Talk:Memory of Mankind
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 1 year ago by YarrowFlower in topic Second paragraph of "Ambitions" section is confusing
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Second paragraph of "Ambitions" section is confusing
[edit]Quote: "Although the most obvious ambition often described in the media is preserving human knowledge, this is not the primary goal of MOM. ...saving the core knowledge and culture acquired over centuries is a backup measure."
Preserving human knowledge and backing up "core knowledge" sound like the same goal. It is hard to discern what this paragraph is intending to convey. YarrowFlower (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @YarrowFlower, how would you propose rewriting it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea because I don't understand what the author is trying to say. The paragraph seems to contradict itself. YarrowFlower (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like that paragraph tries to paraphrase the kernel of an idea described in a lengthy article in German, so its fidelity to the original may not be great. I would go ahead and rewrite it in a way that is logical to an English-language reader, without deviating from the content of the reference article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you read German? If you understand what the German article is trying to say, can you fix the paragraph I called out? YarrowFlower (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- @YarrowFlower, I do not read German, so the best I can do is to translate the reference using Google Translate. Have you tried that approach? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I just decided to remove the paragraph. No matter how many times I tried to read it and understand what it was trying to say, it didn't get any clearer for me. If a paragraph is impossible to understand and seems to contradict itself, I think that's a good reason to remove it.
- Whoever wrote that paragraph can re-write it and restore it if they come back to editing this page at some point.
- For me, it doesn't seem worthwhile to try to delve into the source they cited (especially since this requires machine translation of a language I don't speak) to try to reconstruct their intended meaning.
- Hope that's okay with you (and with any other editors watching this page). YarrowFlower (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- @YarrowFlower, I do not read German, so the best I can do is to translate the reference using Google Translate. Have you tried that approach? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Do you read German? If you understand what the German article is trying to say, can you fix the paragraph I called out? YarrowFlower (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like that paragraph tries to paraphrase the kernel of an idea described in a lengthy article in German, so its fidelity to the original may not be great. I would go ahead and rewrite it in a way that is logical to an English-language reader, without deviating from the content of the reference article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea because I don't understand what the author is trying to say. The paragraph seems to contradict itself. YarrowFlower (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)