It is proposed that Kurdish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language)
wikipedia (ku.wikipedia) be renamed to Kurmanji wikipedia (kmr.wikipedia) as
currently ku.wikipedia predominantly hosts a single dialect which is
Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish. Local community oppose the proposal so far.
I'd like to explain some background behind the proposal. Kurdish wikipedia
had been hosting multiple dialects since its creation. The three main
dialects (in terms of article count) have been Zazaki (1.5–2.5 million
speakers), Sorani (5 million speakers) and Kurmanji (9 million speakers).
Zazaki is only mentioned here because it was hosted by Kurdish wikipedia at
some point. Zazaki's language family is controversial as some sources put it
as a dialect of Kurdish while others disagree with this. While details
surrounding the linguistic properties are irrelevant for this proposal,
the controversy itself is relevant.
Kurdish as a language has no standard from and the ISO considers ku (kur) to
be a language code for a macro-language for multiple dialects. Furthermore
said dialects are mutually unintelligible (per first Google hit:
with multiple different types of scripts such as Sorani using rtl Arabic
script and Kurmanji using ltr latin script and are different in both grammar
and vocabulary. In addition Sorani is the only dialect used officially in
north of Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government and is not the most
common dialect of Kurdish (according to Wikipedia anyways).
- Zazaki dialect separated from Kurdish Wikipedia on 5 January 2007 with
had been steadily having an increase in article count and will seemingly
overtake ku.wikipedia soon enough.
- Sorani dialect has seperated from Kurdish wikipedia on 14 November
has steady contribution despite being a very recently created wiki.
- Minor dialects (in terms of article count) hosted by Kurdish wikipedia
already have their relevant incubator pages with Southern Kurdish created
on 29 October 2009 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sdh)
and Kirmanjki created on 30 July 2008 (
Currently ku.wikipedia has very few tagged articles in non-Kurmanji
Sorani uses - There is a Sorani wikipedia
Southern Kurdish uses - There is an incubator entry for Southern
Zazaki uses - There is a Zazaki wikipedia
By keeping ku.wikipedia with its ku language code we are:
- Implying Kurmanji as the "official" dialect of Kurdish with the Kurdish
- Implying Sorani as the lesser dialect when in fact it is the only
- Implying Zazaki to be a Kurdish dialect which Zazaki community
opposes fiercely as evident in closed language proposal of Zazaki of 2007.
- Confusing the reader whom visits ku.wikipedia only to find Kurdish
articles they cannot read unless they use Kurmanji dialect (only half of
Kurdish speakers know Kurmanji if you add up the numbers for all other
- I'd like to highlight one remark from Sorani wiki proposal page: "Even
though both "Kurmanj" and "Sorani" are subgroups (accent) of Kurdish
language, they can cause of misunderstanding and misinterpretation for
people who speak the language with these accents to each other. This can
happen in different situations. For instance during regular conversations,
or reading/understanding complex and professional contents.In general,
"Kurmanj" and "Sorani" are not useful to each other since misinterpretation
is so high while they are used in different places. --Marmzok 11 April 2009"
- This is the problem the reader deals on an article by article basis unless
they know the existence of Sorani wikipedia.
Relevant meta discussion is here:
Might I remind that "The committee does not consider political differences,
since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free,
unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information
from the viewpoint of individual political communities." (
Therefore political arguments including the ones in the meta discussion are
- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
> From: Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.rs>
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>> but none of the sister projects.
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
> focus on Wikipedia in outreach activities.
Um… no. That means it really makes sense to talk about the sister projects more than just mentioning them, as they are clearly in more need of outreach than Wikipedia with that audience…
I often briefly describe the sister projects when I'm doing Wikipedia outreach - and quite often see people making comments on twitter etc. as a result about how they didn't know about a particular project, and were going to take a look at it (and hopefully go on to contribute to it…)
I'd caution against putting too much faith in those raw numbers without a
clear understanding of what they mean. They can make sense comparing
different language editions of the same project, but comparing different
projects is apples and oranges. For instance, some months ago I was doing
some research and I found that for Wikisource it doesn't count the "Page"
and "Index" namespaces as "articles", even though that's where the bulk of
the content generation is taking place these days.
This might have since been fixed, and I'm sure that you (Phillipe) are aware
of it, I just wanted to jump in before someone started complaining that
Wikinews is only a certain unimpressive %age of where Wikipedia was at the
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:49:01 -0700
> From: Philippe Beaudette <philippe(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying?
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
> Usage statistics alone, I would agree with you.
> But stats can tell so much more than just what you get from usage stats.
> For instance:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm (be
> sure to scroll all the way to the right).
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> > On 09/20/11 10:11 PM, ?????? wrote:
> > > Certain projects are bound to loose active contributors. Projects like
> > > Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikispecies or even Wiktionary do not have the
> > same
> > > growth curve as a general purpose encyclopedia. These tools have
> > > competition as well. Statistically looking at numbers is unwise unless
> > you
> > > are going to look at it with a perspective. This is not to say these
> > > projects are without problem, but that doesn't mean the wikis are
> > failures.
> > >
> > >
> > This is all very true. The important thing is to keep focused on your
> > own project. If you look at competing projects, rather than looking at
> > their usage statistics, a better question is "What are they failing to
> > do that you could do better?"
> > Ray
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
>> Starting at the back, and working forward, my posts are not random.
>> They are carefully selected examples based on my experience as
>> (currently) a reader of Wikipedia and my responses to what I found.
>> I take it as obvious that if I can read these articles, so can their
>> subjects, and if they don't like what they see, making appropriate
>> noises, or (in extreme cases) litigating against the Foundation.
> What you seem to be arguing for is a mailing list dedicated to the
> issues you raise. The point I was making is that re-purposing this
> mailing list (wiki-en-l) for that purpose is unlikely to succeed (or
> be desirable), and that is what I meant by references to this being a
> bit random. In other words, the venue(s) you are chosing for raising
> these matters seem a bit random. What you seem to be looking for is a
> mailing list version of the BLP Noticeboard. I've copied the WMF
> mailing list on this post (as you added that mailing list when you
> replied), but I won't see any replies to that mailing list as I'm not
> subscribed there. I've removed Jimmy from the cc list, as the posts to
> public mailing lists should be sufficient.
OK, Chris. Let's see what happens next.
Just a quick reminder that this is tomorrow at 17:00 UTC.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Subject: IRC office hours with Sue Gardner, Thursday, September 22, 2011 at
I just wanted to announce that there will be an office hours with Sue
Gardner in #wikimedia-office Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 17:00 UTC.
Likely topics include current events like the image filter referendum and
Sue's new Executive Director's Barnstar, among many other possibilities. As
usual, links to time conversion and other materials are on Meta.
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
>> [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for
>> some inexplicable reason".
> Does this refer to this?
> I'm not going to comment further, but I think others who respond to
> your posts should be aware of this.
Actually, you did comment further, and on a personal level; see below. And
the lack of response in nearly nine hours to your post amply demonstrates,
to me at least, how you seems to have missed the point.
> What the scope of this mailing list should be (given your recent posts
> on BLP matters, all copied to Jimmy Wales), is something I'd like to
> see discussed by the list moderators and those posting here. If there
> is a reason or rationale behind the posts, attempting to demonstrate
> something, then fine, but it would be courteous to state that rather
> then just post randomly like this.
Starting at the back, and working forward, my posts are not random. They are
carefully selected examples based on my experience as (currently) a reader
of Wikipedia and my responses to what I found. I take it as obvious that if
I can read these articles, so can their subjects, and if they don't like
what they see, making appropriate noises, or (in extreme cases) litigating
against the Foundation.
We have BLP policies for that reason, and while I see editors on Wikipedia
competing to provide articles about bacon(!), fiddling about with templates
that are ostensibly fit for purpose as they are, and still arguing about
trivial issues, nobody seems to be committed to clearing backlogs of
articles that actually provide legal, if not journalistic, risk for WP and
its parent. And there are myriad similar examples.
My personal reasons are less important than making sure that this project
does, and can, continue without unnecessary diversions into legalities-
perhaps I've been spending too much time reading up Commons policies of
late, one of which (to paraphrase) says that "just because nobody will
notice a copyright violation is no reason to ignore policy"- and so it
should be with any policy on any WMF project that may have consequences for
the Foundation. I am available to discuss any non-apparent personal
motivations PRIVATELY by email rather than on a public list. But don't
assume that I don't have our project's viability at heart.
As a lawyer by training, qualifications, experience, and observation, I've
seen many operations thought to be acting blithely within the law crumble to
the ground when the courts have upheld unexpected, but valid challenges. I'm
not suggesting this is likely in our case; but neither is it beyond the
bounds of possibility, and at least if I bring risks to the attention of
others, my hands are clean.
Hope that helps.
 and consuming unnecessary resources in TfDs
This week, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously
passed a resolution addressing the issue of controversial content on
the projects. The Board also unanimously passed a resolution
addressing images of identifiable, living people on the projects. The
resolutions are posted at:
These topics have been the subject of active debate on the Projects,
and particularly on Commons, for a long time. Last June, following
extensive community debate, the Wikimedia Foundation Board requested
the Executive Director undertake a study of the issue of controversial
content on the projects, acknowledging the difficulty of the issue
Robert and Dory Harris were commissioned to do this study, which they
did on meta in consultation with the community, publishing
recommendations in September 2010. Their report is available at:
At its October 2010 meeting, the Board was presented with this report.
The Board discussed the recommendations in depth, and developed a
working group to act on them. The working group's report was presented
at the Board's next in-person meeting, in March 2011; and these
resolutions were subsequently drafted and voted on. The working group
report has also been posted on meta, at:
Note that the controversial content resolution uses the term
"curation." We are using this term to refer to all aspects of managing
images and other content on our projects, including recruiting and
acquiring contributions and uploading, categorizing, placement of
images in articles and other pages (including gallery pages and the
main page), featuring or highlighting, flagging for improvement, and
deletion and removal. All of our projects are curated in line with
broad editorial principles; this is an essential feature that
distinguishes our projects from indiscriminate or general-purpose
Not all of the Harris recommendations are addressed in this
resolution. In particular:
* At this time, we refer the recommendation to create a WikiJunior
project to the editing community; the Board would like to see
demonstrated community support before creating such a project.
* In agreement with the Harris report, we do not recommend that
changes be made to current editing and/or filtering regimes
surrounding text in Wikimedia projects; we feel editorial mechanisms
regarding text are working well.
Finally, we urge that the community, the Foundation and the Wikimedia
movement continue to discuss the appropriate scope of Commons for
fulfilling Wikimedia's mission; this is a difficult and important
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this issue, and special thanks
to Robert and Dory Harris for their hard work.
-- Phoebe Ayers, on behalf of the Board working group and the Board
2011/9/21 emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>:
> Hi all;
> Just like the scripts to preserve wikis, I'm working in a new script to
> download all Wikimedia Commons images packed by day. But I have limited
> spare time. Sad that volunteers have to do this without any help from
> Wikimedia Foundation.
> I started too an effort in meta: (with low activity) to mirror XML dumps.
> If you know about universities or research groups which works with
> Wiki[pm]edia XML dumps, they would be a possible successful target to mirror
> If you want to download the texts into your PC, you only need 100GB free and
> to run this Python script.
> I heard that Internet Archive saves XML dumps quarterly or so, but no
> official announcement. Also, I heard about Library of Congress wanting to
> mirror the dumps, but not news since a long time.
> L'Encyclopédie has an "uptime" of 260 years and growing. Will
> Wiki[pm]edia projects reach that?
>  http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
>  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_Wikimedia_project_XML_dumps
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptime
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die
I can understand why you would prefer to have "full mirrors" of the
dumps, but let's face it, 10TB is not (yet) something that most
companies/universities can easily spare. Also, most people only work
on 1-5 versions of Wikipedia, the rest is just overhead to them.
My suggestion would be to accept mirrors of a single language and have
a smart interface at dumps.wikimedia.org that redirects requests to
the location that is the best match for the user. This system is used
by some Linux distributions (see download.opensuse.org for instance)
with great success.