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)?
As many of you know, the Foundation has an Audit Committee which
represents the Board in oversight of financial and accounting
issues, including planning, reporting, audits, and internal
controls (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_committee
for details). The Committee typically serves for one year,
starting in May/June and ending a year later when the Foundation
files its annual tax return in the U.S. (the IRS Form 990). For
the past year, the committee has consisted of two Board members
(Michael Snow and me as Committee chair) and one long-serving and
incredibly helpful community member, Ad Huikeshoven. We've
recently started forming the 2009-2010 Audit Committee, and the
current team has generously agreed to serve another year.
We are keenly interested in increasing community participation.
The time commitment is modest, as far as Wikimedia goes: review
the Foundation's general financial practices and draft financial
statements/filings, and then participate in three or four
conference calls during the year with the staff and our
independent auditors, KPMG. The one requirement for membership
is "financial literacy", usually some kind of professional
experience with finance, accounting or audit.
If you're interested in serving on the Committee, please email us
at audit-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org and let us know how you think
you could contribute. Thanks.
Trustee & Board Treasurer
stu <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> <at> wikimedia.org
It's been 10 days since the last note on flagged revisions, which is
sufficiently important to warrant a follow up at this point in my view. I'll
try and focus the questions a bit in order not to pester, but with the
intention of helping things forward;
see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 for bug details.
* Flagged Revisions is approved for use on the English Wikipedia, my
understanding is that there really isn't that much technical work still to
do on the extension - is this true?
* Is there anything a regular editor such as myself can do to help
prioritise this in the hearts, minds and fingers of our wonderful
* Personally, I believe this function to be one of the most important
matters before the foundation currently, I further believe that this view is
relatively widely held (and sure, widely reviled too - but this is a wiki,
right!) - I've copied foundation-l in on this note with the intention of
further general discussion occurring there, and bug-specific chat only on
the wiki-tech list, I hope this is an appropriate use of resources :-)
I've offered appreciation, a dollop of charm, and a little bit of money to
try and keep this moving forward.... I'm not sure I'm above offering sex, so
please throw me a bone for the sake of the decorum of these lists, if
nothing else :-)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Am I confused or didn't enwp approved flagged revisions, but then it
> was held up due to "purely technical reasons" ... what is this crap
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au>
> Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, private musings<thepmaccount(a)gmail.com>
> > with apologies for re-vitalising a slightly old thread -I have a couple
> > follow ups, which it'd be great to try and make some progress on....
> > My understanding is that Aaron (whom I haven't 'met' - so hello!) has
> > completed work on a test configuration of flagged revisions - I hope it's
> > appropraite for me to ask directly on this list whether or not Aaron
> > considers this development complete? (my understanding is that the
> > is pretty much ready to go?)
> > There is understandably considerable interest in the timeframe for
> > installing flagged revisions, I would hope it would be a positive step to
> > set some timeframes a bit tighter than 'hopefully by wikimedia' ;-) - is
> > this list an appropriate context for such discusison, and if so
> > - could someone appropriately empowered flesh out the next steps a bit
> > and maybe try and establish a timetable of sorts?
> > My intention in posting about this every so often is to ensure that such
> > important development doesn't sort of slip through the cracks - I think
> > communication on this matter has to date been ok, but not great - it'll
> > cool to improve it a bit :-)
> > cheers,
> > Peter,
> > PM.
> The implementations depend on a per wiki basis depending on consensus,
> for example, wikinews and a few others such as the German Wikipedia
> already run it.
> The en.wiki is currently also looking at a slightly modified version
> nicked named "Flagged Protections" which is basically designed to work
> the same way protection does, articles are only covered by it when
> protected to a certain level.
> Wikitech-l mailing list
Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite
article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the
Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and
non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der
Ziko van Dijk
After an initial reference implementation in the English Wikipedia and
some bottom-up implementations in a number of projects, the licensing
update to the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License as the
primary text license, with GFDL as a secondary license with
limitations, has now been implemented in all previously GFDL-licensed
Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Wiki communities can now customize these texts further in accordance
with the implementation guidelines issued by the Wikimedia Foundation
Importantly, this allows Wikimedia wiki communities to create their
guidelines for attribution of externally imported CC-BY-SA content,
more detailed explanations for re-users, etc. The implementation
guidelines do allow significant flexibility, but we're hoping to
ensure baseline consistency across projects and languages, so please
do not deviate significantly from the guidelines. (If you feel the
guidelines are flawed, feel free to comment on the talk page on meta.)
If the messages have not been translated into your language yet, it is
appreciated to do this work through <translatewiki.net> so that it
doesn't have to be redundantly done for each Wikimedia project in that
language. As translatewiki.net translators know, localization changes
from there are rolled out regularly alongside normal code updates.
Thanks to our good friends there for helping with the process so far,
and thanks to all the translators.
The relevant user interface texts are MediaWiki system messages and
can be viewed and edited through the MediaWiki: namespace. They are:
[[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright]] for the site footer
[[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning]] for the editing page, above
the save/preview buttons
[[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] for the editing page,
below the save/preview buttons.
For the more technical users, these changes were introduced to
MediaWiki in the following code revision:
live in the WikimediaMessages extension, which is only used by
Wikimedia Foundation wikis. These messages override standard system
messages, [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] and [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]].
[[MediaWiki:Edittools]] has sometimes been used to move this type of
licensing information below the buttons/summary; the newly introduced
[[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] is meant to reflect this
need while allowing us to consistently update/review these messages.
Finally, a note on trademark recognition. Some projects have a little
trademark notice in the footers, others don't. This notice isn't
required (but helpful); we're working on standardized trademark usage
guidelines, and we'll probably add a link to the site footer to these
once they're finalized.
I'll be checking the wikis, and particularly [[m:Talk:Licensing
update]] and [[m:Talk:Licensing update/Implementation]] for comments,
but please let me know if there are any immediate issues.
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> Marc, you comment is not very optimistic, but it was a great
> incentive to do what I announced above. Hopefully others will be more
> encouraged to voice their ideas about other matters, knowing they'll
> find a friendly hear and some useful and very welcome feedback.
Marc and I just happen to come from a generation of grumpy old men who
have never had enough good sense to abandon our principles. If you do
that long enough the optimism can suffer until you can pull yourself off
the carpet and try again.
> I'm glad to find Nathan in a better mood this time :-). Of course
> language is a problem. This is indeed a very interesting problem that
> I hope has a solution in the international wikipedian community. That
> is also an obstacle to getting on greater detail in this list since
> most of its members would not be able to verify and cross check that
> The Foundation can't afford to let a Wikipedia on some obscure
> language (that is not the case of Portuguese) to run wild and be run
> by some mob. At some time a flag will go up. What then? I could offer
> some suggestions, but I was hoping that you all would come up with
> some useful and tested procedures.
It's unrealistic to expect those who do not speak your language to solve
the problems. Just because the anglophones happen to be hanging from
the top of the Tower of Babel does not imply that they have any greater
expertise. I am willing to concede that the behaviour on some obscure
language projects is nothing short of outrageous. How do you determine
what the Foundation can or can't afford? Being able to deal with the
problems requires for the community to have a critical membership mass.
The Foundation can't demand other solutions without compromising NPOV
and individual responsibility. If there are specific problems in a
project, and nobody knows about them, nothing can be done.
> I'm afraid to have to admit that the lack of interest and advice that
> I got, so far, covers both list and off-list. I wish that would
> change, again not only for the present case, but what kind of message
> is this sending to others? How sure can we all be that there aren't
> or there would not be other cases in the future?
The lack of interest is no surprise. Why would anyone with an already
full plate of problems want to take on a new one? You can never be sure
that there will be no other cases in the future.
> Quite frankly, I would rather be wrong (not a very palatable
> prospect) but give others the assurance that their voices will be
> heard, than letting them remember the story of this guy from
> "somewhere" who blew the whistle and nobody cared.
Preferring to be wrong is very altruistic in an environment where most
are desperate to be right, and to win. You don't have to worry about
them remembering that nobody cared when they never acknowledge that
someone was blowing the whistle in the first place.
Henrik's Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool does not indicate
copyright or license status, so it's not clear if I can include a chart on a
Wikipedia page. Does anyone know the license status for the charts?
on 6/29/09 8:35 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at vam(a)fct.unl.pt wrote:
> Talking about antisocial... It's quite interesting what I experienced
> in this very list.
> I wasn't aware of the study published in the New Scientist until I
> read about it here on the list, and appreciate the information very much.
> Earlier this month I wrote about my perception of the same inadequate
> behavior on the Portuguese Wikipedia and the adverse consequences
> that might have. Not surprisingly I met a pretty derogatory comment
> and plenty of silence. I certainly don't have the status of the New
> Scientist. I also don't have, yet, any study to back up my observations.
> Nevertheless I'm saddened by the undeniable evidence, that even on
> this list it is easier to find displeasure than empathy, camaraderie,
> not to mention friendship. As I was told: That doesn't really fly here.
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
You are not alone in your observations, Virgilio; more agree with you than
will admit. It is truly a sad state of affairs.
Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Thanks for the comments
from Marc, Nathan and Steven. I'm hurrying this response in an
attempt to keep the subject alive for a little longer and generate
some interest from others.
Marc, you comment is not very optimistic, but it was a great
incentive to do what I announced above. Hopefully others will be more
encouraged to voice their ideas about other matters, knowing they'll
find a friendly hear and some useful and very welcome feedback.
I'm glad to find Nathan in a better mood this time :-). Of course
language is a problem. This is indeed a very interesting problem that
I hope has a solution in the international wikipedian community. That
is also an obstacle to getting on greater detail in this list since
most of its members would not be able to verify and cross check that
The Foundation can't afford to let a Wikipedia on some obscure
language (that is not the case of Portuguese) to run wild and be run
by some mob. At some time a flag will go up. What then? I could offer
some suggestions, but I was hoping that you all would come up with
some useful and tested procedures.
I'm afraid to have to admit that the lack of interest and advice that
I got, so far, covers both list and off-list. I wish that would
change, again not only for the present case, but what kind of message
is this sending to others? How sure can we all be that there aren't
or there would not be other cases in the future?
Quite frankly, I would rather be wrong (not a very palatable
prospect) but give others the assurance that their voices will be
heard, than letting them remember the story of this guy from
"somewhere" who blew the whistle and nobody cared.
Virgilio A. P. Machado