Hoi, Swahili would not be closed. Its localisation is 100.00% for the most used messages and would not qualify under these terms. When a project is to be closed, when objective arguments are applied, we can give a stay of execution if there are arguments to do so. The point is that with objective criteria there is less room for noise.
The notion of closing projects is problematic because it just does not happen in the first place. What I attempt to do is rationalise the debate and get some objective criteria. This may reestablish some trust and this may get "resolutions" implemented.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, I agree with you about this issue, however, in some particular points I do not:
- While your first point is a valid one, I don't think that a problem
with a script should lead to the closure of the project. I would prefer an ultimatum here, too: If your script problem may not be solved by computational methods, then you have 2h04m to allow writing on your project in another script.
- I don't agree that not active projects should be closed if they
represents a valid language. AFAIK, even Swahili Wikipedia is not quite active and this is a lingua franca of Sub-Saharan Africa. Maybe such projects should be locked (because of not wasting stewards' time with dealing with vandalism) with a clear notice (preferably in native language) which states that "If you are a speaker of that language and you are willing to contribute there, you should ask for unlocking there."
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For quite some time, we have had people arguing for the closure of
projects.
I have seen many arguments pro and against closures. What has been
missing
in all these projects are objective criteria why it makes sense to find fault with a project.
I have come up with three objective arguments.
- A project is not what it is advertised to be. For instance when a
language is always written in a particular script, a project in any
other
script is problematic.
- A project does not have at least 90% of the most relevant messages
localised. For your information there are only 498 messages in this
category
at the moment.
- A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there is nothing
to see what is the point ?
The first argument is an absolute, never mind the size.
For the second and third I would argue for closure when both conditions
are
not met. When there is activity in either it may be reason for giving
an
ultimatum. The ultimatum would be that both conditions need to be met
within
three months.
The most important reason why we need viable projects is because it is
sad
to see so much time wasted by good people on projects that have little
or no
objective value. No value because nobody actively cares. Yes, people
may
come along and get an interest and eventually they will, but time of valuable people is wasted now and that provides in my opinion a really strong extra argument. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l