CZ:Proposals/Internationalisation sandbox

This proposal has not yet been assigned to any decisionmaking group or decisionmaker(s).
The Proposals Manager will do so soon if and when the proposal or issue is "well formed" (including having a driver).
For now, the proposal record can be found in the new proposals queue.

Complete explanation

We have already decided that having international CZs is long term goal. There have been many requests for CZ pilots to begin in other languages, but so far nothing has gotten off the ground. Inasmuch as 1) we are losing competent authors whose first language is not English but 2) we do not have the time, personnel or expertise to begin complete CZs in other languages, I propose a sandbox type setup in which those who will can go ahead and begin articles in other languages, but these will be hidden from public view until a bona fide project can be set up in that language. Note that unlike the "sandbox" we have now, these drafts would not be discarded when the user signs off.

Reasoning

There is a whole Forum board devoted to internationalisation http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,21.0.html but nothing concrete has come of it, despite repeated requests and much discussion. We are losing the expertise of authors and editors whose first language is not English. We have a wiki page where people are listing the languages in which they are competent. CZ:International We have no one workspace for internationalisation, discussions are fragmented, newbies join and raise the same already-discussed issues again. If nothing else, this will help eliminated frustration and will be a positive, concrete and proactive step in the right direction. People can work in other languages without pressure and, because the drafts will be invisible, we will not risk ridicule if the standard of the foreign-language CZ is not up to that of the English-language CZ at the outset.

Implementation

We would need a technical person to tell us if this is feasible, can we section off a portion of the wiki for foreign-language articles and make it invisible to the public. Will there be one space for all, or a separate space for each.

We will need to decide what language(s), and the minumum numbers of authors at what expertise level will be required to open a wikispace in that language. Can people work without editors, or must there be at least one (or more) qualified editors fluent in the language?

Discussion

Thank you!

In my opinion not many people will be active on a private wiki (non public articles) and such an approach will not help bootstrap it by exposition to potential contributors.

The Citizendium project has a favor for English. This is quite understandable given its origins and not a problem for me. Moreover some prominent contributors seem to fear that editions in other languages may be of poor quality, probably due to some lack of peer-review. Therefore I suggest launching a French version, as French seems to be just behind English when it comes to languages among CZ contributors (I'm proposing because I can help), and only if at least a few (3?) respected CZ contributors accept to form an editing committee validating each new article or maybe (that's up to them) each revision (version of an article). To avoid reinventing anything this Fr edition will proceed under the rules of the English CZ. Contributors will be encouraged to create new articles as well as to translate and complete English articles.

Please note that P. Gross already asked a pertinent and concise question and, AFAIK, did not receive any answer. By trying to understand I came to the conclusion that a French edition may help Nat Makarevitch 03:48, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Patrice's question was: "Could you define what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to create the "Citizendium en Français", as well as the delay to implement it, as soon as all the conditions are fulfilled?"

(I for one can't stand switching back and forth between loading pages)

My response is that that's what we're trying to decide here, Nat!

Aleta Curry 16:19, 15 February 2008 (CST)

I would contribute to a German sandbox. As I am just writing up my Ph.D. thesis in computer science, I am planning to become a computer science editor in the near future. So there would be at least one Editor for the German sandbox. As I don't think that we should have only one such sandbox (French) and as there are some German natives on CZ:International, I propose a German one. Let's get started! -- Alexander Wiebel 05:46, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Woohoo! Great news, Aleta! Finally there would be a proper place for User:Yuval_Langer/he_bacteriophage to live in! Yuval Langer 08:25, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, well, I wish I could understand that, I'm sure it's a great read. This may sound strange to you, but I can only read a few simple Hebrew words in handwriting. I never learned to read typeface. From the truth-stranger-than-fiction department. Aleta Curry

I support a sandbox version for French authors in an invite only system to see how and indeed if it works. In other words, the only people involved should be the people who have expressed interest, and others must be invited to add to the sandbox, at least until a solid system is established around it. Denis Cavanagh 08:55, 15 February 2008 (CST)

At the moment I think that supporting additional languages wouldn't be an wise investment of resources. We should first focus our energy on building the English one. Christian Kleineidam 12:28, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Count me in for Citoyendium - le compendium citoyen. (le Citizendium français - - le Citizendium de la francophonie - le Citizendium francophone). I agree with Nat Makarevitch that a sandbox-only Fr-CZ will lack the appeal that wikis usually have. The authoritative nature of CZ in general and of approved articles in particular should guide us; approved articles translated to any language should be speedily published. My sub-proposal would be: Create an Eduzendium «fork» devoted to the translation of En-CZ to Fr-CZ, Ge-CZ, and, of course, chinese-CZ ;). All over the world, translation students long to develop their skills in real-life situations. CZ approved articles are amongst the most appealing texts that one can find on the web. (And I know firsthand how difficult it is for teachers to find suitable texts that students will want to translate.) As a CZ author, I would be proud to contribute to the translation of some of those approved articles, such as Life (NB: another revision is under preparation). All this being said, sandbox articles are a realistic solution to keep non-EN contributors. These contributors should be encouraged to find candidate translators and translation schools in their linguistic community to facilitate, via this Eduzendium «fork», the translation of their work to CZ's mother tongue, English, in an effort to join forces, beyond language barriers. We cannot picture an authoritative CZ that would have as many different CZs as there are CZ language versions. The cross-language debates in CZ will bring nice surprises. Such a system would also attract scholarly interest and sympathy from intellectuals in various fields where the "Babylon problem" is well understood (linguistics, sociology, etc.) Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:34, 15 February 2008 (CST)

I also agree with Nat Makarevitch, a private wiki would be of little use for internationalisation. I don't need CZ to write some articles on the subjects I'm interested in and keep them private. No incentive at all therefore for those who want so share their knowledge with the rest of the world. I'd advocate instead the launch from the start of one or two projects such as a German or French CZ. I'm pretty sure we can find some users with the technical knowledge to set up the framework quite effectively. I can help at least on that. Wikis such as Wikipedia were also launched with only a few users, we shouldn't be afraid of doing the same! --Quentin Michon 14:24, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, I quite understand your position. My concern is:

• would CZ be mocked/publicly ridiculed if the international CZs did not reflect the same high standards as the English-lanugage ones? Not that the individuals aren't competent, I'm not suggesting that, but because of fewer copy editors, content editors at the highest academic levels, high-level translators and grammarians, enough peer review, that sort of thing.
• Would having a required minimum number of editors to launch in a given language, as Nat has suggested, solve the problem?
• Would apologia/disclaimers "this is an experimental project and may not yet reflect the same standard of en.CZ" blah blah or some such, do the trick, or would people consider that an insult?
• Is that type of quality assurance necessary, or immaterial?

Aleta Curry 16:55, 15 February 2008 (CST)

I support the development of some international pilots. Am willing to contribute as an author/translator in French as a pilot project (and probably just as a reader in the German version--has been a while since I have lived in Germany and my lack of exposure to this language in recent years would probably mean I need to brush up my skills). I agree with Pierre-Alain's statement above that well-written Citizendium articles would make wonderfully challenging translation exercises for willing students.

• Would editors in an international pilot be 'editors' in a subject specialisation, or will we also need experts in linguistics/translation to step in and play an overseeing role? Do we have enough international editors to be able to fork their duties into watching over different disciplines, or in the beginning should we also have native speakers / highly qualified translators and linguists to oversee translation efforts in areas where we don't have subject specialist editors?

As the international projects develop I can envision a similar editors = qualified subject specialist / authors = interested and engaged contributors system developing, but I note that a lot of the people who have put down their initial interest are non-native speakers (like myself). While I am more than happy to contribute to a pilot as an author, as a non-native speaker, I'd be willing to defer to linguistic experts as well as subject experts.

• I also think that a private wiki would help for initial development; to see if we have enough registered authors willing to pitch in and contribute before making it public.
• Having written these points I can see Christian's concern that this will deplete our resources and that we should focus on developing the English language version. Still, I think a pilot program to test this feasibility is worth trying, and public awareness that we are actively working on internationalisation might help with recruitment.

In response to Aleta's questions just above:

• Public scrutiny and criticism of international CZ's may not be a bad thing. There are always PR issues to manage when a project sets out to achieve high standards, but in the lack of registered foreign language authors and editors, actually having the project out there will hopefully attract people willing to help.
• Required minimum of editors: see my thoughts above as to exactly what role these editors will play in a pilot/development setting.
• Disclaimers: Drafts in CZ-en have disclaimers; I think if we manage to move articles to the 'approved' status then it would have had the same amount of quality checking.
• I think that some sort of quality assurance, particularly for approved articles in an international CZ, may be necessary, if only because CZ is marketing itself as an authoritative source and readers will have the expectation that it will be.

Louise Valmoria 17:58, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Firstly, let me say how exciting it is to get some discussion of international versions off the ground.

• I'm inclined towards a private wiki initially - because it would be best if the people who start it are existing contributors who therefore understand the way it works. This will avoid a lot of disputes. I also think that in the medium to long term it will have a positive effect on the English CZ, rather than diluting it: people coming in to one version of Citizendium may be supported by a version of the page in their own language, i.e. I think there are many people who for various reasons will want to read and contribute to both.
• Are we going to go down the Wikipedia road of having international versions with different rules? For example, one of the reasons that the English Wikipedia is so big is not just because English is an international language, but because they have relatively looser rules on contributions. The Japanese Wikipedia, by contrast, doesn't allow articles on private citizens, and other versions have their own local rules. I feel that this sort of thing would be a recipe for disaster: we should have the same rules applying to each wiki.
• A suggestion: it's certainly the case that people keep asking about a version of Citizendium in their own language. Perhaps it would be a good idea for now to have a page with the same short message in as many languages as we can rustle up, informing people that Citizendium is English-only but movements are afoot to launch in other languages.
• A final suggestion: translation. Perhaps we could simply copy all the English pages to the new wiki to start with. This gives the contributor an extra choice alongside starting from scratch and importing a Wikipedia page: they could opt to translate the English version, replacing it paragraph by paragraph. These 'hybrid' articles would be clearly tagged as such, with an appeal for translation. Not only would this up the page count, but it might also help to avoid the serious problem of international versions making completely contradictory claims (e.g. over who invented the telephone!). John Stephenson 23:35, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Tally

(feel free to help maintain and change this section)

Yeas Nat (French) Alexander (German) Yuval (Hebrew) Denis (language not specified) Aleta (language not specified) Pierre-Alain (French) Quentin (French, German) Louise (French, Spanish) John Stephenson (French)

Nays (please say why) Christian (not feasible; too much depletion/dilution of resources) Warren Schudy (Not worth the distraction.)

Keep it private Denis (language not specified) (suggests participation by invitation initially) Aleta (language not specified) Pierre-Alain (French) (as a compromise; prefers public) Louise (French, Spanish) (prefers public in the long term, but can envision an initially private system to gauge interest and participation from existing registered authors) Warren Schudy (initially private as a pilot.) John Stephenson (ditto)

Make it public (please say why) Nat (French) (private space will not be useful; it will not attract contributors; no growth) Pierre-Alain (French) (ditto Nat, but believes private space is a realistic compromise Quentin (French, German) (ditto Nat, no point to private space, we don't need that, in essence it wouldn't change where we are now. Should not be afraid to start small.)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined