upvote
I wish people on HN would stop acting like “magic arbiter” solutions are “not realistic”, when in reality it’s the only way things have every worked. Are federal judges “magic arbiters”? Yes. Do judges make bad calls? Yes. Do we not like when large numbers of judges who are unfriendly to our side get life appointments? Yes. Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.

So to get back to the point: Yes the solution is to appoint someone a magic arbiter, and hope they don’t screw up. The fact that it’s a deeply imperfect way of solving problems doesn’t mean it’s not workable. It just means it will backfire at some point, and someone else will get appointed instead.

reply
> Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.

This is the heart of the matter. Nothing is good or bad in a vacuum, but when two things (say, outcomes) can be compared, distintions can be drawn. Noticing flaws in the present can't be contrasted with simple models of "the better solution"; this is comparing apples to oranges. Address both the good and the bad of the present, including the days where nothing noteworthy happens and therefore below the awareness of most people, and the good and the bad of an elaborated counterpart.

reply
As someone who isn't a native English speaker, I believe most people who use the Internet would benefit from simply learning English rather than having an unchecked AI translate things to them. Reddit for example has joined millions of terrible Wordpress websites in auto-translating everything for SEO purposes and Google seems to be fine with this for some reason. It's ironic that it has reached the point that if you search for a "multi-language" plugin for Wordpress, most of the results aren't about letting you write an article in multiple languages, they're just about automatically translating a single article to 30 languages with machine translation.

The reason none of this makes sense to me is that it's intellectually crippling Internet users. Computers and the Internet are tools. If you want something machine translated to you, you can use a tool like Google translate to translate it for you. If the webmaster does this, it robs people from the opportunity to learn to use those tools and they become dependent on third parties to do this for them when they would have a lot more freedom if they just did it themselves (or if they learned English).

Teach a man to fish...

reply
You miss an advantage. If everything is inter-translated, then you can do your search in the language you know and find the answer written in a language you didn't know.
reply
A lot of written text out there in other languages isn't available in English, simply put you have many eco chambers of singular languages out there. Most people are ok with just reading what they understand.
reply
> Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all

On what do you base this assertion? I was not able to find up-to-date statistics, but 72% of participants in this survey from 2013 had internet access at home, either via PC or via mobile devices, and another 11% had internet access elsewhere:

https://digitalimik.gl/-/media/datagl/old_filer/strategi_201...

reply
> People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.

If this is true, then the easy solution would be to just have two separate wikipedia editions (assuming there is interest).

After all if we have en, sco, jam and ang, surely there is room for two greenlandics. The limitting factor is user interest.

reply
> the easy solution would be to just have two separate wikipedia editions (assuming there is interest)

That's... a reach.

An easier, and much more realistic, solution would be to just have one edition in Danish, which was already noted as the language Greenlanders have in common.

reply
Well, is the point to have greenlanders be able to read it, or is it to preserve a dying language?
reply