Kurt Jansson wrote:
But what guarantee do you have that e.g. the German
Wikipedia is "doing
things the wikipedia way"? And what would you do if you knew we aren't?
I think it's very important that the people (often just one or two)
working on a new international Wikipedia are already indoctrinated with
our ideals (or have a social Wp-habitus, if that sounds nicer ;-).
Hum Kurt, I have no idea what "Wp-habitus" means. But I would strongly suggest
not to use the word indoctrination.
First because, it smells Stalinism, Goulag and little red book (but maybe it doesnot smell
that way in english ?)
Second because it is slightly disrespectful of people freedom of mind; I know we are
influenced. But I am equally sure that we wouldnot be there in the first place if we
didnot basically agree beforehand with these ideals.
Third because, even if it sadly sounds like talking "politically correct" not to
use that word, I think there are some truths that don't necessarily benefit to be said
so bluntly.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
I think this is an important question, and my best suggestion is to
appoint one or two ambassadors for each language, who can act as
site owners towards the other users and as translators/reporters to
Bomis and developers. Therefore I welcome the newly set up embassies.
Ah, and who do you think would appoint a "site owner" ???
Jimbo ? I think it will be perceived the wrong way by most...
People on this list ? most internat wikipedians would probably consider it an anglosaxon
decision
Internat wikipedians themselves ? They could appoint anybody with a good reputation,
rather than somebody caring about these "ideals".
Self-appointement ? Reporting and translating is one thing. "Owning" is
another.
Maintaining the neutral point of view and avoiding
copyright
violations should be the easiest part of the job.
Nope, I, unfortunately, do not think so. People are not naturally neutral. That is not so
bad when many people can work at the same time on an article (though...). But just
*defining* neutrality is an issue on the french wiki. If you are sure it is easy, and if
you speak french, come and help me please. Right now, it is on hold till courage, time and
opportunity come back :-)
But how strict are
the non-English Wikipedias on issues such as "Wikipedia is not a
dictionary" (not a gazetteer, not a product catalog, not a consumer
report, etc.)?
Some of us support it is also a dictionary... :-)
Is it or will there be a problem to assert authority
to weed out poor contributions in the small and slow-growing
non-English Wikipedias?
I rather support keeping poor contributions, they might grow better in time.
I agree with you all your comments are important points, but some are much more than
others.
The fact is I think most contributors basically agree with the main issues (such as
encyclopedia, collaboration, neutrality, consensus) but they are not necessarily the ones
that speak up. When you are a small number, the effect of somebody speaking loudly to
challenge these "ideals" gets a lot of power, far too much power on others. I
don't think a central power "asserting authority" will solve that point :
some contributors just don't want to hear anything about what an english might have
said on that subject (like Jimbo's opinion on what neutrality is), they just consider
that, being on an international wikipedia, their opinion has more weight.
I don't know what to answer to that type of comment, so nationality/langage oriented,
and so soapy...
So either we find a way to mix more the different wikis, so that ultimately other langages
people will durably influence matters on a given wiki, or we need more of these
"indoctrinated" people in each langage :-)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!