Howdy folks - a co-conspirator and I are seeking citations regarding the dominance of the English language on the internet. Specifically, we are looking for media citations (popular media more than acceptable - !!!WONDERFUL!!!, in fact!) of instances where individuals have said: that the amount of English used on the Internet doesn't (or will rapidly cease to) matter for the following reasons (or anything similar): (1) The Internet is global and distributed, so people will use their own languages on it, (2) The growth of non-English users exceeds in rate the growth of English-speaking users, (3) The technical affordances of the internet (Unicode, translation, etc.) have solved the language problems. These seem to be popular conceptions, for which there may be very slim published evidence. Please respond off-list, and I'll post a condensed summary. thanks, elijah wright school of library and information science indiana university bloomington
Elijah Wright asks for citations regarding the dominance of English on the internet. http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3 has great stats on online languages. They have English at about 35% of online language at this point (no longer a majority, but still a plurality). They've been tracking this info since 1995 and have summaries of the growth of Non-English languages here: http://global-reach.biz/globstats/evol.html -- Nancy Baym http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym Communication Studies, University of Kansas 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org
http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3 has great stats on online languages. They have English at about 35% of online language at this point (no longer a majority, but still a plurality).
They've been tracking this info since 1995 and have summaries of the growth of Non-English languages here: http://global-reach.biz/globstats/evol.html
mmm hmm. seen those. we've chosen not to rely on Global Reach's statistics or reports because they have a vested interest in providing statistics that encourage people to... surprise... *BUY MORE STATISTICS* from them. independent verification of the arguments being made by the data they provide really is going to be necessary. elijah
<http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3>http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3 has great stats on online languages. They have English at about 35% of online language at this point (no longer a majority, but still a plurality).
They've been tracking this info since 1995 and have summaries of the growth of Non-English languages here:
<http://global-reach.biz/globstats/evol.html>http://global-reach.biz/globstats/evol.html
mmm hmm. seen those. we've chosen not to rely on Global Reach's statistics or reports because they have a vested interest in providing statistics that encourage people to... surprise... *BUY MORE STATISTICS* from them.
independent verification of the arguments being made by the data they provide really is going to be necessary.
I'm all for independent verification, especially given the difficulty of figuring out what exactly is getting measured here, but I don't follow the logic that because they want to sell more statistics, theirs can't be trusted. Are they more likely to sell future statistics if they misrepresent or make errors? Are there specific ways in which you have reason to believe their estimates are innaccurate? -- Nancy Baym http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym Communication Studies, University of Kansas 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org
I'm all for independent verification, especially given the difficulty of figuring out what exactly is getting measured here, but I don't
right, most sources of this data don't give very much detail about their collection methods or possibly inaccurate data. [for instance - how many of these internet users are multilingual with english and some other language readily accessible to them? how many are multilingual with at least minimal competence in four or five of the top 100 languages spoken/written worldwide? how are these people being counted? these are the fun questions...]
follow the logic that because they want to sell more statistics, theirs can't be trusted. Are they more likely to sell future statistics if they misrepresent or make errors? Are there specific ways in which you have reason to believe their estimates are innaccurate?
i can understand your skepticism. perfectly sensible. back-story: global reach sells a lot of things. ;) one of their other big markets is translation services - they would love to help translate your corporate site into twenty languages, if you can afford it. in this case, i think a bit of slightly anti-corporate bias is justified. if their statistics are biased toward a view of multilingual use on the internet as successful [rather than a view of the computing landscape as dominated or colonialized by English-language material], then perhaps it helps their business case. "perhaps" may be "significantly" if it means the difference between (say) 35% and 60% English-language penetration net-wide. this is all supposition, still, but it definitely seems a good time for CYA approaches. and i think i'm showing my personal biases a bit too clearly. [Nancy, I forgot to thank you for sending the links. *blush*] best, elijah
On Tue, 6 May 2003, elijah wright wrote: To join in to your discussion, I must add some points to Elijah's side. Fistly: OECD measured secure connections in their 2002 digital divide report and they came up with the amazing number of 89.9% English language dominance. (secure connections are the bones needed for e-commerce and any more secure transactions) http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00002000/M00002444.pdf Secondly: I am Estonian and being relatively fluent in Estonian and English, I do see how much smaller the cyberspace gets when you speak just one language. So, it is not just how many dfferent first-language speakers are there, but also about what language is used in content provision. So next to the people, there is need also for counting the sites themselves. Thirdly: To Elijah, I can probably find some citations towards the third group of your request, but it takes me some time and I need to translate them from Estonian to English :-) But in few days, if the request is still relevant by that time. Best, Pille Vengerfeldt
participants (3)
-
elijah wright -
Nancy Baym -
Pille Vengerfeldt