[Wikipedia-l] spanish wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

> Kurt Jansson wrote:
> > 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 ?)
>
These connotations of "indoctrination" depend on the context.  I would 
object if such a sentence were used in and article, but not on the 
mailing list where it is clearly informal and reflects a developed set 
of habits rather than something that has been imposed by higher powers.

> >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" ???
>
Ambasadors as site owners seems like a contradiction in terms.  Talking 
about directors of a non-profit organization would make more sense.  

With a non-profit corporation, the corporation would become the owner 
rather than any individual.  One criterion should be that no one country 
should have 50% or more of the directors.  This may conflict with a 
frequent requirement that a majority of directors be from within the 
incorporating jurisdiction, but this varies considerably (at least 
across North America).  If this becomes a problem a little jurisdiction 
shopping would be in order.

> 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.
>
The first set of directors might very well be arbitrary, but one of its 
duties would be to develop a set of rules acceptable by Wikipedians for 
the naming of future directors.

I believe that in addition to directors, the group should also have a 
set of Trustees.  They would not normally have corporate decision making 
powers, but would be in a position to step in to ensure survival of the 
project if the directors completely screw up.  Their right to step in 
would need to be strictly defined.

> >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 :-)
>
You're right!  Defining neutrality will always be a problem.  Don't 
think that the English Wikipedia is exempt just because it's bigger. 
 People with prejudices never see them as prejudices.  As for copyright, 
protecting the GFDL nature of Wikipedia copyrights is a far greater 
challenge than catching copyright violations by contributors.

> >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... :-)
>
I would consider three of these four to be secondary issues where 
different languages could easily develop their own guidelines.  Product 
catalog is a different matter because it relates to issues of 
advertising and consumerism

> >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.
>
Yes.  Who makes the judgement that something is a "poor" contributions? 
 Asserting authority would certainly be worse than anything we have now. 
 The ones complaining so much about the poor articles should simply 
improve them themselves. If they feel that there are so many that they 
don't have enough time to improve them, that's their problem for being 
such perfectionists.  Maybe they should just lighten up.

> 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.
>
Most political revolutions, coups-d'état, etc. are the work of dedicated 
minorities, without regard to where they come from on the political 
spectrum.  Naturally, they want to diminish the influence of those with 
opposing points of view.  The large majority of people is not 
confrontational, and they prefer the path of least resistance.  The 
majority will concede issues where they disagree for the simple purpose 
of avoiding a fight.  This can be a problem for  a small group that has 
not enough strong-willed people with opposing views.  I think each 
language group will need to deal with these problems separately, and, 
apart from the need to adhere to a very limited number of core 
principles, each may end up very different.

Eclecticology