This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
I was surprised at the use of the future tense in the article. I know that certain language combinations, perhaps all those mentioned, are currently fully operational. Would it not be more appropriate to state what is now accessible and what remains to be completed (if that indeed is the case)? - Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent additions to this article make it look more like a user guide. Would it not be more appropriate to include this in Wikipedia:Tools? The additions do not cite any sources and, from the user name, appear to come directly from the supplier. In my opinion, the WP article should rely first and foremost on third party sources rather than insiders. What should be done? - Ipigott (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only source that is specified is by "Relaxnews" and looks like nothing more than a recycled press release.
This shouldn't be an article. Shorn of MBA-speak -- does
It enables easy content creation in non-English Wikipedias by leveraging the large volume of English Wikipedia content as the source of information.
mean It makes it easy to create text in languages other than English by using what's already in English, and if not, what does it mean? -- it might be worthwhile somewhere else in Wikipedia.
As for the subject of the article, what's surprising is the unquestioning encouragement that the tool seems to be providing for the highly dubious practice of creating Wikipedia articles from other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia, you'll recall, is not an acceptable source. This does not seem to worry Danese Cooper (Chief Technical Officer at Wikimedia). Herewith, my question: Why encourage people to add content to Wikipedia from Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source? (I wonder if this will be frequently asked.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
