I find the idea of a global arbitration committe disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the projects would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction. And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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@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/Languages...
,---- | 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_Belarusi...
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,
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail