Different language, different facts?

[Kim van der Linde]

Is it so hard to indicate in each language version that he was called Jan II in NL, and jean I in FR? This are not the main issue in writing a article, that is what we do all the time.

[Daan]

Good point. International coordination is necessary to cope with this problem. I would like to point out that the english version of an article shouldn't become the example for other languages, which seems to be a normal practise on Wikipedia. Again, i want to adress the necessity of debate.

[Kim van der Linde]

My idea would be that the article is first written in the most logical language (Dutch notables in Dutch, geography of Germany in German, anything local in its local language, science mainly in English), and when worked out, translated to the other languages. In my ideas, there would not be a seperate server for each language, but a holding page with the language variants under it (as /nl, /en, /de, /fr, ...). If someone looks for 'Natural selection', the person is directed there, but if that page in Dutch (Natuurlijke selectie) does not exist, s/he is directed to the holding page that indicates which languages are available (Duits, English, Fries, Francais, ....). This would require to create a series of redirects for specific languages to the holding page, and smart software that recognized that the user is using nl.cz.org and not en.cz.org and thus serves 'Natuurlijke selectie' and not 'Natural selection'..... This would result in much more cooperation across languages which would lead to a multiplyer effect of knowledge.....

[Nicholas Kaye-Smith]

My idea would be that the article is first written in the most logical language (Dutch notables in Dutch, geography of Germany in German, anything local in its local language, science mainly in English), and when worked out, translated to the other languages. In my ideas, there would not be a seperate server for each language, but a holding page with the language variants under it (as /nl, /en, /de, /fr, ...). If someone looks for 'Natural selection', the person is directed there, but if that page in Dutch (Natuurlijke selectie) does not exist, s/he is directed to the holding page that indicates which languages are available (Duits, English, Fries, Francais, ....). This would require to create a series of redirects for specific languages to the holding page, and smart software that recognized that the user is using nl.cz.org and not en.cz.org and thus serves 'Natuurlijke selectie' and not 'Natural selection'..... This would result in much more cooperation across languages which would lead to a multiplyer effect of knowledge.....

What does it matter which server the language is on? Why should an article on a Dutch notable be written in Dutch first if someone is available to write it in English first?
I am in absolute agreement with the general idea of collaboration between languages. We can make sure that the Other Languages box has links to the Article being displayed in a different language even if it doesn't exist - although this might require a bit of coding, in order to specify what the page name should be in that other language - in my mind, this would be done by creating a page like
{{PAGENAME}}/otherlanguages
where the contents of the Other Language box are specified.

[Kim van der Linde]

What does it matter which server the language is on? Why should an article on a Dutch notable be written in Dutch first if someone is available to write it in English first?

Wikipedia is a serie of separate servers, and they have not really any connection. So, they are organized by language. if someone in Eglish is better suited to write the article, it should be written uin English first, but have a look, most articles of national figures are most extended on the wikipedia of their wn language, which is not wierd at all.

[Daan]

The only way to get a national bias out of an article is debating between people of different languages. Someone from a certain culture can't be able to understand his or her own bias if (s)he is not confronted with the opinion of other people of other languages. It could be that these kind of concerns are not very important for medicine or biology, but it is of a prime concern for politics and history related articles.

An example is the article War on Terror on Wikipedia.

On 30 june 2006, the introductionary sentence was: The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (officially the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT"[1]) is a campaign by the United States, NATO members and other allies, with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism.

This was hotly debated. Considerable changes made the article to what it is today: The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT" [1]) is the name used by the United States, initially enlisting the support of NATO members and other allies, for a campaign with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by preventing those groups said to be terrorist in nature from posing a threat, and by putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism.

The German Wikipedia gives a completely different view: Der Krieg gegen den Terror (engl. „War on Terror“) oder Krieg gegen den Terrorismus (engl. „War on Terrorism“) ist ein von der US-Regierung geprägter propagandistisch benutzter Begriff.

Translated in English: The war against terror (engl. War on Terror) or war against terrorism (engl. War on Terrorism) is a by the US government shaped propagandistically used concept.

I don't think that either the German speaking or the English speaking participants would allow that either explanation will be integrally taken over by the other side.

[David91]

The only way for this problem to be addressed is for the configuration of editorial working groups to have convergence between language versions as a part of their brief. Once a group learns that there is substantive divergence, negotiation and translation between the different languages should resolve the problem. This task should be reasonably uncontroversial when the divergence is purely factual, but interpretation is always subject to cultural bias. I assume that it will be the function of the editor-in-chief to arbitrate when one group disapproves of the other's critique and refuses to amend their language version (actually, that is a real question about the resolution of disputes between editorial working groups generally).

[Daan]

That wouldn't work. This means that a group of so called 'experts' can make political statements that counters the dominant stance in the regional media and politics.

In the example of War on Terror, all three sentences are factually correct. There are no lies in it. Which fact is more important than the other can't be decided for by an 'expert' in facts. What the German Wikipedia tells you about the war on terror is what the dominant view is in the German society, media and politics on this subject.

I prefer a solution where all who want to have a say on this subject can have a say, but this needs to be organized. There are several concerns: fraud, respect for different opinions, balance between fact and opinion of the majority, the non-participants. Citizendium could become the world public opinion.

[David91]

Actually, I carefully used the words "negotiation" and "arbitration". Like you, I do not envisage anyone being ordered or forced to do anything by a "higher" power but, if neutrality is one of the goals of CZ, then some degree of balancing between local and international POVs should be aimed for and, thereby, the outcome of transnational consistency of content is maximised. In this, I would expect both or all interested language parties to amend their version(s) to take account of the other(s) POV(s). No one language grouping should be a winner in any sense of the word. Knowledge and understanding should be the winners.

[Daan]

We have a fundamental dissagreement. I don't believe in neutrality and you do.

[David91]

Actually, I am not sure that we do disagree. Your statement, "I prefer a solution where all who want to have a say on this subject can have a say, but this needs to be organized." seems relatively uncontroversial because neutrality admits the legitimate and adequately formulated/sourced arguments of all interested parties. You say, "Citizendium could become the world public opinion." I unreservedly agree that, in order to gain the maximum acceptance around the world, CZ must respect local culture wherever such concession is consistent with the academic rigour of the subject matter being discussed. The only point upon which we might have a disagreement is whether making political statements is encyclopaedic. As both an academic and non-fiction editor in the real world, I have unhesitatingly rejected simple political statements unless they were being quoted in historical context, as an exemplar, say, of a rhetorical device, etc. Making political speeches is not encyclopaedic nor, in general terms, acceptable in a non-polemical environment. Thus, I agree that any attempt to score purely political points to counter a dominant weltanschauung would also be unacceptable.

[Daan]

The communist regime of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s tried to establish a society based on scientifical principles. This didn't work out. Difference of opinion between communist leaders turned into a bloody powerstruggle with only a few survivors. I prefer a more decentralized solution to counter the power of an editor-in-chief. Otherwise, a dogmatic clique will dominate editorial groups dealing with politically sensitive subjects. All political parties and instituties dealing with politically issues are victim of internal strife and factionalism, even the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

[Daan]

I would suggest to you to read this book:
Gray, John, 'Liberalism' (London 1995)

[David91]

We are not talking about running a political organisation, but writing an encyclopaedia that is useful to the largest number of people in different cultures around the world. As of this time of writing, the briefs for the editor-in-chief and other potentially influential people within the organisation structure have yet to be drafted. I have no direct knowledge of what roles and powers each person and group may be given, nor the extent to which there will be any real power to enforce decisions other than through the exclusion of an offending party by a constable if that is deemed an appropriate response in the given situation. In fact, I am not convinced that this debate is actually meaningful at this time unless it is going to discuss what prevailing culture may emerge among the present and future members of CZ. Kim started this thread with the question of what CZ could do to maximise convergence between different language editions. I see no reason why the pool of editors across languages should not be inclined to work co-operatively for the benefit of all readers. I do not share your pessimism that groups of editors are going to declare themselves POV pushers and declare war on other groups that do not agree with them. Let us take an emotive issue: in medical terms, it is possible to describe the physical process of procuring an abortion; in legal terms, it is possible to explain what each state's laws permit or prohibit; it is possible to write descriptions of the main philosophical, ethical and moral arguments for and against abortion which conform to the academic standards of analysis for those disciplines; it is equally possible to analyse the political and religious scenarios as they play out in each state with relevant or appropriate academic rigour. The only time this coverage threatens to become unencyclopaedic is when unsourced opinion is allowed to dominate the content of a given page. Now the relevant group of editors has to decide whether it will allow a subset of polemical pages for each major opinion group to make their assertions and to respond to the views of the other POV contributors. Actually, I think such pages might be quite healthy because they would allow a safety valve for non-encyclopaedic material to be given page space without disrupting the academic coverage. But I would hope that the final outcome would be inclusive of all major aspects of the issue. I see no reason why there should be metaphorical blood spilt on the floor to allow all interested parties a fair hearing on each issue of significance. That this should be translated across languages seems reasonable to ensure the maximum international convergence of content consistent with local cultural sensitivities.

Thanks for the book recommendation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a library at present.

[Daan]

There is nothing wrong with an editor-in-chief, allowing everyone to participate in a debate. The political problem starts with the article. An article has a title and an ordering of words, which dictates that facts can only be represented one after the other. To make a text accesible to a reader, most of the facts should be deleted. I don't agree with you that the decision on the ordering and exclusion of facts in an article should be decided by an elite on subjects related to social sciences.