He's probably thinking of Lower Sorbian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/dsb (approx. 300 pages already), Saterlandic = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq (approx. 300 pages already), and Latgalian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/bat-ltg (approx. 150 pages already), among others.
The new policy has been confusing for the people who made these requests originally. They cannot understand why they should have to make a second request. And besides, if their first request can just be shot down for no reason at all, why couldn't their second request? I think this is starting to seem pointless to them. Going directly from "approved requests" to "automatically denied requests"... makes 0 sense.
Mark
On 31/03/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from the kabyle, ottoman turkish, and crimean tatar wikipedias, what requests are you thinking of where editors are serious about starting their wiki?
By the way -- I haven't said it often enough since incubator.wikimedia got set up, but Three Cheers for that lovely site. It is wonderful to have a proper space to develop a new language wiki, precisely so that these issues of how to fix a reasonable language policy can take place without preventing interested editors from developing new articles in their chosen language.
I'm not sure anyone is saying "everything is fine, move along", but I think we also have a familiar exaggeration on both sides of the issue of what the differences are between two fairly similar positions about what is required to start a new wiki... perhaps it is time for a loud broadcasting of the new language policy, and a call (in more languages than just English) for interested participants to return to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_languages and weigh in?
SJ
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Arbeo M wrote:
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
--Arbeo _______________________________________________ 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