Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-31/News and notes
Discuss this story
I find it kinda weird that the information about Czech Wikipedia was not added to the "Czech Wikipedia" page in the first place. Priorities, guys... Lorem Ip (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone has different ones, you know. And it's a lot easier to report about a news item than it is to incorporate the facts in that item into running text. Powers T 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; e.g., for some, the priority is to read wikipedia and bitch about how sad it is. As for "a lot easier", the only thing "a lot easier" is simply mention the fact, rather than to detail it. But just the same, the "easy text" may be even more easily cut-and-pasted to a more important place (here I assume that creation of encyclopedia is declared to be of utmost importance for the project). No disrespect to the writer of the signpost page; they did a part of job by digging the facts, and I intentionally wrote in passive voice "was not added". The unpleasantly surprizing (for my tastes) part was that nobody else cared about wikipedia's own history to be well-documented by wikipedia. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, not to be flippant, but {{sofixit}}. I'd start with a note on the article's talk page. Powers T 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I actually did first thing after reading Signpost; I added the reference in question into the article, and only then proceeded with bitching. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, not to be flippant, but {{sofixit}}. I'd start with a note on the article's talk page. Powers T 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; e.g., for some, the priority is to read wikipedia and bitch about how sad it is. As for "a lot easier", the only thing "a lot easier" is simply mention the fact, rather than to detail it. But just the same, the "easy text" may be even more easily cut-and-pasted to a more important place (here I assume that creation of encyclopedia is declared to be of utmost importance for the project). No disrespect to the writer of the signpost page; they did a part of job by digging the facts, and I intentionally wrote in passive voice "was not added". The unpleasantly surprizing (for my tastes) part was that nobody else cared about wikipedia's own history to be well-documented by wikipedia. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the effort that is made to create Wikipedia in local or minor languages is worth it. The value that is placed upon having a native language version is overemphasised. How knowledge is conveyed is infinitely less important than what knowledge is conveyed. The foundation should stop wasting money on developing local language Wikipedias for now. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, let them Bantu learn to speak a civilized language; e.g., Chinese, if they hate French. Lorem Ip (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that most languages have a very limited distribution and that the number of languages has been declining for centuries (see Our planet's languages are dying) would that be so bad? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think wikimedia spends more than 0.01% of resources in dying languages compared to efforts in fighting vandals in English. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that most languages have a very limited distribution and that the number of languages has been declining for centuries (see Our planet's languages are dying) would that be so bad? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
← Back to News and notes