[Wikipedia-l] Re: No more new Wikipedias !

[Anthere]

Right

Time for me to say something here.

Angela is essentially right about myself not being willing to get 
involved in the decision of a new language creation.

I consider the board is not here to micromanage things and that natural 
leaders or natural groups of decision makers should appear to make the 
final decision on whether to open a new language or not.

The board must certainly be involved in the deciding whether to create a 
NEW PROJECT (such as Wikiversity or others), because this decision is 
*strategic* to our whole organisation.

But once a project has be agreed upon, I do not see the decision of 
opening one language or not being the job of board members, EXCEPT for 
decision such as whether to work in real languages only, or to accept 
constructed languages, because again, it might be a strategic decision. 
My opinion on the matter is simply that languages such as Klington are 
not welcome. And it seems the other board members agree with this.


However, collecting and offering knowledge to the largest number of 
people on earth is our mission. And it makes sense that knowledge is 
offered in the language people know best. So, I consider that by 
default, as a board member, I agree with the creation of any (real and 
used) language.
It also makes sense to ME, to help sustain endangered languages; so I 
see no limit to our possibilities here.



However, AS A PERSON, I try to be practical and realistic.
Practically, a project with only one editor working on it, has high 
chances to be crap or pov. It is NOT a 100% certain, but chances are high.
The problem with new languages is not only workload for the developers, 
the problem with a new language with very few participants is simply a 
project which is most of the time of poor quality. The QUANTITY of 
information in the small wiki is NOT an issue for me. These projects 
will NEVER be 100 000 articles big. It does not really matter. Even if 
it contains only 5000 great quality stuff, it is WORTH it. Because good 
quality content is worth.
But most small projects usually are of poor quality. And this is not 
very good for our image.
Some will argue that as long as they are small, they are not very 
visible, so it might not matter much. To a certain extent, this is true.
However, each time I visit the french wikinews, my heart grieves, 
because though small, though demo, it is visible. And poor quality is 
noticed.

So as a person, I would prefer that all the small languages future wiki 
only start if they can show a significant group of editors involved and 
motivated. However, some would also argue that if new languages REQUIRE 
5 editors motivated at the same time to start... some encyclopedias such 
as Bambara would NEVER start. And THIS would be a disastrous decision.



So, here is my handle.
If more than 5-10 real and motivated people are asking for a new 
language, by all means, let's start the new language. Why on Earth would 
you need a board decision to do this ? These guys are real, with real 
needs and real motivation and real language. The project is approved. So 
? Why not creating it ?
If only 1 or 2 people are asking for the language, then we should 
discuss the reality of the language proposed and the opportunity of the 
opening. If the language is spoken by 10 millions of people, by all 
means, we should open it. 10 millions readers/editors IS significant. If 
spoken by only 200 people, then we might decide to get to know the only 
interested editor a bit more ... so delay the creation a little bit.


By the way, it would be nice that small new languages make the effort to 
make short reports from time to time, so that any major difficulty does 
not go unnoticed (such as a pov domination).




Anthere



Traroth wrote:

> That you don't want to make the work to create new
> wikipedias is something I can understand, but why
> destroy existing one ? 'Beats me !
> What I cannot understand is : except the workload
> problem, where is exactly the problem with new
> languages ? Do you want to say which language people
> have to speak ? Or what ?
> 
> Traroth
> 
> 
> --- Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> a
> écrit :
> 
> 
>>Arbeo M wrote:
>>
>>>... at least not for the past three months or so. 
>>>
>>>In the past you only had to drop the name of some
>>>language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that
>>>language was created right away. This surely
>>
>>wasn't a
>>
>>>very intelligent approach, for it left us with
>>
>>quite a
>>
>>>number of inactive Wikipedias.
>>>
>>>Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
>>
>>heaps
>>
>>>of requests that have been discussed very
>>
>>thoroughly
>>
>>>by the community (cf.
>>>
>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
> 
>>>Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
>>
>>supported
>>
>>>by numerous native speakers willing to contribute.
>>>However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
>>
>>up
>>
>>>for quite a while now.
>>>
>>>Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
>>
>>hard
>>
>>>for our developers to recognize which new language
>>>proposals can be considered as accepeted by the
>>>community (and therefore created). That's why I
>>
>>made a
>>
>>>separate page intended to list languages that
>>>unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
>>>
>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages).
> 
>>>Since this can be a controversial question I only
>>>placed those cases there that are 100 %
>>
>>unequivocal
>>
>>>(at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native
>>
>>speakers,
>>
>>>ISO code, no objections, etc.). 
>>>
>>
>>I've stated my position on new language wikis, and
>>we've been through
>>all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer
>>interested in
>>arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose
>>votes, doesn't mean
>>I've changed my mind.
>>
>>I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I
>>received a request from a
>>Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such
>>specific request, I'll
>>carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not
>>because I think it
>>contributes to our mission.
>>
>>The problem with voting on the matter is that it is
>>a vote to expand the
>>community. It should come as no surprise that those
>>people who are on
>>the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've
>>previously said, we
>>should judge the value of a wiki by the number of
>>readers, and by the
>>information it brings to those readers, not by the
>>number of editors. A
>>Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of
>>how many articles or
>>editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme
>>case, but I'm not
>>prepared to argue about every point in between,
>>especially not when a
>>certain annoying person dominates every discussion.
>>I tired of the
>>repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider
>>the current set of
>>languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any
>>really important
>>languages that we've missed, a Board member will let
>>me know.
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know
>>
>>that
>>
>>>our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK
>>
>>unpaid,
>>
>>>too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if
>>
>>somebody
>>
>>>has an idea how we could remedy this situation and
>>>maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we
>>
>>don't
>>
>>>lose too many potential new contributors)? 
>>
>>If those potential new contributors only want to
>>write articles in some
>>little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they
>>stay away.
>>
>>-- Tim Starling
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>
> 
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________________________ 
> Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger 
> Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com