Different language, different facts?

[Kim van der Linde]

I am going to stir up another hornets nest. At wikipedia, what you get presented as the 'truth' (tm) varies by language version. The phylogeny of the parrots for example differs between the German, english Dutch and French versions, just to mention something (correct academic answer, in turmoil). The Jaguar has 8 subspecies in some languages, and none in other languages (correct academic answer, no subspecies anymore). How is CZ going to deal with that?

[Peter Hitchmough]

I am astonished! I did not know that facts were so variable as they travel through languages. 

How delightful. How frustrating.

Sorry for the information-free posting.
-Peter

[Kim van der Linde]

This ties in with the idea, what do we want with CZ? What is the goal? Do we really want to have a series of experts in different languages doing the same thing over and over again?

[Peter Hitchmough]

You are suggesting that there is a need to be consistent between language variants. That seems reasonable.
How would CZ do that?

If we allow editing of the Wiki by authors in their own language, how would CZ keep consistency accross languages?
Aren't editors/experts in the same situation?

It's an interesting challenge. Other RW publications often make one version, then use translators with some local editing - I think, but their authors are largely working in one master languge edition.

-Peter

[Larry Sanger]

Hi Kim, I agree with Peter: you seem to be making the claim that there should not be variation among different languages.  Well, what's your argument for that?  And what's your proposal for making it happen?

--Larry

[Kim van der Linde]

Yes, I make the claim that the Jaguar does not have subspecies in one language while in the other language the Jaguar does have subspecies. There is only one single current state of the scientific knowledge on that.

I raise the issue now, because this is a frequently overlooked issue with Wikipedia. However, with your plans as at current Larry, there is no way arround. I just wanted to have it raised so that people are aware of the issue.

I do have an idea how to solve this, but that is intimitely connected with my ideas about how to make content, and as such not suitable for citizendium.

[Larry Sanger]

I'm still not sure what the argument is.  Are you actually making the argument that there should be one CZ project in many translations, because Wikipedia has articles with different facts?

Kim, what do you mean when you say, "I raise the issue now, because this is a frequently overlooked issue with Wikipedia. However, with your plans as at current Larry, there is no way arround."  There is no way around what?  You seem to think that there is something we will not be able to do, on my plans at present.  What is it that you think we will not be able to do?

"I just wanted to have it raised so that people are aware of the issue."  There are zillions of issues one might raise.  Believe me, we are aware of many issues that have not even been raised once.  More interesting is an attempt at a solution, or at least a suggestion.

[Kim van der Linde]

Larry, don't you see that if CZ in langauge A says it is such as so, and CZ in language B says it is not that way but the opposite, that CZ has a problem (just like wikipedia)? Yes, my personal ideas of how to come to a authorative encyclopedia is that there will be translations with one master version.  The master version language would be variable per topic, a Dutch author in my idea is more likely to be written in Dutch first, and English or German or... second. However, this requires relative stable versions, and this I have to come back to my original idea of a protected public page and an open /draft page.

[Serge Soudoplatoff]

There are well know exemple of this, just reading Microsoft Encarta, and HIV virus.

The US version used to quote Gallo as the one who discovered it, while the French version talked only about Luc Montagnier, in Paris 

Even outside Encarta, same things apply for who was the first aviator, who created photography, etc..

Common knowledge is not that easy 

[Daan]

I'm still not sure what the argument is.  Are you actually making the argument that there should be one CZ project in many translations, because Wikipedia has articles with different facts?

Kim, what do you mean when you say, "I raise the issue now, because this is a frequently overlooked issue with Wikipedia. However, with your plans as at current Larry, there is no way arround."  There is no way around what?  You seem to think that there is something we will not be able to do, on my plans at present.  What is it that you think we will not be able to do?

"I just wanted to have it raised so that people are aware of the issue."  There are zillions of issues one might raise.  Believe me, we are aware of many issues that have not even been raised once.  More interesting is an attempt at a solution, or at least a suggestion.

This problem has serious consequences indeed. In english countries, science excludes history and philosophy. In the Netherlands and Germany, this is differently. History can be reffered to as 'geschiedswetenschap' and philosophy as 'filosofische wetenschap'. This implies that these studies are automitically part of 'wetenschap' (dutch word for science). The implication is that the article science or history of science can't be translated to the articles 'wetenschap' or 'Wissenschaft'. There are numerous of other subjects where language is subjective. This is an important aspect of scientific knowledge for the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and for French social scientists. In France, etymology is a central aspect of social science. These scientists trace back the first usage of terminology and write history on the different definitions and usages of terms. According to Michel Foucault, all language is political.

Because of this aspect of language, it is important to discuss knowledge and not blindly take over the contents of literature. Or even worse, just making up a story, what frequently happens on Wikipedia.

[Daan]

Or what about the word liberal. In the Netherlands, liberals are right-wing and socialists left-wing. In the USA liberals are left-wing and socialists belong to the liberals. I had multiple problems with the concept of liberalism on Wikipedia during confrontations with other users.

[Peter Hitchmough]

Kim illustrates one problem: facts are being written that disagree between language variants. Only one version is good = the best or most accurate.

Daan illustrates a two more problems:
1) words do not have 100% overlap in meaning between language variants.
2) edifices of knowledge are constructed differently in different cultures and languages.

I think they are different issues. Kim's problem is easier to fix in theory: agree on the correct state of the art facts and distribute that fact to other versions. Daan's problems are harder.

Daan's (1) and (2) imply:
3) more than translation from one language to another is required - some editing in each culture is needed. Does that make sense?
4) the editions will be different in content and structure between language variants - if they are going to contain the same facts and constructed knowledge.

-Peter

[Kim van der Linde]

There are facts, and there is how you present them. A good translator knows how to deal with those differencers in language. Where I am concerned about is the naked facts. Those that are not language sensitive (The Jaguar does not have subspecies, regardless of the language).

As for Daans example, it is a perfect example of how an article (about science in this case) should clarify the differences across the world in usage of that term. Liberal is just another word and if placed in the full spectrum, both the US and the Dutch usage are correct, and that is what the article about liberalism should clarify.

A good model for internationalisation will resolve much of country/language oriented issues that opne preferebly would like to avoid.

[Peter Hitchmough]

Kim -

I hope that we agree more than you think.

(The Jaguar does not have subspecies, regardless of the language).

That is the accepted fact today. If that is the agreed statement then that factual statement should be corrected on all versions where an untrue statement was made. There is nothing to discuss. You brought up the Jaguar and I am agreeing with you.

As for Daans example, it is a perfect example of how an article (about science in this case) should clarify the differences across the world in usage of that term.

Yes. Liberalism means different things, and these differences can be described accurately in say English and Dutch. However, there is an overall US bias in many articles. Liberalism in the US is different to that in the UK (plus it is the name of a political party and movement). There needs to be room for the ambiguous definitions. Agreed.

Science: So would you like it that both versions contain an explanation on the interplay of 'science' and 'wetenschap'. The etymology is its own subject and intimately involved with the concrete knowledge contained in an article on a related subject in English or Dutch.

Either 1) every difficult article in "Science" contains a dual explanation in both English or Dutch, 2) the articles contain a (link to) a brief explanation of the language/culture problem, or 3) the english and dutch Citizendium are two separately edited publications, or 4) no explanation is given and the content is no good for one or other culture.

[Daan]

It depends on the subject wether articles should be nearly equal in different languages or that cultural differences implies a major difference in an article. To give two examples:

- Hard scientific knowledge about the jaguar could be the same in every language and should be described as is normal practise among scientists.

- In the case of liberalism, there could be two sections of an article. One about the global appearance of liberalism throughout history, a section which could be the same in any language. Another section which is more culturally specific. It would be normal in an English article on liberalism not to give much attention to liberalism in The Netherlands, Belgium, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles, while for the Dutch article, local liberalism in Dutch speaking regions of the world could get a prominent place. Another possibility is to make the English article on liberalism completely different to the Dutch version.

- Another example: Count John II of Dutch speaking Holland was also count John I of French speaking Hainaut. Should it be possible to call him Jan II in a Dutch article and Jean I in a French version?

I think it would be impossible, if Citizendium becomes a succes, to enforce that all articles have an international perspective. Therefore the regional identity will be to strong.