--- Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not quite getting all emails through so this is reconstructed from the archive:
Arnomane said:
On independence of Wikipedia communities:
- A Wikipedia that generates interwikis to such
contentless articles en masse destroys one of our common strengths: Our cool interwiki system.
Certainly there must be another option for protecting the interwiki system than becoming an admin in a wiki you have no inherent interest in developing to delete articles against the local consensus. I cannot agree that interwiki bloat is such priority that it demands a solution so radical as that.
- Furthermore they challenge the reputation of the >
whole international
Wikipedia community to outsiders.
This is hardly the first time for such a challenge. I suggest you follow the successful example of what was done when en.WP was blocking non-latin usernames which was certainly a challenge to international reputation. [1] [2] I can't see the vo.WP issue as beeing a larger challenge to general reputation than the any of the top 10 issues that have come from en.WP. So I cannot support a more radical handling of vo.WP than en.WP has recieved for "internationally" unpopular practices.
- And above all. There are some unchangeable rules >
in every Wikipedia imposed
by the Wikimedia Foundation. One of them is NPOV and vo.wikipedia in its current stage simply has no chance to get somewhere near NPOV because of their methods choosen.
With NPOV concerns we also have precedents. Look into how the NPOV concerns for ar.WP were handled.[3] Certainly a reasonable person cannot think vo.WP is in a worse state of bias than those complaints and therefore deserves a more radical reaction than they were given.
I think I am correct to say that many people opposing you are not arguing that vo.WP is 100% correct in what they have done and how they have responded to concerns. Rather many people are opposing you because your proposal is *extremely radical* and the issue you wish to address comparatively less important than issues that have needed intervention from outside a community in the past. The issue at hand does not in any way merit such new precedent of intervention. Please find a less radical means of addressing your concerns.
Birgitte SB
[1]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/025769.html [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username/Archive_3#Non-latin_cha... [3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/foundation-l/2006-November/025064.h...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ