User talk:Yossef/Sandbox1/Archive1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: These were the comments/feedbacks made from the staff for a proposal.

Mikado282's comments

Well, opposition to this idea is not jumping up and down in my mind.

But, it is radical. I think caution is warranted.

"Many" is not quantified. I would like to see a reply with an estimate, and maybe a list, of how many locs to which this applies.

I imagine a potential for a rash of self-nominations from loc as there is human bias for overaprisal of one's contributions, more so with a shiny cap in the offing.

The paragraph under the Solution heading seems unnecessarily hypey, resembling in style something like a Cosmetic description. ("Gee, I wish my translation loc was less active; that one guy is so lucky.")

Is there a statute of limitations? Is there any concern for those who were major "lone translators", long ago? It is probably best to make it tough love; that is, limit self-nominations to currently active translators.

Expect maybe a rush of new self-nominations over the next year? Any initiation of this must make abundantly clear the general level of quality and quantity expected of translators for Wiki Cap. There will be a real tendency to quickly read the "self-nomination" part, so the part about self-nomination should be embedded within details of expectations for translators.

Communicate to these translators that reviewers expect to see older pages kept up to date (or caught up).

Communicate to the lone translators that cosmetic translations are considered easy and cheap. Some translations of bigger pages are expected.

Even where there is only one active translator, some leadership/collaboration is expected. The worthy lone translator, if nothing else, works with consideration for the lone translators to follow. This could be shown by updating translation progress charts that are out-of-date.

Please check the IRC for my answer. Yossef • Talk 05:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Even with the proposed special priviledges for lone translators there is still the question of community interaction.

IMO, lone translators of Wiki Cap calibre would actually seek out translators in other languages and collaborate with active English editors and staff.

Inactive Loc Monitoring Project

Staff should, first, (even before opening self-nomination) identify, agree on, and list what are the inactive languages, then, second, divy up those identified inactive languages and occasionally investigate for any active lone translators.

M I K A D O 282 🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃 🎃🎃 🎃🎃 (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 02:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Answered in the irc channel. Yossef • Talk 10:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dereko's Comments

While I appreciate to idea to pay attention to those lone translators, since I used to be one of them, such privileges may result in unwanted results.

Rather than on judging if a translator have meet the standards to have such rights to nominate themsleves, I believe we can certainly spend the efforts on locating & noiminating such editors ourselves - additional process like determining whether a certain number of members in a loc team are considered to be active or not, is a thankless work to me, especially given that the activity of a loc team could be unstable.

I also concern the other editors who are not contributing in translation will find the policy unfair to them, provided they even couldn't gain the identity as a translator in a short time after 1 year's contributing on something else.

The prohibition of self-nomination must have been decided after careful consideration, we should be considerate as well.

11:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I answered on Steam, and uploaded the screenshots in the irc. Yossef • Talk 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was very much aware that potential abuse could quickly become an issue. You still need to remember that we, the staff, first have to determine whether the nominee is eligible for nomination, and if not, then we simply veto the nomination on those grounds. To combat the likelihood of abuse or ineligible candidates, I've thought of putting up an edit notice on the nominations page, that both state that users are not allowed to nominate themselves, with the exception of translators in inactive localization teams that are eligible, and link the criteria.

As Yossef already stated in the IRC, the staff unfortunately aren't active enough or don't take up the initiative to nominate users. Staff members can nominate users, but rarely (if ever) do so, likely because they are afraid of affecting the nomination. But regardless, it would be a lot easier for those certain translators to come to us instead, by nominating themselves when applicable. All the staff have to do is check the recent activity for the language which the nominee is translating for, look up their account creation date and maybe look through their contributions for anything unusual.

Translators are also more overlooked than normal editors (non-translators), and unlike normal editors, translators are rarely nominated by said editors, because they either cannot judge the quality of translation for a language they do not speak, or they don't have any substantial reasoning to nominate the translator. — Wookipan (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)