the natural reaction of a normal community is to say: “OK, if you really want and need it that badly, then go ahead” – even if they themselves don’t need or want it.

Here at WikiSource, exactly such a request was made by the German users and others, but the reaction to them was: I disagree, and I don’t care how badly all of you want or need it. Very unwiki-like. That unusual and inappropriate reaction is why it has gotten personal, though it shouldn’t have.

Texts, unlike images, are rarely language-neutral. They require a great deal of language-intensive work from teams of people, especially in languages other than English where you can’t just copy thousands of digital texts from Project Gutenberg. A text-project like this one needs language-specific domains and subcommunities. No other system is truly multilingual. Dovi 22:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That still does not make sense to me and seems to go against the original purpose of this project (which is to have a single place where documents could be housed and maintained). Would we need to create different language domains to host Old English vs modern English versions of works by people like Chaucer? Would we also need a Middle English version of Wikisource to host the works of Shakespeare as he wrote them? Where does one draw the line on what should go where? -- Maveric149 23:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All of your questions are good ones, but they could be asked the exact same way about Wikipedia. (In fact, they are asked!) Sometimes it is not exactly clear where to draw the line, but in most places the answer is clear, i.e. for living languages with rich literatures. The new language policy supports domains for all Wikipedia languages.

As for the orginal purpose of this project, that in itself was debated from the very beginning, as were language domains. You yourself wrote (way back when...) that the only reason for domains is comflicting filenames. That fits with your view of the project as a storehouse for texts, which is more or less equivalent to a storehouse for images. But most others feel (see the discussion and vote) that there are many other much more important reasons for domains, and that texts are not like images because creating and improving them is a language-intensive task. In most languages besides English, especially the smaller ones, they need language-intensive collaboration for typing, proofing, formatting, linking, indexing... For them, WikiSource becomes a workshop for texts. Dovi 23:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

End of moved material

---

MULTILANGUE!

Internet oblige! comme il se doit!

Nonsense vote

The arguments put up are bullshit and the fact that 0-edit votes aren't counted is bullshit.

So please start creating multilanguage subdomains so that people can actually start editing in their own language.

Als ich das erste Mal auf die Seite der Wikipedia kam, laß ich sinngemäß: "Die Antwort auf die Frage: 'Sollte ich das machen' lautet 'Ja'." Ich finde dieses Zitat leider nicht mehr, aber das machte für mich immer den Charakter der Wiki* Projekte aus. Machen, nicht diskutieren. Wichtig ist doch jetzt, daß die Texte unter freier Lizenz gesammelt werden, das Menschen Bücher abschreiben oder einscannen, und wenn sie es lieber auf die eine Art als auf die andere machen, dann sollen sie doch.

Ich persönlich habe eine Weile auf Wikipedia beigetragen, doch sind dort einfach zu viele Leute aktiv, die noch viel besser bescheid wissen als ich, und ich würde mich eigentlich darüber freuen, einem kleiner Projekt beizustehen, bei dem ich eher das Gefühl habe, einen Beitrag leisten zu können.

Leider wird einem das hier vergällt, ich würde ja jetzt gerne das Märchenbuch meiner Oma abtippen, aber diese Vorstellung hier ist einfach lächerlich. Während im oberen Drittel der Diskussion noch Meinungen ausgetauscht wurden, wird zum Ende hin immer deutlicher, daß es hier nicht mehr um eine Sachfrage, sondern um persönliche Profilierung geht.

In Deutschland hatten wir erst vor kurzem wieder eine Diskussion um "Leitkultur"; ich wäre nicht gerne der, der seine eigene Meinung zur conditio sine qua non erhoben hat.

Habt Ihr (das königliche) wirklich schon vergessen, was eine Wiki sein soll? Was die Idee ist?

Translated by Google, I corrected some parts, but i do not want to discuss this matters in english

When I came the first time on the site of the Wikipedia, leave corresponding I: "the answer to the question: ' should I do that ' read 'Do it!' ". Unfortunately I don't find this quotation any longer, but it always constituted for me the character of the Wiki* projects. Do it, do not discuss. (i keep this part to be babylonesque:) That the texts under free license are collected, copies nevertheless now or in scanning is important to humans of books, and if they rather do it in the one kind than on the other one, then are they nevertheless.

I personally contributed for a while on Wikipedia, but there are simply too many people active, which know still much better than I, and I would be pleased actually to assist small projects with which I had rather the feeling to be able to make a contribution. Unfortunately I am not welcome here, I would like to copy the fairy tale book of my granny, but this conception is simply ridiculous.

While in the upper third of the discussion still opinions were exchanged, it becomes ever clearer to the end that it concerns no more a question of substance, but personal shaping. In Germany we recently had a discussion about "guidance culture"; I would not gladly be the one who raised his own opinion to a conditio sine qua non.

Have thou already forgotten, what a Wiki should be? What the idea is?

By the way: The reason I am not logged in is simple: My login manager didn't work here, and I didn't felt like looking for the password I do not remember. Just because Tim wrote but not to include anons or users who have no significant contributions on any other project. I read this like: Go to some other project, and start there as a trainee, then you can come back and ask for forgivness (sorry for being pathetic, but after reading the hole discussion, i simply can't help).

Put a candle in the window as soon as WikiSource's puberty and poverty is overcome.

Sometimes it hurts to be an man.

Sorry, I just started to lough hysterically, so I will come to an end: It was nice to meet you, dear WikiSource, and I truly beliefe in reincarnation. --62.245.160.137 03:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its me again, 62.245.160.137, looks like I've got a totaly different IP today:

Like a child beleaves in santa close, I give you another reason for language subdomains: On my older Laptop (PII500, SuSE 9.1, Mozilla 1.8a6) I waited over 15 Minutes for Mozilla to render the different language glyphes. I didn't realise that yesterday -- I came here via the german Main Page. So there may be a big group of people who will not even know about this discussion, just because they are not interessted in waiting 15 minutes for a page to load. Of course all the regular and hard working guys here never see this problem, so it just doesn't exists, eh? Last week one articel of the day of the german WikiPedia was w:de:Frauenstimmrecht (Schweiz). The male people waited till 1971 to give women the right to vote (and to be elected). And why? Just because the ones who vote are not the ones who want something. How can possibly one group vote on purpuses of another group? w:en:Suffrage#Exclusion on grounds of class

The whole translation thing is a little bit odd, as a historical german translation of e.g. Shakespear may be an original text by itself, but a back translation to english would be somehow strange. But whatever the future may bring: People want to work, so let them go ahead! --82.135.66.96 15:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je trouve ce genre de comparaison assez misérable. Caton 15:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fals du das Frauenwahlrecht meinst, warum? Eine Mehrheit der gesammten Bevölkerung war für das Frauenwahlrecht, aber die Stimmen der einen Hälfte der Bevölkerung wurden nicht gezählt, weil sie nicht abstimmungsberechtigt waren. Hier haben wir auch eine klare Mehrheit, aber der Personenkreis wird nicht ernstgenommen, da er nicht zur Klasse der Stimmberechtigten zählt. Nichts anderes ist es, wenn Menschen nur Wahlrecht eingeräumt wird, wenn sie ein bestimmtes Jahreseinkommen haben (oder einen Wohnsitz). All diese Systeme haben nur einen Sinn: das herrschende System zu schützen und Veränderungen zu verhindern. Entweder man zählt jede Stimme gleich, oder man kann sich die Abstimmung sparen. Mal sehen, was ich jetzt für eine IP habe: --82.135.66.96 17:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Franchement, qu'est-ce qui empêche ceux qui ne sont pas d'accord de prendre un compte, et de s'exprimer ? Depuis le commencement de ce débat, il me semble qu'il était possible depuis longtemps de le faire, et cela est toujours possible ; Heia, quid statis ? Nolint. D'autre part, comparer l'oppression des femmes à ce que tu crois voir sur Wikisource, pour jouer les victimes et assimiler ceux qui ne sont pas d'accord à des oppresseurs qui ne laisseraient aucun droit aux autres, c'est précisemment ce que je trouve misérable. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'en venir à ce genre de propos, qui ne servent d'ailleurs sans doute pas ta cause, surtout par leur caractère insultant. C'est ce genre d'attitudes qui me font hésiter à ne plus m'opposer, alors que je pense maintenant sérieusement à réviser mon vote. Caton 17:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pas la peine de polémiquer à cause d'une comparaison peu judicieuse... celle-ci démontre simplement que dans le système actuel, certaines personnes se sentent rejetées. Elles se sentent rejetées à cause de la manière dont cette affaire a été traitée. Je pense pour ma part qu'Eclecticology n'aurait pas dû s'accorder le droit de vote dans cette affaire, ou alors qu'il aurait dû abandonner son statut de bureaucrate. Il n'y a pas renoncé, et il a voté pour l'option qui lui permettait de conserver un maximum de pouvoir. Quand on est à la fois juge et partie, il ne faut pas s'étonner que les perdants trouvent celà injuste. --ThomasV 17:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je veux bien te croire. Mais il me semble pourtant qu'aucun statut particulier ici, comme sur les autres projets, ne peuvent donner plus de pouvoir, et encore moins si cela concerne des décisions aussi importantes. Enfin, je trouve le déroulement de ce vote assez curieux ; sur la Wikipédia, les i.p. ne votent pas, et, dans certains cas, il faut un certain nombre de contributions. Peut-être faudrait-il établir des règles claires sur Wikisource, car, à ma connaissance, elles n'existent pas vraiment. Il faudrait aussi que ceux qui sont pour se donnent la peine de s'identifier, i.e. s'investissent de manière entière dans ce projet, car autrement cela rend les choses un peu difficiles. Caton 18:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main Page kills Mozilla

Your Main Page kills reproducably my Mozilla! I guess it is caused by lots of different glyphs on this multilingual page. Community protal needs up to 10 minutes to render. The german Main Page opens in less than 30 secunds. So I either buy a new computer or I forget the idea to contribute here.

did you try firefox? on my machine, the 'main page' is indeed a bit slow to render, but I tend not to visit this page. my entry points are the french main page and the recent changes. --ThomasV 07:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can find workarounds, but what happens to People comming to this site and there Browser is shut down (or they have to wait several minutes). And I guess there are many languages not yet represented on the main page (I haven't seen it once). So things are goning to get worse. --82.135.9.22 23:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is mainly a browser problem, so you should update your browser, or find workarounds. But if you request a language subdomain for the sole reason that your browser crashes, you will not be seen as serious. The point is, you need to *contribute* to the site, for your opinion to have some weight. I know it is unfair and antidemocratic, but that's just how it is, and there is nothing I can do about it... So please, log-in and sign your contributions. And vote! And be patient: things will not change overnight. --ThomasV 07:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Languages and Subdomains

(Discussion moved here from the Scriptorium) --18:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but I think it might be wise to revisit the issue, and at least give it some more consideration. We're now the only Wikimedia project which doesn't use language subdomains, and instead uses a tangled system of internal pages to get around that.

What really bothers me, however, is that the present system makes RecentChanges somewhat useless. If I click on RecentChanges on en.wikipedia, I know that I'm going to see fifty edits that I can at least read. Whereas on RecentChanges here, approximately 48 of the last 50 edits are in one of various other languages. It's the same with the last 500 edits - approximately 442 of them are in languages other than English. This makes it very hard to follow new developments in the one language that I do speak, and I imagine it's no different for speakers of other languages.

We already have at least the Germans specifically having requested their own language subdomain, and with the growth of Wikisource since the original decision was made, I really think that time has come. Ambivalenthysteria 22:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cependant, peut-on comparer Wikisource aux autres projets ? Je travaille avec des textes en grec, latin, anglais, allemand et français, et cela découle naturellement, à mon sens, de la nature de ce projet, qui porte sur des textes de différents domaines culturels, et ces textes n'ont aucune raison d'être séparés par des barrières linguistiques artificielles qui ne feront qu'alourdir le travail d'édition. Pour ma part, je n'ai aucun problème pour suivre les modifications récentes. Si c'est là le seul problème qui peut se poser, il serait préférable de trouver des solutions spécifiques pour Wikisource plutôt que de prendre modèle sur des projets différents. Caton 22:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

bonjour Caton. Je ne vois pas bien en quoi le fait d'avoir des sous-domaines t'empêcherait de travailler sur des textes en grec, latin, francais, anglais et allemand. Quant aux avantages, ils sont multiples et ont déjà été enumérés.

Dans ce cas, je suis prêt à changer mon avis, mais je voudrais savoir quels sont ces avantages. Caton 13:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

désolé de répondre si tard (la grippe...). A mon sens le principal avantage serait de permettre à plus de gens de participer: on n'imagine pas à quel point il est nécessaire de maîtriser l'anglais pour participer à wikisource. .. bien sûr il y aurait beaucoup d'autres avantages, comme par exemple la possibilité de choisir des noms de pages appropriés, sans risque de conflit avec une autre langue (pour les auteurs et certaines oeuvres), et la possibilité pour chaque sous-domaine de tester son propre modèle d'organisation, en s'inspirant des autres... Bon, de toutes facons j'ai déjà dit tout ca sur les pages consacrées à ce débat, c'est un peu inutile de se répéter ici... mais peut-être que tu pourrais mieux expliquer pourquoi tu penses que le fait d'avoir des sous-domaines créérait des "barrières linguistiques artificielles"... dans Wikipedia, le fait d'utiliser des sous-domaines permet de placer les traductions d'une page dans la barre de navigation; on pourrait faire la même chose ici pour les traductions d'un texte, ou pour les pages d'auteurs... à mon sens, ca ne crée pas de barrières.--ThomasV 22:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je pensais simplement que Wikisource était un projet où l'on pouvait travailler ensemble dans plusieurs langues. Mais je vois que non, en lisant que certains des opposants tiennent beaucoup à leur langue, et semblent supposer qu'il n'y aurait aucun intérêt pour un lecteur à se trouver confrontré à une autre langue que la sienne. Je me demande donc si les sous-domaines ne contribueront pas à entretenir cette sorte de particularisme. D'ailleurs, quand je lis le pour, je ne vois aucun argument sérieux, et c'est aussi ce qui me pousse à être contre, en tout cas pour le moment. Caton 16:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ambi: not only the Germans have requested subdomain. I made a request for a french subdomain on the page setup by Dovi. However, Caton does not seem to agree on that, so I guess we should not have a french subdomain for now. In contrast, the contributors to the german wikisource are fairly united, and I think that there is no reason to deny them a subdomain.

One big issue is that the current setup refrains me from adding new texts, because I know that the process of moving them to the french subdomain, when it happens, will be a pain; I believe it is more sensible to wait until it happens. I guess that Eclecticology is aware of that too: he knows that the longer language subdomains are delayed, the higher the chances are that they never happen... I do not know how the current situation can be solved, but my feeling is that Eclecticology will never change his mind on that. So the change, if it occurs, will have to be imposed from above...

--ThomasV 08:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be worth raising the issue on meta, and advertising the vote broadly, on Village Pumps and mailing lists, and hooking up with those interested in language Wikisources for .de and others. Ec may be an important member of this project, but he doesn't have a veto over it's every direction. Ambivalenthysteria 08:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit that at first I was not a fan of language subdomains. Now, I think my stance has changed--mostly because of what Ambivalenthysteria already said. When Wikisource was small, the majority of the edits were on the "English version" Wikisource. Now, however, it's grown drastically since then, and more and more edits are in "other language versions." This, of course, is by no means a bad thing, but since I do not know any other languages, being able to edit those pages is virtually non-existent. I would much rather prefer to only see English edits on the "Recent changes" page because it allows me to edit pages I can actually understand. As it currently stands, we have an author section in numerous languages (English, French, German, Italian...) and I think we should take that separation to its logical end and just start creating subdomains. Besides, I think Wikisource would grow even quicker if we did. Zhaladshar 16:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

End of moved material

---