fre. 23. aug. 2019 kl. 15:06 skrev Steven White <>:
MF-Warburg wrote:  "Let's not forget that the creation of new wikis is stalled at the moment for technical reasons. My motivation to advance approvals is not very high due to it, since I dislike approving projects which are active at a time, but might not still be active later when the technical issues are resolved but are then created nevertheless."

Is that still not resolved? I thought creation of Neapolitan Wikisource showed we were moving past that. (Of course, I thought that about Western Armenian Wikipedia, too.)

The creation of napwikisource was done mostly to get an idea of exactly how broken the script to add new wikis is. Turns out it's a lot -- when you run it, there are several bugs that pop up and need manual intervention to fix. So the developer who ran the script this time said that it still needs a lot of work before it's ready to be used. We really need a better way of doing that, hoping Amir has some clever solutions for it.
Also:  It's a very bad problem when the projects become inactive expressly because their communities see us as incapable of creating their wikis, so the communities throw up their hands and go home.  It's not because they don't care about this, but because they feel that if they will never get anywhere, they might as well not waste more time.  And it's our fault, not theirs.  As Marcos Williamson says, we need to find a middle ground between protecting against hoax and empowering these communities. My original proposal here was intended to give us time to do due diligence, but not unlimited time.  Time is fair; unlimited time is not. And to those who complained that I was setting arbitrary time limits, I would respond that I was setting time limits.  Any time limit is arbitrary at one level, but there needs to be something compelling LangCom to act instead of to sit on its hands, which has happened a lot recently.


MF-W, once the technical issues are resolved, I plan to allow the communities closest to "ready", if they have gone inactive, to be considered active again as soon as they have a single month with three active users at 10+ edits. Making them wait another three months is just rubbing salt in the wound.
Sounds fair IMO.


Sent from Outlook

Langcom mailing list

Jon Harald Søby