Hoi, Milos asks what the language committee has to say about the issues that are raised. As always I speak on a personal title.
The language committee generally grants a conditional approval for languages that have an ISO-639-3 code. When the language is not a dead language, ie when the language is actively used and can be used to communicate the concepts of the modern world, a project like Wikipedia makes sense. For the not dead languages we require a user interface in that language. Currently the most important messages of MediaWiki have been identified. For a first project these have to be all localized, for a second project we require a comprehensive localization of MediaWiki.
Consequently, we are happy to grant conditional approval to both constructed languages and minority languages. This allows for the start of a test in the Incubator. When the project shows a lively community with a small corpus of well written articles, we typically check if the language is properly written and is indeed that language. There are no exact numbers and articles that are only stubs are ignored. When there are too many stubs a next phase just does not happen. Typically a project is granted a next phase by consensus in the language committee.
The reason why I think the current situation is appalling is because there has been a vote for closure for the Volapuk Wikipedia only a month ago. The method chosen for "change" is one where people impose their will on another project. This is done without consulting the existing Volapuk community. People have created profiles on the vo.wikipedia and vigilante style start marking articles for deletion without even knowing the first thing of the language. This kind of behavior will have you blocked on any project and rightfully so.
All kinds of preconceptions are aired in this discussion many of them are of no relevance. When people are of the opinion that Latin, Esperanto, Volapuk are not relevant, they should just ignore these languages and do the things for the languages that are relevant to them. When people are of the opinion that bot created articles are no good, they have to realize that the English language Wikipedia, most of the Wiktionaries all contain many articles that are bot generated. Bots are used on all projects, this is a well established practice in the Wikimedia Foundation.
The opinion that many bot generated articles are plain stupid is one that I share. However, when you want to improve the practice and the quality of bot created articles, you start by engaging the people concerned in a discussion. What you do not do is ask for Admin rights for a project without even bothering to create a profile on a project. This is destructive behavior and unbecoming of any Wikimedian.
In the past I have argued for a global arbitration committee. However, in this case a more reasonable, consensus seeking behavior would have negated even the need for an escalation towards such a body and also much of the contention.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 27, 2007 10:23 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, doesn Lang SubCom has anything to say about this? I saw Gerard's vote, but I would like to see a statement, at least informal, of Lang SubCom members. I didn't see how articles were looking on Lombard Wikipedia, but if they were like articles on Volapuk Wikipedia, I have to say that tendencies in our community are extremely worrying.
Up to those two cases, I was thinking that it would be good to have one community at the global level which would be able to make some decisions. After those two cases, I am really in doubt. It seems that language borders are not giving only nationalisms, but a free space of imposing crazy decisions of wounded vanities, too.
On 12/27/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
This is *only* about the way choosen to create the
Volapük Wikipedia.
Besides my comment on Meta: Generated articles are more then valid (please, add sources in all articles!). I may see that one or combination of the next may be the reasons for demanding such nonsense action: (1) someone is afraid with so much articles, (2) someone doesn't like to see that a small community is able to make the same number of articles as big ones, (3) someone is preparing field for removing all bot-generated articles and forbidding such actions. In all cases, please go firstly to the English, French, Italian and Polish Wikipedias.
"(3) someone is preparing field for removing all bot-generated articles and forbidding such actions" appears to be accurate.[1]
Birgitte SB
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/R...
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l