<fake drama>*sob*... I also have something to admit...</fake drama>
Another off-list comment to me from Gerard, in which he tells me I'm
stupid, although other than that it's unreMarkable:
Mark,
When you reply on a mailing list and you have not read it all properly,
an answer like "should it not be in the Ultimate Wiktionary" is stupid.
The UW is being developped as we speak and as a concequence it does not
have any content. The remark is stupid for another reason, our projects
do not claim to have all the content that could exist. Nothing Ultimate
about that either, it will have the content that we want in a hundred
years time.. not in our lifetime :)
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22/06/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Gerard saw fit to send these comments privately. In
the spirit if
wiki-openness I thought it best to reply publicly. There is nothing in
my views about his proposals that cannot be discussed in the open.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray,
I would like to know what you hope to achieve with the rubbishing you
are doing of the Ultimate Wiktionary.
Since when are honest comments "rubbishing"
Why, since they disagreed with Mr Meijssen, of course!
It has a huge
potential and the only way I can categorise your
"contributions" is as a FUD treatment. I would really like you to use
arguments. I would really like to know what you hope to achieve this
way. The way you make me feel is that I am some shady car dealer that
is waiting for this 1000th carsale that will make him his bonus.
You said it. :-) I can't see how my comments could be anything but
arguments in the sense that you apparently mean.
Well, this is how it feels to me (what Gerard said about a sales
commission). It's almost like you're a missionary, and UW is the
gospel you're preaching -- you act like you think you're saving people
from the fiery depths of Wiktionary Hell or something.
And all who disagree are stupid, or they're just not being
constructive. Isn't this what oppressive regimes have always said?
Disagreeing with the government will only cause strife, so it's
counterproductive and should be silenced??
Lucky for me I
know better. I do appreciate what Erik is doing, we
both realise that our reputation will suffer when we do not come up
with some goods. I am sure that the initial UW will not have all the
trimmings.
Nothing to debate there.
That does not take away from the basic fact that
the UW will have a
better usability than any of the Wiktionaries ever will. It will,
because the functionality is built with synergy and community in the
forefront of what it is about and it will because it is meant to host
lexicological content.
This is pure speculation. I leave myself open to that possibility, but
I'll keep on with what I'm doing until there's something to judge.
Certainly I'm not going to fall in line with your hyperbolic confidence
about the future of UW without seeing it. I can easily see the value of
a project that ties the different Wiktionaries together, but I cannot be
so credulous as to believe that it will be so great as to inspire
everyone to abandon what they are doing to work with your project.
I agree with you here. Until we can see UW, why shouldn't we be
pessimistic and skeptical?
The argument
about communities of Mark Williamson is silly, the
wikimedia community does evolve and, the community that is growing
around the Ultimate Wiktionary will be different from any of the
Wikimedia communities.
Since you have mentioned Mark, it is only fitting that I should forward
a copy of these comments directly to him. I have in the past objected
to some of his points of view, but such comments have always been to him
rather than around him. If you think that he is being silly tell him
about it, not me.
This is true. If you have something you want to say about me, say it
_to_ me please. This goes for everyone. Many people seem to talk about
me behind my back (I've heard this from others, that they get off-list
e-mails or other private communications about me). This is underhanded
and shady. You know who you are. And, in some cases, I may well have
been shown your comments by the person in whom you confided.
Many new
people will make it their own, people who have no background
in Wikipedia, people that do not think a Wiki is the best thing there is.
So there's more to your project than the Wiki community! You have in
the past made it clear that you would like the GFDL replaced. If, just
for example, someone were contemplating a fork compliance with that
licence could be an embarassment.
It has sounded to me for a while like UW is more of a fork than an
addition to an existing project.
People who are
very much aware of what language technology is. People
with a solid reputation outside the Wikimedia world.
Am I supposed to be impressed by these statements? Or is there a hidden
agenda? A company that funds educational research in the Netherlands
does so in a completely different environment than in most countries
given that Holland has by far the greatest proportion of privatization
of schools in the world.
I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd.
It is as always your
choise...
Of course it's my choice, and I will certainly be willing to look at UW
objectively ... when it is released to the public.
"I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd. It is as always
your choice..." sounds to me like something from a movie, "I hope
you'll elect to join The System. It is, as always, your choice.
Bwahahahaha!", or a cult "I hope you'll elect to join the Church of
Cultism. It is, as always, your choice. Bwahahahahaha!"
Mark
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE