Hoi,
In that case they can advise us.. No reason not to consider it.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 17:14, Steven White <koala19890(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Steward Revi wrote:
In my personal opinion, We the Stewards are only authorized to act on a
community consensus and are not responsible to decide whether WMF
principles, practices, and/or rules are violated.
(Again, I am not speaking on behalf of Stewards, just my POV.)
On the whole, this is true. However, the stewards are authorized to decide
on their own whether short-term emergency intervention is warranted in an
individual project. And the stewards, more than the Board or T&S, are
traveling around different projects looking at things and seeing what's
going on. At minimum, if the stewards see something that seems to be
substantially and clearly outside of norms, at minimum they are in a
position to report it to T&S and the Board, and in practice, if necessary,
they can make a short-term intervention. But I will quickly concede that
the latter possibility only kicks in when there are truly dire
circumstances in play.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
------------------------------
*From:* Langcom <langcom-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
langcom-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <langcom-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:00 AM
*To:* langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* Langcom Digest, Vol 71, Issue 5
Send Langcom mailing list submissions to
langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wik…
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
langcom-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
langcom-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Langcom digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Croatian Wikipedia (Steven White)
2. Re: Croatian Wikipedia (Steven White)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:55:03 +0000
From: Steven White <Koala19890(a)hotmail.com>
To: "WMF LangCom (public)" <langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Langcom] Croatian Wikipedia
Message-ID:
<
BN8PR04MB635652DC8D3B1E8455053DD99EB80(a)BN8PR04MB6356.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The former Yugoslavia is one of the most difficult spots in the entire WMF
universe.
If we were starting from scratch right now, the tradeoff, as always, would
be whether Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are different enough
to warrant separate projects, or whether a single Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
could cover the whole ground. The current policy has potentially
contradictory biases. On one hand, there is a bias TOWARD projects in
individual languages, and AWAY from projects in macrolanguages. (In this
case, Serbo-Croatian is a macrolanguage, and the others are considered
constituent languages of that macrolanguage.) On the other hand, there is a
bias TOWARD consolidated projects where the languages are mutually
comprehensible, both to help prevent POV bias and to reduce unnecessary
duplication. I frankly don't know which way we'd go if we were starting
from scratch now.
(Technical interlude: the Cyrillic-Latin converters work just fine. That
does not need to be a consideration for any of this.)
But in any event, we most assuredly are not starting from scratch. Each of
these projects already has a community, a political point of view, and a
bias. Those conflict IRL, and they conflict here, too. Again, if we were
starting from scratch, there would be at least a fighting chance of setting
up neutral ground rules in a Serbo-Croatian project. But we're not, and the
ground rules and communities are already well established. Given the
current conditions, I think the following questions, and the following
questions only, are within the purview of LangCom:
1. Do we shut down all three individual projects, and require
everything to be consolidated into Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia? (I recommend
against this. There would be constant content wars, almost impossible to
regulate, that would take energy away from the routine business of creating
the encyclopedia. The communities would scream bloody murder. But if we
want to go there, I want a Board vote on that, not just our vote.)
2. Do we shut down Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia as redundant (which it
basically is), making sure that appropriate content goes to one or more of
the other projects? (We could put up a trial proposal on Meta and see what
people say.)
3. Do we let all of of these operate in parallel as they are now?
(Action by inaction)
4. Do we allow a Montenegrin Wikipedia? (As people know, I favor this.
If #2 above were to happen, I think we'd really have to allow this. If #3
happens, in theory you could say that Montenegrin is part of Serbo-Croatian
and can contribute there. But Serbians still control that project, and the
Montenegrin POV is routinely ignored or overturned. So in any world where
the three grandfathered parallel projects [Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian]
exist, one has to concede that the rule on parallel projects is already not
in force in the world of Serbo-Croatian, and therefore allowing a
Montenegrin project simply allows a Montenegrin POV the same footing the
others already have.)
Any other question, such as whether Croatian Wikipedia currently so
violates WMF's overarching practices, principles and rules for
intervention, is something for the stewards, T&S and the Board.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fw…