[Wikipedia-l] correction of errors in articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
>> This is a general question - did I mention your name?
>>
>> And as I said before: I am not going to discuss things again - I am 
>> already in contact with some Palttdüütsch authors that publish 
>> liteature and articles in low saxon. There are more than just some 
>> writings.
>
>
> You are going the Node way now? Everytime someone discusses something 
> with him he comes up with these mysterious off-wiki "experts" who he 
> quotes. I really would like it if you could solve it with the people 
> who are on-wiki if there is a problem. They are the people you work 
> together with. They ARE the community within wikimedia. Not some 
> outsiders who feel having to comment but not work together is a great 
> thing to do.

Well actually there is one major difference; Sabine is writing to 
universities, publishers and authors. She is asking genuine authorities 
on their opinion on the nds language. The turf battle is mainly one 
being fought in the Wiktionary space and here the rules are quite 
different from in the Wikipedia space. In Wiktionary we want all 
correctly spelled words in all languages. If there are some 200 
orthographies, then that is just a fact we have to live with. When the 
nds.wikipedia decides to only allow one orthography, then this is up to 
them. Only allowing words in one orthography in Wiktionary is a 
completely different kettle of fish. This is not what Wiktionary is 
supposed to be. If this means that words that are not spelled in a known 
orthography by an editor are to be deleted, it is not acceptable when 
these words have a provenance. The one way of resolving this is by 
specifying what orthography a word belongs to. When this is not know, it 
will have to wait untill someone comes along who does know.

When we ask an outsider to work with us on this issue, we ask them to 
join our community. To dismiss their obvious authority because they are 
newbies to Wiki is foolish; they can make a difference when we are the 
welcoming crowd we say we are. Making a reference to Mark is a cheap 
shot; he has been toning down and the quality of his contributions is 
rising as a result. There is a need for some scholarship when it comes 
to languages certainly for Wiktionary and Ultimate Wiktionary. We will 
have some hard fights ahead of us. The essence is to provide a great 
lexicological resource and make it as usefull as possible. Many of these 
fights will occur because people just do not understand what we try to 
achieve. It is therefore essential to leave people their dignity and 
their self worth and discuss what we are trying to do and how we are 
doinng this: provide Free information in all languages to all people

>
> And yes you DO need to discuss things things with fellow wikimedians. 
> They are the ones you work with, not some John Doe's
>
>> Who is taking things from private to public is not me. On nds you can 
>> do whatever you want as long as the community supports you. You can 
>> use Werner's list as long as it is according to GFDL and he is 
>> mentioned as the author. I am going down to the basis as I don't like 
>> to go ahead by "xyz told me".
>
>
> You are telling him that also. XYZ told me .....
>
XYZ has a function here: it is not to publicly say who is saying things 
that are not substantiated. By going to sources the point of view will 
be substantiated. This will create a NPOV.

>>
>>
>> I am going ahead with universities, writers and the institute for 
>> lower saxon language I suppose this should be fine when it comes to 
>> credibility - and this is what you are trying to destroy - and I 
>> really don't like that.
>
>
> He is not destroying anything. These outsiders are welcome to discuss 
> this themselves. I always hate discussion by proxy. and when people 
> come up with all kinds of mysterious friends to which others have to 
> bow because of their "alleged" expertise.

We are not talking "mysterious friends" here: they will be names like 
Professor ABS of the XYZ university. To indicate their expertise they 
will be named things like "professor in linguistics" that is a proper 
way to indicate their expertise.

>
>> On the one word you told me by e-mail that was a hundred percent 
>> error turned out to be used 186 times on the internet (I have a 
>> screenshot of google if you don't believe it) and I found the writer 
>> who used it in her texts - she's a reporter for a newspaper in North 
>> Germany and has been writing articles in Pattdüütsch vor over 13 
>> years for them now. I also contacted her to ask her how to categorise 
>> her writings.
>
>
> Another mysterious supporting source.

You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.

>
>> So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose 
>> things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to 
>> that..
>
>
> And Heiko is not going to let you impose things upon him. Editwar anyone?

When Heiko is to ignore substantiated facts, he will make what he does 
in the Wiktionary world irrelevant. This would not be about ediwars. I 
do not expect that Heiko will get into an editwar as there is a perfect 
solution and that is using proper labelling. When Heiko indicates words 
to be according to the Sass orthography or whatever Heiko orthography 
knows, his work will be most relevant. There are plenty possible 
solutions here.

>
>> Remeber: it is not a nice thing to take things to public only since 
>> you presume I was talking about you - 
>
>
> It is not a nice thing to ask community help and only paint half of 
> the picture, if you take things public name him/her so they got a 
> chance to present their side of the argument. It has been done to me a 
> couple of times by another wiktionarian and close friend of yours.
>
What is the point of your sniping at me ?? If you want to know how 
things are you can ask. If you want to put forward your side of an 
argument you can do so. I do publish about my point of view all the 
time. I do use some of the great ideas that you put forward and I make a 
point of it to state that they are yours. This continued whining does 
not help you. If you want to talk do so. If you want to convince me 
about certain things convince me. If you want to make a point research 
your facts because that will give you more credence and it will convince 
me about /your /good intentions.

>> I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a 
>> general question - it does not happen the first time that people know 
>> how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as 
>> the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to 
>> go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs 
>> for that: they are there in the histories.
>
>
> If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a 
> discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!

Here you show that you do not apreciate what Wiktionary is about; every 
wiktionary is about all words in all languages. Therefore it is 
completely acceptable to add this content in the Italian Wiktionary.

Thanks,
    GerardM