Hoi,
The notion of something like a global arbitration committee IS that it is to
be disturbing. Only when there is something of so much gravitas that
something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a
final way to address an issue. The last thing you want is to get to the
stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known for a very long time that
there point of view is unpalatable to many and that it goes completely
against how things are done in all other projects. When asked, the language
committee has advised and the board has decreed. For such issues it is good
to allow for one last and final appeal because some of the reactions show
that some people did not even want to consider that their actions were seen
in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing voluntarily to
recognising its authority. The choice is more one of having an appeal or not
having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once made would be final.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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(a)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(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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l