Different language, different facts?

[geni]

If there are a lot of Russian experts to write it, that is great, write in Russian. But if there is a good article in English and do not have a version in Russian, translate it. Do you want to see a lot of articles in English CZ and few in others languages as it happens in WP?

Wikipedia has more articles not writen in english than it has writen in english

[Kim van der Linde]

O, you want the translators to wait till someone finally makes the english version, while a bunch of russian writers want to write it?

If there are a lot of Russian experts to write it, that is great, write in Russian. But if there is a good article in English and do not have a version in Russian, translate it. Do you want to see a lot of articles in English CZ and few in others languages as it happens in WP?

I would just pragmatic, and go from the language that would most likely result the quickest in a good article.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

If there are a lot of Russian experts to write it, that is great, write in Russian. But if there is a good article in English and do not have a version in Russian, translate it. Do you want to see a lot of articles in English CZ and few in others languages as it happens in WP?

Wikipedia has more articles not writen in english than it has writen in english

Since CZ's primary launch is in English, we likely have a lot higher English:Non-English ratio.

[River]

I would just pragmatic, and go from the language that would most likely result the quickest in a good article.

If you think so, only polyglots will be able to use CZ.

[huetes]

DE: Die Artikel sollen in CZ in verschiedenen Sprachen den gleichen Inhalt haben. Als Schlüssel-Sprache muss Englisch dienen. Änderungen in einer Sprachversion folgen Änderungen in der Schlüsselsprache. Der gleiche Inhalt in unterschiedlichen Sprachen sollte gesichert werden. In WP sind die Unterschiede zum gleichen Sachverhalt oft sehr groß. Dies muss in CZ verhindert werden.
Eine direkte Übersetzungsmaschine in CZ würde mir gefallen. Es wird nach der Übersetzung nur noch ein Lektor benötigt.

E: The articles are to have same contents in CZ in different languages. As keys-language must serve English. Changes in a language version follow changes in the key-language. Same contents in different languages should become secured. In WP are the differences to same circumstances often very large. This must be prevented in CZ.
A direct translation machine in CZ would please me. (This translation makes a machine here for me. ) After the translation is a lector only needed.

[Kim van der Linde]

I would just pragmatic, and go from the language that would most likely result the quickest in a good article.

If you think so, only polyglots will be able to use CZ.

To the contrary, it probably is going to result faster in a full set of articles.

[River]

To the contrary, it probably is going to result faster in a full set of articles.

I do not think so, and I agree with Zach.

Since CZ's primary launch is in English, we likely have a lot higher English:Non-English ratio.

So, We do not have to wait for non English speaking experts start the articles that are done in English, but they may modify.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

E: The articles are to have same contents in CZ in different languages. As keys-language must serve English. Changes in a language version follow changes in the key-language. Same contents in different languages should become secured. In WP are the differences to same circumstances often very large. This must be prevented in CZ.
A direct translation machine in CZ would please me. (This translation makes a machine here for me. ) After the translation is a lector only needed.

E:  Direct machine translations will require a human to go over them to remove the silly mistakes.  Also, translators have a hard time with technical words.  My German teacher worked briefly for NATO, and he said that they had to learn dozens of new words per week to cover technical details.  Machinical translation will have the same problem.

DE:  Direkte maschinelle Übersetzungen erfordern einen Menschen, über sie hinauszugehen, die dummen Fehler zu entfernen. Auch Übersetzer haben eine harte Zeit mit technischen Wörtern. Mein Deutsch-Lehrer im Schule arbeitete kurz für NATO, und er sagte, daß sie Dutzende der neuen Wörter pro Woche erlernen mußten, um technische Details zu umfassen. Machinical Übersetzung hat das gleiche Problem.

[Daan]

O, you want the translators to wait till someone finally makes the english version, while a bunch of russian writers want to write it?

If there are a lot of Russian experts to write it, that is great, write in Russian. But if there is a good article in English and do not have a version in Russian, translate it. Do you want to see a lot of articles in English CZ and few in others languages as it happens in WP?

I would just pragmatic, and go from the language that would most likely result the quickest in a good article.

That will not work in every instance. The article on Friesland can't be made by Frisians, because there is hardly any literature in Frisian. Half of Friesland is in the Netherlands and the other half in Germany to put it roughly. This means that an article on Friesland needs a cooperation of both Dutch and German participants before it can be translated in other languages.

On Wikipedia, i saw that the article on John Stuart Mill uses English literature on the English Wikipedia, German literature on the German Wikipedia and French literature on the French Wikipedia. John Stuart Mill was British, so it would be good to have English as the main language for translation. However, John Stuart Mill had lots of influence on liberalism all over the world, including in Germany and France. So, it would be better to start an international debate on this subject as well, instead of simply translating the article.

I followed a course on the history of Germany for my study and the handbooks were written in English. This has nothing to do with the lack of knowledge of the German language. The students in the Netherlands are obliged to know German. For a literature exam on Fin de Siecle Germany, i had to read 1,800 pages in German and 200 in Dutch. The main reason for using the English handbooks was the controversy between right-wing and left-wing historians in Germany. The handbooks written by English marxist historians who tried to prove that Germany didn't had a Sonderweg were of a better quality according to my teacher.

Integral translation from English to other languages can have enormous problems. Translations from one western language to the other could have no particular problems. Integral translations from English to non-western languages could pose a major problem. An article in one language doesn't have to be the same as the article in another language. Organized interlingual debate can ensure that articles in different languages have the greatest resemblance possible.

To conclude, I prefer interlingual debate above translations.

[River]

E:  Direct machine translations will require a human to go over them to remove the silly mistakes.  Also, translators have a hard time with technical words.  My German teacher worked briefly for NATO, and he said that they had to learn dozens of new words per week to cover technical details.  Machinical translation will have the same problem.

Only a person who have knowledge about a field is able to translate an article about it.

Integral translation from English to other languages can have enormous problems. Translations from one western language to the other could have no particular problems. Integral translations from English to non-western languages could pose a major problem. An article in one language doesn't have to be the same as the article in another language. Organized interlingual debate can ensure that articles in different languages have the greatest resemblance possible.

Some articles should not be translated any way.

[Kim van der Linde]

To conclude, I prefer interlingual debate above translations.

What yo say is perfectly reasonable, and needed for situation as you indicated. So, those experts come to one basic article, in a language they agree on after which it is translated to other languages like hindi.

[Tom]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think you are misunderstanding some of the founding principles:

1.  CZ will be a wiki with gentle expert guidance.  There will not be a panel of experts that writes an article in a source language and then translates it to other languages.  All languages will groow as resources are available, with expert guidance.

2.  CZ will not have the same content across languages.  Rather, it should have the same facts across languages.  Editorial decisions will establish these facts and policies for aritcles and subjects, and the various languages will need to abide by the same editiorial content decisions, whether that means translation or merely compliance.

Tom

[Kim van der Linde]

it should have the same facts across languages.  Editorial decisions will establish these facts and policies for aritcles and subjects, and the various languages will need to abide by the same editiorial content decisions, whether that means translation or merely compliance.

Until now, I do not see a mechanism that is going to get down to that.

[River]

CZ will not have the same content across languages.

I think that the most articles have to have the same content, specially scientific ones.

I believe the best way to start CZ in others languages is with translation. Most of people will work in English CZ. There are people from all over the world in English WP and it will happen with CZ too.

[Sergio Luis]

I had an experience on this question of translated/original articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. When I joined it, I started working on the Geological Timescale, but I found the articles on this subject a mess. I checked the English Wikipedia for a guidance, and realised that a substantial part of the "messness" on the subject in PT WP was just imported from the EN WP, by translators who assumed the information in English was acurate, when in fact it had many flaws by that time.

So, I had to ignore the articles in English and to write new articles and rewrite old ones in Portuguese, according to the  most recent Stratigraphic Chart of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). I created tens of stubs on the subject and I've been watching them since, to ensure they will remain in good order, as contributors add information to them.

Later, someone(s) did to the Geological Timescale category in EN WP the same thing I did to the corresponding one in PT WP, remaking it accordingly to the official chart of the IUGS. But, as there are far more contributors to the EN WP then to the PT WP, the articles in English quickly developed, while the ones in PT WP remained mainly stubs. So, nowadays it will be better if someone(s) translate(s) the articles on the subject from English to Portuguese...

What I'm tryng to show with this small example is that there should not be a generic rule imposing that the CZ in other languages must or must not be simply a translation of CZ in English. There will surely be occasions when a translation from English (or any other language) will be the better way, but many others when authors in other languages will do better if they start their articles independently. I think this is something the editors of the several CZs should treat on a case-by-case basis.