Hoi, For a long time the contentious issue of the Siberian Wikipedia has rumbled on. There are people against it there are people in favour of it. There are two types of arguments for the closure of the Siberian Wikipedia:

- political arguments they include nationalistic arguments - these arguments are often countered by comparison to other wikipedias - they are considered to be POV, however this argument goes both ways - aggravated by repeated vandalism by POV pushers in many Cyrillic Wikipedias - linguistic arguments; the language is not recognised as such

It is unlikely that there will be a resolution and acceptance as a consequence from the vote for closure that is said to be finished. Voting is a bad instrument because an unreasonable majority can push its POV and a reasonable minority will not accept such a POV when their arguments are not addressed. Many of the arguments used are not acceptable and consequently the result of the vote is not necessarily acceptable. It is also unclear that the people to what extend the people that voted are genuine Wikimedians.

The linguistic argument is fairly easier to resolve. When it can be successfully argued that Siberian is indeed a language, it is possible to get recognition for it. This will remove the only compelling argument for closure. I would support this as the way to go when the consequences are clear and accepted by all. When Siberian is indeed recognised as a language, the Siberian Wikipedia can stay and when it is not, hosting for this project is no longer an option within the Wikimedia Foundation.

Without a prior agreement about the consequences of this process, there is no point for the WMF to support the start a procedure for evaluation of the Siberian language. This does not prevent people interested in asking for recognition for Siberian. It would strengthen their case. It would however not necessarily make this controversy go away.

Thanks, GerardM

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sib...