There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
- Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
- it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
not exist at the time when the language was alive
- neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
exist at the time when the language was alive
- modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
- Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
- We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but could
someone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration to
CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian (and
I guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews?
Wasn't the CC-BY used by the older Wikinewses a deliberate decision to give
Wikinews an extra opennes and connectivity with other news outlets (I
personally see a bigger chance for some newsproducer agreeing to license
their work under either CC-BY or less likely CC-BY-SA than GFDL or even GFDL
with a possible migration)?
Is the current license compatible with Wikipedia (I am thinking that the
added migration clause makes the project incompatible with GFDL sites that
are not also double licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later)?
We're wrapping up the survey in most languages today. According to
statistics which I have not validated, we have received more than
115,000 questionnaires. I'm very pleased by this high response rate,
which bodes well for future surveys.
We expect first results to be published within the next eight weeks.
We've learned a lot through this process, and I am very grateful for
all the help and feedback, and of course for everyone who took the
time to go through the survey and forgave its imperfections. We'll try
to take all feedback into account as we begin interpreting the
The following languages will continue running for a week or two
because they had a late launch or a low response rate:
Chinese (Simplified /Traditional)
Thanks again for all help,
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
For quick background, it's pretty painful to rename a database in our
system, and we currently have a lot of bits in our configuration that
make automatic relationships between the database name and the domain
name, so this has delayed renaming of some language subdomains for a while.
It's not impossible to have them be different, just fairly awkward. :)
I'd like to get these done soon, but before we get started, I want to
make sure the queue is complete and ready to go. I've currently got four
language code renames that I see being requested...
== Aromanian ==
roa-rup.wikipedia.org -> rup.wikipedia.orgroa-rup.wiktionary.org -> rup.wiktionary.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15988
ISO-639-2 code 'rup' was added in September 2005, and can supersede the
generic 'roa' code with 'rup' subtag.
This seems pretty uncontroversial. Existing domains and interwikis would
== Low German ==
nds.wikipedia.org -> nds-de.wikipedia.orgnds.wikibooks.org -> nds-de.wikibooks.orgnds.wikiquote.org -> nds-de.wikiquote.orgnds.wiktionary.org -> nds-de.wiktionary.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8540
Reasoning: Disambiguation of country variants to create a portal site
(nds-nl.wikipedia.org exists as well).
The original request is almost 2 years old and didn't seem to have any
clear consensus; is this still desired?
Creating a portal site could cause difficulties with URL compatibility,
and I don't really recommend making this change without clear consensus
from the community there.
Note that nds.wikipedia.org includes a link on the front page to
== Moldovan ==
mo.wikipedia.org -> mo-cyrl.wikipedia.orgmo.wiktionary.org -> mo-cyrl.wiktionary.org
The official Moldovan language is the same as Romanian, using Latin
script and same orthography as on ro.wikipedia.org. Latin script was
officially adopted in 1989, replacing Soviet-era Cyrillic script; use of
Cyrillic script is still "official" in an unrecognized,
lightly-populated breakaway region but if people there use it, they
don't seem to edit Wikipedia...
The 'mo' language code has been officially deprecated from ISO 639-1/2
as of November 3, 2008; "Moldovan" in general use is just Romanian, and
is covered by ro.wikipedia.org.
mo.wikipedia.org has not actually been edited since December 2006.
mo.wiktionary.org seems to have.... 4 definition pages, which only
contain translations (no definitions!) Being inactive, these projects
could be closed in addition to / instead of the rename.
Use of tag 'mo-cyrl' would follow existing IANA-registered language
subtags such as 'bs-Cyrl' and 'bs-Latn' for Cyrillic and Latin script
Most likely, for compatibility we would redirect the existing 'mo' URLs
to the new 'mo-cyrl' ones, but they would now be visibly marked by the
subtag as being "yes we know, it's Cyrillic here". If we're going to
lock the site as well, adding a sitenotice pointing to the Romanian wiki
is probably wise.
== Belorusian "old orthography" ==
be-x-old.wikipedia.org -> be-tarask.wikipedia.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9823
Some time ago we swapped around the Belorusian Wikipedia, moving the
previous version which was primarily using a non-official orthography,
from 'be' to 'be-x-old', and re-establishing be.wikipedia.org using the
official state orthography.
There was later a request to rename 'be-x-old' (using a non-standard
code) to 'be-tarask', a IANA-registered subtag which is rather more
descriptive. IMHO this change should not be terribly controversial -- if
we're not closing it, we may as well give it its official RFC
Old domain and interwikis would be redirected.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
As has been pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has now released
version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is the
standard text license used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects with
the exception of Wikinews. The updated license text can be found here:
[If you are still seeing version 1.2 on that URL, you may need to
clear your browser cache.]
We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us
to develop this re-licensing language.
The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This
section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e.
wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the
CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:
* Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed
after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL
content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as
well. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly.
Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources.)
* The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.
Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by
any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license
Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to
do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly
permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.
== Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==
The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended to
prevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from external
sources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators in
making a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed software
documentation from being re-licensed without the permission of the
authors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation to
agree to this change. While an earlier draft was published, the
specifics of the migration process have been negotiated privately in
order to not allow for such systematic bulk-relicensing by interested
== What's next? ==
* Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will
be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here.
This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing
proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely
available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only
additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this
proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission
for any new changes.)
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article
includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not
be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional,
i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
We _will_ propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads
for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and
weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction
of community members. However, GFDL 1.2-or-later media are
expected to be migrated to CC-BY-SA under this proposal.
It is expected that we will launch a community-wide referendum on this
proposal, where a majority will constitute sufficient support for
* As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing
external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will
be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. This will not affect
Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no
GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA.
If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported
by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will
simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic
More information will follow later this month as we develop the
re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikimedia Serbia is proud to announce the Regional Conference of Wikimedia
The Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia will be held at 19th, 20th and
21st December in Belgrade, in the Belgrade Youth Home. Depending on the number
and locations of participants, we are likely to be able to finance you travel
(only from countries near Serbia) and/or accomodation expenses.
If you are interested in visiting the conference, please answer to this
message with exact information on when can you come and how long can you
stay; as well as is there possibility to provide your own accomodations in
If you would want to held a lecture, a workshop or similar during the
conference, also report that to us so that we could include you in the
Please forward this message to anyone you believe could come.
Regularly I hear people say that Wikipedia is failing. When you then listen,
there are all kinds of good reasons why Wikipedia is failing. Quality is
low, issues with living persons, pov pushers a long litany of woes are all
grounds to predict the imminent demise of Wikipedia. While all these issues
may be grounds for concern, it is hardly indicative of failure. To me they
are indicative of a wildly successful project coping with everything that is
a consequence of success. I am of the opinion that most of our projects
would love to have the same problems, the same issues, the same success as
the few project that do well.
For most of our projects a lack of content, a lack of community ensure that
the project is irrelevant. No growth, no interest is more killing then all
the woes that our big projects suffer from. At Wikimania 2008 a presentation
was given by developers from UNICEF who had done proper usability studies.
They found that 100% of their newbie testsubjects were not able to create a
This is serious. This explains why so many of our projects fail. We do not
invite collaboration because people do not know how to. They do not know how
to EVEN when they are explicitly invited to create a new article as they
were in this research.
At the Wikimedia Conference Nederland, Jan-Bart de Vreede indicated in his
speech that Kennisnet is interested in implementing the UNICEF extensions.
These extensions are now localisable in any language at Betawiki. At
ExtensionTesting, all the extensions have been tested against stable
releases. Bugs were identified and some bugs were fixed. As a consequence it
is likely that some more MediaWiki installations will benefit from research.
It seems obvious to people who deal with small projects that usability is
one of the big issue when it comes to the moribunt status of our small
projects. The question I put to you, what are we going to do to first agree
that this is an issue and then to deal with this issue. Do we care that 80%
of our projects are failing?
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here:
Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are
attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
Head of Community Giving
Head of Community Giving
Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
English -> English dump
> Because myself and others have been frustrated by the lack of good
> stats on the number of active editors on the English Wikipedia, I have
> compiled some stats on the editing frequency on enwiki:
No worries: in only 176 days from now the English dump will be ready and I
can run wikistats scripts on it.
It just started 52 days ago, so let us be patient for a while ;)
Nice stats though!