Hoi,
First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been
given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have
published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status
and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel are available. There was a
group of people who high jacked these codes and did not allow people to use
the official orthography. There was a really vibrant incubator project for
the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide
lines, the old project was parked under a different code that is conforming
to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are
mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and this is what is required.
We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot
promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is
probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message
file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can
work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead locked is the promotion
to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are
right. People did choose not to do that. Might was right, and possession was
2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia
Foundation works and consequently there was a need for a solution to this
knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not
been deleted has more to do with the fact that we allow for a procedure that
is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish
that people finally decide to collaborate than with the fact that we should
allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema
to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the
existing bewiki
(cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ).
To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languageā¦
,----
| That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions.
`----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than
be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusā¦
I read:
,----
| The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at
|
be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
|
be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee.
`----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
--
http://www.infoe.de/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l