[wiki] German TextBook section

Skubidu · 2006-04-19 13:01:00

Hello everybody!

There has been a discussion today in the German forum section about the German documentation. There are good German resources und tutorials and we’d like to help getting a better easy to find and easy to read documentation at all. So we would like to join the TextBook, but there are some problems for us:

Is there a possibility to get per language subdomains (e.g. http://de.textbook.net, fr.textbook.net)?
Is there a possibility to translate the navigation, too?
Would it be possible to arrange the structure more clearly (who manages these things in the wiki?)?

By now, everything in the wiki has to be published in english first. I’m not convinced that this is helpful. There are information in different languages but there are not always people with the time to translate their texts to english. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have some parts in the wiki that have to be the same (installation, tag list etc.) and others where the different language sections could do what they want (tutorials).

Many questions – is there anybody with some answers or tips?
Thanks,
Nils

Last edited by Skubidu (2006-04-20 07:04:01)

Destry · 2006-04-19 21:52:21

I like the idea of subdomains as you imply, but not for the reasons you claim (see next paragraph). In any case, it’s not possible without having multiple installations of MediaWiki, one for each subdomain language (which is also the only way to have translated interfaces). MediaWiki functions similar to Textpattern; you can only use one default language at a time. Besides, having a separate install of the monstrous MediaWiki for each desired language would be a logistical nightmare, and simply rediculous. Regardless, Dean is the only one with the ability to create subdomains at textpattern.net, and I doubt very much he wants to load up the domain with a bunch of MediaWiki installs.

Sorry you’re not convinced, but there’s good reason for why TextBook protocols are they way they are (~~and will remain~~), it’s called consistency and equality. TextBook is in English by default because that’s the way Textpattern itself ~~is marketed~~ comes out-of-the-box. When textpattern.com defaults to German, French, Italian, Senagalese or anything else, then TextBook will ~~follow suit~~ switch default accordingly. Until then, English it is. Also, I think your missing the whole point behind having an authoritative, multilingual documentation source; it doesn’t mean creating an unbalance in content because people don’t have the time (more likely desire) to translate, it means people working together to produce mirror copies of the same content so that users of all language abilities have the same resources available to them.

We’re all short on time, but we need to work in parallel, not take off in different directions. If that’s what people want to do, then TextBook isn’t the place.

What is within our abilities to change, and willingness to do, is improve the general navigability of the wiki, really stripping out the unused interface features and revamping things so it’s easier to move around and find things. But this isn’t going to happen by next week, to say the least. I’m not giving any dates, it will happen when it happens, that’s all we can do. Talk is cheap and easy, action is harder to come by. If you think translating an article is time consuming, try stripping down and rebuilding MediaWiki sometime.

Last edited by Destry (2006-04-22 19:10:24)

Skubidu · 2006-04-20 07:36:45

In any case, it’s not possible without having multiple installations of MediaWiki

Wouldn’t it be possible to just forward http://de.textpattern.net to http://textpattern.net/wiki/index.php?title=De/Startseite? And concerning the translated interface: If I switch the language in my account, the interface is translated to my native language. Is it really not possible to do the same with the rest of the navigation?

Sorry you’re not convinced, but there’s good reason for why TextBook protocols are they way they are (and will remain), it’s called consistency and equality. TextBook is in English by default because that’s the way Textpattern itself is marketed.

Well, I understand that and I’m sure you’re right for the main areas of the TextBook. But I think that these protocols are one of the reasons why there isn’t a full German translation yet. There is a huge German community and there are many resources that have grown while TextBook was growing. So if you say: Before you start moving all the stuff to the TextBook you’ve got in German, please translate all the other things to German first. If after that (that will take a long time) you’d like to insert more content you’ve got in German, please translate these texts to English first. I don’t think anything will happen in the TextBook then.

Don’t get me wrong: I like the idea of the TextBook. Our problem is, that we don’t start at zero. But if the protocols of TextBook are that strikt, it’s nearly like that. So my main question is: How to merge two different documentations (different in content and language)? If I listen to what you are saying I think it would be easier for us to keep it separated.

Espresso · 2006-04-20 09:00:16

Destry,

I don’t know whether your posting is based on Skubidu’s posting or on the discussion in the German Support Forum (which – in opposite to Skubidu’s posting – included ideas like a seperate installation). However I have the feeling that we are talking at cross-purposes. So here are – what are in my opinion – the main issues and the background:

The status quo of German Textpattern documentation is that there are many turorials, manuals and references at different places. They are hard to find, are based on different versions and have very different perspectives. It would be a major benefit to have them all in one place and it would be best if this place would be a collaborative place where people could work together on changes.

The Textbook wiki is such a place and it has the same objective: High qualitiy documentation all in one place. So it would be only natural to merge both efforts.

However there are some limitations:

The accessibility of the Textbook is not very good for Germans (especially for those who don’t really speak english and actually need a German documentation). One problem is that neiter http://textpattern.net/wiki/index.php?title=De/Startseite nor “Go to textpattern.net scroll though all that stuff you don’t understand and click on ‘deutsch’” are fortunate solutions to get people there. Having a redirecting subdomain (not another installation of the wiki) would be one (easy to implement) improvement. Having a German translation of the navigation on the left – or as you proposed a stripped down navigation – would be another. In fact even putting the language selection to a more prominent position would be an important improvement.
Especially for the time of transition (from many ressources to one Textbook) it would be a big waste of ressources to abandon all the documentation which is already available. So while I certanly understand the concepts of equality and consistency, I don’t see how having one temporary section like “Properitary Documentation and tutorials only available in this language and somehow inconsistant ;-)” to put existing documentation into (maybe with a big notice about it being not ‘really official’) stands in the way of that.
Some of the most active authors for German Documentation seem to be unhappy with the existing structure of the Textbook. If someone would contribute a lot of English documentation he might simply change it – eventually forcing authors/translators of different languages to adapt translations. If one of the translators had some ideas to improve the structure he could do this for his language, which would be ignored at best and would lead to inconsistency (and woud be against protocol). He could of course simply change the structure of the English part as well, but without the abilities or the time to implement all resulting changes in the English content it would most certainly considered rude and someone would simply undo it. I think one can easily see problems occuring from this inbalance (especially givven that ther are even more languages).

So in my opinion ther are to possible ways to go:

Really work in parallels. This would mean some efforts to inprove accessibility for other languages (as stated above) as well as a organisational differentiation of structure (i.e. the “table of contents”) and the contents. So the main strucure could be discussed between all authors/translators and not be changed on the fly. It would in the case of the German documentation also mean to offer a small corner for existing content (if only not to cease motivation).
Concentrate on the English documentation first. For translations of the Textbook this would eventually mean to wait until the English documentation is sort of perfect as all efforts to translate the documentation now would easily lead to a complelte waste of time (as each major change in the English documentation would lead to a lot of work for all translations to other languages). In this case, those who wanted to create a German documentation would – for now – indeed be better off somewhere else.

I think, that the benefites to really have one place for all languages now outweight the efforts and some limitations in consistency. I especially disagree with the idea of textpattern beeing marketed in English only. Textpattern is marketed in many languages, by many people and not only on textpattern.com.

Please don’t get me wrong, I can easily accept if this is not the way for Textbook to go. We are only a couple of people who want the German documentation somehow centralized somwhere now. And in my opinion, if Textbook is not the place for this, than it is probably to early for a centralized, multilingual documentation and it would be better to start seperate sites for different languages and have some links to these “unofficial” sites.

What do you think? :-)

Edit: BTW, I think the same is true for other languages of course. So I would be happy to hear about chosen “ways” there.

Last edited by Espresso (2006-04-20 09:57:59)

hakjoon · 2006-04-20 12:17:57

Skubidu wrote:
Wouldn’t it be possible to just forward http://de.textpattern.net to http://textpattern.net/wiki/index.php?title=De/Startseite?

We don’t have a way to create http://de.textpattern.net it’s a limitation of the level of access the textbook account has on the server. This might change in the future but right now it’s just not doable.

And concerning the translated interface: If I switch the language in my account, the interface is translated to my native language. Is it really not possible to do the same with the rest of the navigation?

It looks like there is some movement in MediaWiki 1.7 towards treating languages as name spaces which should provide some more consistency between content and UI.

MediaWiki docs make my head hurt.

Last edited by hakjoon (2006-04-20 12:48:07)

Destry · 2006-04-22 15:28:09

For the most part I think we all want the same thing, to centralize documentation in one well-recognized place and improve the usability of the site for all languages; that’s been my position since day one, and anything within our power to do in that direction, we will.

But we need to work out a few things:

First, and as already mentioned, there is no built-in ability in MediaWik yet to manage the interface in multiple languages. I highly recommend that you read this page, Multilngual MediaWiki if you want more understanding.

Second, the idea for redirecting domains is a good one, but as hakjoon made clear better than I, we admins don’t have the ability to redirect — or alias — domains; only Dean has that ability. We can’t even make the change to go from textpattern.net/wiki to textbook.textpattern.net, which is something we’ve wanted to do before. I tried to request this ability from Dean, but for whatever reason it didn’t come to pass. I’ll try contacting him again and make the situation a bit more clear (it could be he was giving me the polite “no” by not actually saying it, who knows).

Third, the protocols, for lack of a better word, were not created to cause barriers to contributions, they were created with good intentions and to keep some semblance of order as new language content was added. Furthermore, the protocols were not pulled out of a hat, they were the result of collective discussion about how to best handle language translations efforts in the wiki (when language abilities were first introduced) so don’t try and paint the protocols as some tyrranical quest of one person.

By extension, here’s what bothers me a little bit about all of this: the ability to work in German in TextBook has been available for a while now, and the door has always been open for suggestions; where were you before? There’s even an appointed person representing the German language interests in the wiki, Andreas, and as far as I can tell you haven’t even bothered to include him in this campaign of yours. Instead, you hold a pow-wow down in the German language forum (and no, I don’t read German, but I see my name coming up quite a bit there lately), and collectively decide without any input from the other language representatives that you…

want your own place in TextBook,
want your own domain name, and
you don’t want to have to translate to English because you don’t have time.

That’s how it all comes across anyway, and again, nowhere do we hear Andreas in all of this (who by the way is also one of TextBook’s image managers).

Don’t get me wrong, I think collectively you have good intentions and some good ideas, and I agree we need to make some changes in the direction you propose. Also, I have no problems with adding content in German first (or any other language), and translating it to English after. In fact, we’ll change the existing protocols here and now to make that more recognized. I just don’t think you guys approached this very well, or with very much respect to the efforts that have already gone into TextBook; it all comes across more demanding and German-centric than it does collaborative and for the community at large.

Here’s what I would propose on everybodies behalf, which can be worked on, but it’s a fair start:

Rather than just make some changes for the German folks only, we put together a documentation working group that represents the interests of every active language, call it the Textpattern International Documentation Working Group (IDWG), and TextBook is the platform. The people that make up this working group should first be the active language reps (LGTs), but the reps can appoint or add anyone they want. David_1cog would also be in this group to lead wiki presentation aspects (styling), whether consistent or different from language to language.
The international team collectively begins thinking how the default interface can be improved to accomodate all language interests, not just English. Some mockups get put together that show various proposals for change. This is a critical stage, you need to think ahead, think about how content is going to evolve and what kinds of site sections will be needed. You also need to consider your language neighbors, not just think about yourselves. Make no mistake, this means communicating with each other and translating information so the wiki’s language partitions are true mirrors of each other and content is available to all. When the committee is formed, of course, the communicating will be easier. Translation doesn’t have to happen simultaneously, certainly not, but you can’t have the attitude that it’s not going to get done because you don’t have the time. That’s what plagues TextBook as it is; people don’t do anything because they don’t have the time. Same goes for interface modifications.
We put a couple more people on the job of development to make the interface changes, otherwise, we may not get anywhere.

I think Espresso makes some good points about it being difficult to keep the wiki consistent from language to language, especially when different languages work at different paces. This will be a challenge to deal with, but not impossible. However, this is not an excuse for going off in different directions; that’s simply not what TextBook is about. The IDWG will need to make it a part of their early objectives to figure out how to communicate documentation evolution among all language groups. What this will rely upon is individual language groups communicating their individual interests, needs, changes, etc to the IDWG early on so adjustments can take place for everyone.

For what it’s worth, here’s a schematic representing the proposed communication process:

Diagram explanation:
TextBook (yellow) is a single install of MediaWiki, effectively the platform. Each language group is an equal voice in shaping the international wiki, and represented as smaller circles around the perimeter (red). The English language group is shown in blue simply because it represents the default interface language of the wiki (it’s the default language of the wiki because that’s the default language of the Textpattern product and site), no other reason; hence, it’s important that any TextBook changes, no matter what language, is represented in the English version since that is the default interface. The purple region represents the International Working Group, made up of language reps who can communicate in at least two languages: their native tongue and English. When an individual group has needs, the rep for that group communicates them to the International Working Group, which then collectively makes decisions for the direction of TextBook as a whole. When a change is made to content or the interface, it is targeted to be made with respect to every language.

What to do at this point

Most likely we need to get some more community eyes on all this, and start getting other language voices heard, starting with the current language leads; perhaps start getting the IDWG formed and communicating, if it’s deemed beneficial at all. There needs to be something down in writing about what direction TextBook should take. If the majority wants it, it will happen.

After that, we should get some mockups together about how we can improve the interface within our power to do so, again, based on all language interests. For example, moving the language link list to a more prominant position like Espresso said is a good idea and would be one thing to represent in a mockup. Also, eliminating any unnecessary links/features. Navigation should also be addressed, I agree…it currently sucks…how can we do it better for all interests? No action will go into development on this until it’s reasonably clear what is needed to begin with.

In the meantime, hakjoon will keep an eye on MediaWiki’s development for having built-in language name spaces (again, see Multilngual MediaWiki), and if/when that becomes available/feasible all languages will take that direction so that each language truly has it’s own name space in the wiki; but again, the objective will be to mirror content.

P.S. If an International Working Group was formed like I propose, they would take charge of the wiki’s direction, and thus future, not me. How’s that for incentive?

Last edited by Destry (2006-04-23 09:04:52)

Skubidu · 2006-04-24 20:51:37

Hi Destry!

This has been a long posting, so I try to reply shortly:
I think it’s a good idea to form an International Documentation Working Group but – concerning your P.S. – I hope you will be one of the leaders of this group.

I think we all want the same: a good and helpful documentation. There are some problems as discussed but I think it’s not that hard to find working solutions. So thanks for this and that.

alexandra · 2006-04-25 08:08:36

I don´t agree concerning the working group. Though it is a nice idea for a company where people get payed for their job, TXP is an OS project and i doubt you get the people together working constantly on TB (see Andreas). People do not have constantly time to provide input into TB.
Don´t mix trade companies and OS projects.

What is needed in my opinion is easy access to contribute information/translation to TB and not another administration. Right now TB is everything else than well organized though very nicely designed recently.

From keeping the only german TXP resource blog i can tell you noone will just translate the english parts of TB. It is simly too boring for people. Even to motivate people to contirbute single informations to the german txp blog is a hell lot of work.

My 2 cents: eventhough the international tb working group sounds like a nice idea, it does not solve the problem: lean and easy access. It is just another administration of people who will tell you soon: no time.

Skubidu · 2006-04-25 08:27:27

eventhough the international tb working group sounds like a nice idea, it does not solve the problem: lean and easy access

In my opinion the working group should be about solving this problem.
What would be your starting point to solve the discribed problem, Alex?

alexandra · 2006-04-25 08:58:09

In my opinion the working group should be about solving this problem.

As i said: that will work in a real world company where you have a project manager and a couple of people with the same goal. Not though in an OS project. People here (esp. Destry) mix up approaches.

What would be your starting point to solve the discribed problem, Alex?

Where ever you go (WP, EE..etc..) you´ll find local solutions (wordpress.de, expressionengine.de..) that has it´s reasons.
I would splitt the TB language sections off the english TB – at least the german and start it on a seperate domain. The current solution is very confusing. I had a look at TB and it would take me hours to understand TP, Wiki language and how and where to contribute. Just too much time consuming for me. And i am already a strong TXP contributer. Imagine someone who will only add one single chapter. No way that will work, my 2 cents.

To me the only comprehensive solution is: lean and easy access in the language the contributer is talking – not more administration.

Again: don´t mix real world companies and OS projects and look for the solutions other OS projects came up with.

Sencer · 2006-04-25 11:10:51

alexandra,
Destry is proposing a system where the people that are later going to do the work of keeping things together will get to decide together on a solution (where quite possibly “lean and easy access” may come out of it). That sounds an awful lot, like the process some people (including you) were proposing in the “back on track” tread. In fact, IIRC you were very specifically mentioning “Documentation” as one of the issues that would be solved by that way of involving people. Change of mind? Or am I misunderstanding you?

It seems (to me) like now you are saying, “dump the whole decision process, I have a solution. It will work best the way I explained it. What you suggest canot possibly work”.
Given that most of the work that did go into Textbook has been by other people (if I understand your explanation correctly; correct me if I am wrong), then I find the way you try to win support for your idea to be a little bit…. alienating (“vor den Kopf stoßend”).

and it would take me hours to understand TP, Wiki language and how and where to contribute.

That won’t be solved by having a seperate Mediawiki installation on a subdomain. You’re still going to have to learn wiki-language and where and how to organize topics, and how and where to contribute. If you want to build something completely seperate (non-wiki), then I am not sure how Destry/Textbook is coming into this?

alexandra · 2006-04-25 12:31:13

Change of mind? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Misunderstanding. The ‘Back on Track Thread’ was written by 3 persons. We collected all issues but documentation was never a strong issue to us (at least not to me and David).

[du kommst immer wieder auf die Dokumentation zurück Sencer – aber den Punkt haben wir damals nur mit aufgenommen, um eine komplette Liste zu haben. kritik daran gab es unsererseits nicht. hier liegt ein großes Mißverständnis zwischen dir und mir vor. Wie gesagt: der Punkt Dokumentation war nur ein (!) Punkt um eine möglichst vollständige Liste zu haben!!]

I find the way you try to win support for your idea to be a little bit… alienating (“vor den Kopf stoßend”)

I was talking from my experiences with the german txp blog etc… – what people will decide is up to them. i just predict: it will not work. sorry if you feel this to be alienating.
Given the fact that most txp useres speak and write perfect english still TB content is little to medium, i am convinced even less foreign language speakers will contibute to TB. Look at the french part. Wasn´t it mainly Davids work, energy .. etc.. (and David was trained english in Cambridge).

Anders ausgedrückt: so wie TB jetzt organisiert ist, ist es viel zu undurchsichtig für Leute die nicht gut engl. sprechen und schon gar nicht die WIKI language sich da hinein zu arbeiten. David hat das gemacht. Er war damals hochmotiviert und perfekt in englisch.

Es muß einen Grund geben warum viel größere Communities als TXP lokale Lösungen umgesetzt haben.

There mus be a reason why other much bigger communities than TXP is set up lokal domains and resources. Destry is american and speaks perfect english – but living in france he perfectly knows how exhausting it is to communicate in another language. In fact he once wrote in his blog: he never will learn and communicate in french.

You underestimate language influence and community size.

Last edited by alexandra (2006-04-25 12:33:10)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#1 2006-04-19 13:01:00

[wiki] German TextBook section

#2 2006-04-19 21:52:21

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#3 2006-04-20 07:36:45

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#4 2006-04-20 09:00:16

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#5 2006-04-20 12:17:57

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#6 2006-04-22 15:28:09

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#7 2006-04-24 20:51:37

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#8 2006-04-25 08:08:36

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#9 2006-04-25 08:27:27

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#10 2006-04-25 08:58:09

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#11 2006-04-25 11:10:51

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

#12 2006-04-25 12:31:13

Re: [wiki] German TextBook section

Board footer