Hello Gerard,
AFAIK officially the PALOPs (Portuguese speaking African countries) use European Portuguese. I'm quite used to reading news articles, laws, and books from all those countries, and apart some local vocabulary, my impression is that it's basically European Portuguese indeed. And at the time we had Wikipedia Zero in Angola, one of the things that newbies & IPs from there used to do was "correcting" Brazilian Portuguese to European Portuguese in the articles.
They also speak creoule in many of those countries, but it doesn't count as "Portuguese". I've no idea about the state of the local languages there, as we hardly have any regular editors from those countries (I can only think about 3, from Angola, at this point - one of them a sysop). But it certainly is something that could develop, once a community is established.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-30 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, How about Portuguese from Africa? Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that, despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
point
that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
to
have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011 declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
use
the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem. Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
and
knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in order to participate.
Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
Galician
wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
of
everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages over there, often in the same thread).
I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
"split
down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
is
often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
I
think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
and
any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
their
own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
haven't
come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact
split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
and
offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
at
all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
that
"some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment
leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
our
communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to
include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection
was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by
"boss"
selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
> wrote: > > I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
been
said
> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
the
> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects
but
are
not
> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do
not
attend
> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist. > > If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So
far I
have
> net > see even an acknowledgement of its existence. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > i/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe