Hi Ant,
My apologies as well,
I don't think we're reading
each others messages fully
before replying... I agree that
censoring someone for an
opinion that isn't shared by
a large group is nothing that
Wikipedia should be involved
in. I'm always for POV on
articles and I encourate user
Toytoy, to whom my message
was mostly directed, to state
his opinions on any discussion
in Meta or any language 'pedia.
I do not welcome the closing
of existing wikis on the value
judgements he argues for in
the meta page. I don't think
they are valid enough and I
find them to be shortsighted
as regards different cultures.
But I defend his right to state
what he thinks and propose
what he wishes.
I'm supporting the establishment
and the continued support of wikis
which present different cultural
insights by means of expression
in different languages. That would
include the constructed languages
such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua,
Interlingue and Volapuk. They have
enough supporters out there to
warrant an ISO code and I think
this is enough to convince me that
they'd eventually bloom to show
their colors. You can tell what seems
important in a wiki by the amount of
articles on some subjects, and in
looking at the differences in language
wikis this is very interesting to me,
and perhaps others.
The Latin Wiki, of which I was one
of the first users, and designed the
first HomePage and Logos, is written
in a "dead" language, but it has blossomed
and it enjoys a lot of traffic lately. The
Galego wiki is another example, I also
had a hand in getting that wiki going at
first. And so I'm looking ahead at what
they could be in the future.
You sent me to look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
and of course I appreciate the illustration
but I admit that I wouldn't support the
use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
either. So I agree and I appreciate the
illustration, it also taught me a new term.
Killing the good along with the bad isn't
just. Of course. It reminds me of Abraham
arguing with God about the destruction of
the righteous along with the unrighteous.
But that of course was not why I added
my message to this thread. And please
Ant, please know that I've always
appreciated your insight and respect
your right, as well as anyone else's
right to express opinions.
I hope I haven't further misunderstood
any message in this thread and
I hope I was able to clear up any
misunderstanding I might have
myself caused in this regard.
With sincere greetings,
Jay B.
2005/7/28, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>om>:
Apology, but you obviously did not read what I wrote.
Please read it again.
I also totally support all the language wikipedias blooming and never asked for any to be
closed (but for a bunch of minor artificial languages admitedly which I think could belong
somewhere in our projects, but NOT as encyclopedias)...
...but for me an encyclopedia is a flower... and a person is a flower as well.
If you let only flowers of a unique color, of a unique size and of a unique flowering
period bloom, then you get a very beautiful but also very flat and boring flower bed
during one month, and a carpet of crushed and drying petals the rest of the year.
When the color of a flower is not pleasant to your eye, you could just avoid having on in
your garden, or avoid looking at it. But destroying it is just not a good solution.
And what I observed on meta was exactly that : the proposal did not please, it could have
been left aside without caring, without giving it any more attention. What I object to is
that the proposal was "closed", not to be discussed any more by *anyone*,
threatened to be *deleted*, and the author treated like a *paria*. This reminds me of
1984. Unique thought and careful removal of people faces on pictures. To avoid anyone
disturbing the perfection of a consensual flower bed.
I do not put glyphosate in my garden to remove all weeds.
anthere