I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
There is also a similar discussion about closing the Simple Wiktionary.
These issues need a much wider and intelligent debate than they are receiving. They are too important for there to be any chance that they just dissappear one day, with most people not knowing about it.
Brian.
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
- Chris
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
There is also a similar discussion about closing the Simple Wiktionary.
These issues need a much wider and intelligent debate than they are receiving. They are too important for there to be any chance that they just dissappear one day, with most people not knowing about it.
Brian.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +0000, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2...
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/C...
- Chris
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
There is also a similar discussion about closing the Simple Wiktionary.
These issues need a much wider and intelligent debate than they are receiving. They are too important for there to be any chance that they just dissappear one day, with most people not knowing about it.
Brian.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +0000, Chris Down < neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=1400782&oldid=1400771
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/C...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=1401650
As pointed out, the user in question has not provided a link to a home project, to prove they have some sort of standing in the community. If this sort of practice was accepted, I could just go and register several accounts and vote how I wanted to skew the discussion. Voters have to have *some* sort of eligibility. We generally ask for 100 edits to any project. You miss the point where it says *any* project, not just Meta. A user's first edit to come and vote on such a proposal is not normally the sort of edit an editor would make. A link to a home project should be provided so the validity of the vote can be checked.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:03:12 +0000, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +0000, Chris Down < neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=1400782&oldid=1400771
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/C...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=1401650
As pointed out, the user in question has not provided a link to a home project, to prove they have some sort of standing in the community. If this sort of practice was accepted, I could just go and register several accounts and vote how I wanted to skew the discussion. Voters have to have *some* sort of eligibility. We generally ask for 100 edits to any project. You miss the point where it says *any* project, not just Meta. A user's first edit to come and vote on such a proposal is not normally the sort of edit an editor would make. A link to a home project should be provided so the validity of the vote can be checked.
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
I thought your comment in the firts link above was a bit bitey.
Brian.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
Most of them time, it's noted in the SiteNotice, the main page, and/or the main discussion page. (This is what's normally/should be done for the smaller wikis, at least.)
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
Most of them time, it's noted in the SiteNotice, the main page, and/or the main discussion page. (This is what's normally/should be done for the smaller wikis, at least.)
Well in this case I'm missing it. Also, I do not know whether I am odd, but I hardly ever look at the main page, the community portal, etc on any of the projects I work on.
Now on simple at:-
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
there is:-
Proposal for closure A proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia has been made.
The first line is a link to the discussion on meta.
I have not come across any other mention of this discussion on simple and no mention of having to have 100 edits on other projects to participate in the discussion on meta. How is the poor editor on simple to know this, if s/he does not visit meta normally?
What am I missing?
Brian.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
Very early on I have asked the proposer to join the community and help fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the beginning to the original proposal of wikipedia:simple:
However you cannot talk when everybody has already got er finger on er trigger ready to shoot their {{support}} or {{oppose}}.
It may be an interesting idea requiring a discussion on the local project to close it. However, meta is useful as a cross-wiki platform, and most closures requests are about inactive wikis, which are much less contraversial, and in which case "discussion on the local project" wouldn't work.
I think the a lot of pro-closure commenters in current discussion on wikipedia:simple: has not bothered to think of the ideas of the other side, and can only think of problems abstractly and rather not to deal with them actually and locally. Maybe we can combine the ideas, that if there is substantial objection, the discussion of closure should be moved on the local project.
Still, I would say that meta, being open and multilingual, is not worse as a forum than this mailing list. ~~~~
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
Most of them time, it's noted in the SiteNotice, the main page, and/or the main discussion page. (This is what's normally/should be done for the smaller wikis, at least.)
Well in this case I'm missing it. Also, I do not know whether I am odd, but I hardly ever look at the main page, the community portal, etc on any of the projects I work on.
Now on simple at:-
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
there is:-
Proposal for closure A proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia has been made.
The first line is a link to the discussion on meta.
I have not come across any other mention of this discussion on simple and no mention of having to have 100 edits on other projects to participate in the discussion on meta. How is the poor editor on simple to know this, if s/he does not visit meta normally?
What am I missing?
Brian.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
They notified the simple community but did not mention that you had to "prove" yourslef before commenting.
Very early on I have asked the proposer to join the community and help fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the beginning to the original proposal of wikipedia:simple:
I noticed that. Very sensible.
However you cannot talk when everybody has already got er finger on er trigger ready to shoot their {{support}} or {{oppose}}.
It may be an interesting idea requiring a discussion on the local project to close it. However, meta is useful as a cross-wiki platform, and most closures requests are about inactive wikis, which are much less contraversial, and in which case "discussion on the local project" wouldn't work.
I agree. This discussion is quite different from a discussion on a small wp that never got off the ground. It matters.
I think the a lot of pro-closure commenters in current discussion on wikipedia:simple: has not bothered to think of the ideas of the other side, and can only think of problems abstractly and rather not to deal with them actually and locally. Maybe we can combine the ideas, that if there is substantial objection, the discussion of closure should be moved on the local project.
I agree. The discussion is not very deep. That was one of the things that worried me.
Still, I would say that meta, being open and multilingual, is not worse as a forum than this mailing list. ~~~~
Of course. That is why I want the very widest discussion and the final decision to close something like htis to be taken at the most authoritive level.
Brian.
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
Most of them time, it's noted in the SiteNotice, the main page, and/or the main discussion page. (This is what's normally/should be done for the smaller wikis, at least.)
Well in this case I'm missing it. Also, I do not know whether I am odd, but I hardly ever look at the main page, the community portal, etc on any of the projects I work on.
Now on simple at:-
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
there is:-
Proposal for closure A proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia has been made.
The first line is a link to the discussion on meta.
I have not come across any other mention of this discussion on simple and no mention of having to have 100 edits on other projects to participate in the discussion on meta. How is the poor editor on simple to know this, if s/he does not visit meta normally?
What am I missing?
Brian.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
It was added to the here a day later.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bulletin/News&dif...
They notified the simple community but did not mention that you had to "prove" yourslef before commenting.
The requirement often used is that users need to have a edit on one of the projects _before_ the commencement of the vote begins on meta.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#cite_note-0
Very early on I have asked the proposer to join the community and help fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the beginning to the original proposal of wikipedia:simple:
I noticed that. Very sensible.
However you cannot talk when everybody has already got er finger on er trigger ready to shoot their {{support}} or {{oppose}}.
It may be an interesting idea requiring a discussion on the local project to close it. However, meta is useful as a cross-wiki platform, and most closures requests are about inactive wikis, which are much less contraversial, and in which case "discussion on the local project" wouldn't work.
I agree. This discussion is quite different from a discussion on a small wp that never got off the ground. It matters.
Another example of discussion that matters is the discussion that mostly focused on English Wikiquote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
It is interesting to note that the Wikiquote discussion was closed because there were plans to clean it up, however the 25 longest pages are the same pages from 5 months ago.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LongPages http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/On_disbanding_Wi...
-- John Vandenberg
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H hillgentleman@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by someone else. They do know about it though. No issue here.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:18:03 +0000, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H hillgentleman@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by someone else. They do know about it though. No issue here.
They know about it because of [[Template:Bulletin/News]] on Simple. As far as I can see the place(s) that this is transcuded are the only places. The question however is how does a Simple WP editor who never normally goes to meta know that s/he has to credential themselves before they can !vote on this proposal? I fail to see how they can easily. Yes, it is on meta somewhere but how would they get to read that? The whole process is not really open to them.
Brian.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
They know about it because of [[Template:Bulletin/News]] on Simple. As far as I can see the place(s) that this is transcuded are the only places. The question however is how does a Simple WP editor who never normally goes to meta know that s/he has to credential themselves before they can !vote on this proposal? I fail to see how they can easily. Yes, it is on meta somewhere but how would they get to read that? The whole process is not really open to them.
It was also announced on Simple talk, the Wikipedia's community page; if an editor does not know that it is usually required to provide a link to a home wiki, they can be asked to provide a link. It's not a problem. I don't know where you get the idea that the process isn't open.
That says a WMF project, not Meta. Unless, of course, I'm missing something, which is entirely possible.
- Chris
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +0000, Chris Down < neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=1400782&oldid=1400771
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/C...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=1401650
- Chris
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
There is also a similar discussion about closing the Simple Wiktionary.
These issues need a much wider and intelligent debate than they are receiving. They are too important for there to be any chance that they just dissappear one day, with most people not knowing about it.
Brian.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute.
That's not in the policy, where do you see that?
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute.
That's not in the policy, where do you see that?
I think the idea that to vote or whatever, you need 100 edits on *any* project, was brought up.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
I think the idea that to vote or whatever, you need 100 edits on *any* project, was brought up.
That's a valid point, including a link to your home-wiki or a wiki that satisfies the requirements.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:56:54 -0500, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
I think the idea that to vote or whatever, you need 100 edits on *any* project, was brought up.
That's a valid point, including a link to your home-wiki or a wiki that satisfies the requirements.
OK, I misread that.
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
Brian.
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
The proposal is almost certainly going to fail, so there is no need to seek wider knowledge of it. If the people proposing it want to let more people know in the hope of getting more votes in favour, then they are welcome to do so (as long as it is done fairly), but I think the general community only needs to step in if it looks like the proposal will pass without adequate discussion, and that's not the case here.
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason to close a project. OK, Simple English might not meet current standards for language, but it has an active community, and uprooting that for the sake of some policy seems unproductive.
This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason to close a project. OK, Simple English might not meet current standards for language, but it has an active community, and uprooting that for the sake of some policy seems unproductive.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason to close a project.
That may be your opinion, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, hasn't been done before, or won't be done again.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason to close a project.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I have refrained from commenting on this post in the interest of lessening the impact on people's inboxes. However, I feel that after a cursory inspection of my own, I should probably make a few points. One is that in the year or so I have been subscribed to this list, I cannot think of any major decision made as a result of discussion here. Another is that perennial stuff tends to have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed. Therefore continuing this discussion here is a waste of time and will only serve to irritate list recipients. Please, for the sake of our inboxes, end this thread.
________________________________ From: Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:17:24 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason to close a project. OK, Simple English might not meet current standards for language, but it has an active community, and uprooting that for the sake of some policy seems unproductive.
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
That would be just as true for a project in any other language but standard English. What you're saying is that Meta isn't perfect - which is true. Do you have a better alternative?
The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would have to make the changes anyway... Would it be interpreted, then, by a developer?
Nathan
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would have to make the changes anyway... Would it be interpreted, then, by a developer?
Nathan
Normally they are closed by Meta-wiki regulars, who all happen to be trusted to some extent on Meta and elsewhere. I'd probably give a discussion like this to a steward to close. Really though, any trusted person who hasn't voted can close it.
2009/2/23 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would have to make the changes anyway... Would it be interpreted, then, by a developer?
Nathan
Normally they are closed by Meta-wiki regulars, who all happen to be trusted to some extent on Meta and elsewhere. I'd probably give a discussion like this to a steward to close. Really though, any trusted person who hasn't voted can close it.
If there is a consensus, then it doesn't really need closing, the result should be obvious to everyone and a developer just needs to be informed. If there isn't a consensus to close the project, then nothing needs to happen.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
Meta is a multilingual wiki - though English tends to be used as the lingua franca.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:01:11AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
A very good point. Simple is special and should be treated in a special way. Still, it does not look as if it will be closed.
Brian.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. Thanks., GerardM
2009/2/25 Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. Thanks., GerardM
If anyone is interested, I believe the other language most suited to such a project would be French, because of its lingua franca status in large parts of the developing world.
Thanks, Pharos
2009/2/25 Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
Andrew Gray wrote:
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
Work for easy-to-read Swedish was started in 1968, and since 1987 operates as a government-sponsored foundation, described in this Swedish Wikipedia article, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrum_f%C3%B6r_l%C3%A4ttl%C3%A4st
On that Swedish foundation's website, you can also find information about them in English, French, German, and Spanish, http://www.lattlast.se/
(Le Centre Facile à Lire; La fundación sueca de nombre Centro de Lectura Fácil)
Someone should compile an article on en.wikipedia about such initiatives in various countries. The article [[Simple English]] branches out to various special forms, but doesn't provide the international overview of the topic.
2009/2/25 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se:
Work for easy-to-read Swedish was started in 1968, and since 1987 operates as a government-sponsored foundation, described in this Swedish Wikipedia article, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrum_f%C3%B6r_l%C3%A4ttl%C3%A4st
On that Swedish foundation's website, you can also find information about them in English, French, German, and Spanish, http://www.lattlast.se/
(Le Centre Facile à Lire; La fundación sueca de nombre Centro de Lectura Fácil)
Marvellous, thanks!
Someone should compile an article on en.wikipedia about such initiatives in various countries. The article [[Simple English]] branches out to various special forms, but doesn't provide the international overview of the topic.
Yes, I was thinking much the same. I browsed a bit, and could find an article on a simplified form of Latin, but mostly it's all conlangs...
...oh, well, another on for the to-do pile :-)
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may
even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may
even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may
even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it
may
even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do
the
heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/25 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should
be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
> Hoi, > When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it
may
>
even
> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
> languages. > > This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do
the
heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not cold water for me. I must confess I've never been a fan of Simple.
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/25 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should
be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator
works.
Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com: > > >> Hoi, >> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood,
it
may
>> even
>> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
>> languages. >> >> > This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple > English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
> of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
> to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to
do
the
> heavy lifting ourselves? > > > My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it.
________________________________ From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/25 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should
be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
> Hoi, > When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it
may
>
even
> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
> languages. > > This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do
the
heavy lifting ourselves?
My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We are not, and you're misinterpreting Gerard's post; what he says is that we do not allow any more simple projects; deciding over existing projects is not something we do, and not something we even *want* to do.
2009/2/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/25 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should
be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator
works.
Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com: > > >> Hoi, >> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood,
it
may
>> even
>> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
>> languages. >> >> > This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple > English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
> of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
> to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to
do
the
> heavy lifting ourselves? > > > My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The language committee is empowered to decide on all new projects. It has been this way since its start. Nothing new here. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
- Show quoted text -
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/25 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should
be
a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily
accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator
compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator
works.
Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com: > > >> Hoi, >> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood,
it
may
>> even
>> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the
biggest
>> languages. >> >> > This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple > English is (apparently) derived from two defined "simplified
versions"
> of English which were deliberately designed - have there been
projects
> to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to
do
the
> heavy lifting ourselves? > > > My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?).
To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The language committee is empowered to decide on all new projects. It has been this way since its start. Nothing new here. Thanks, GerardM
How do we get rid of you?
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will read that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually consider this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there is a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that actually talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin> You are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The language committee is empowered to decide on all new projects. It has been this way since its start. Nothing new here. Thanks, GerardM
How do we get rid of you?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will read that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually consider this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there is a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that actually talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin> You are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you?
Hoi, <grin> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list </grin> sad.. it kinda kills effective conversation Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will
read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually
consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there
is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that
actually
talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin>
You
are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
i think there is a valid point here though. you are on a committee that has a certain level of power. committees who make decisions on behalf of the committee should surely be able to be held to account by the community. if you look at this comment in this way then it can be interpreted as "when is the committe re-elected, what will be the voitng process etc".
regards
mark
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, <grin> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list </grin> sad.. it kinda kills effective conversation Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will
read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually
consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and
there
is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that
actually
talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin>
You
are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the committees are as a rule bodies that function on behalf of the board, not so much the community. The language committee has as its task to ensure that viable new communities may start their new project. It has no involvement with existing communities because it does not deal with existing projects.
The decisions of the Language Committee makes only go into effect when the board does not disapprove. As to new members, when we are of an opinion that someone will add a valuable contribution to the Language Committee, he or she is proposed. There were a lot of noises that we should have more linguists, now we do. We are asking the board for approval of a new member at the moment because we expect that this will improve the communication with the Incubator community. We expect that there will be no disapproval.
Really, the power that you have as a committee member is minimal if it exists at all, the work is ... work and real... but we do not vote much and that means less need for political skills and posturing. That is a relief :) Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Mark (Markie) newsmarkie@googlemail.com
i think there is a valid point here though. you are on a committee that has a certain level of power. committees who make decisions on behalf of the committee should surely be able to be held to account by the community. if you look at this comment in this way then it can be interpreted as "when is the committe re-elected, what will be the voitng process etc".
regards
mark
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, <grin> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list </grin> sad..
it
kinda kills effective conversation Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will
read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually
consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and
there
is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that
actually
talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced
</grin> > > You > > > are doing a poor job at that. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you? > > > > -- > > geni > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the committees are as a rule bodies that function on behalf of the board, not so much the community. The language committee has as its task to ensure that viable new communities may start their new project. It has no involvement with existing communities because it does not deal with existing projects.
Right so in order to get rid of you we have to elect people to the board who will vote to disband you. See if you had just straight said that it would have saved time.
Hoi, <grin> When I am no longer a member of the language committee, I will still be around </grin> or I am confined between six planks. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the committees are as a rule bodies that function on behalf of the board, not
so
much the community. The language committee has as its task to ensure that viable new communities may start their new project. It has no involvement with existing communities because it does not deal with existing
projects.
Right so in order to get rid of you we have to elect people to the board who will vote to disband you. See if you had just straight said that it would have saved time.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one, are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
New simple-language wikis will not be created under the current policy, simply because the policy does not have objective criteria that would allow them. Do we allow any simple wikis, like a "simple Cherokee" Wikipedia? If not, what objective criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving languages? If so, should we also permit scientific-language wikis, and any other arbitrary variant contributors may legitimately propose? If not, what criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving variants?
There are two ways to create new simple-language wikis. The first, most obvious but most difficult, is to formulate those criteria so that the policy can be changed to allow them. The second is to circumvent the policy, by convincing the Board to accept such a proposal directly. (The second may be possible, but would be very unfair to contributors who want a simple non-English wiki, which won't have the same amount of popular support to sway the Board.)
The language committee itself was created by Board approval, and can be dismantled or have its membership changed by Board approval. Without a language subcommittee, requests would need to be processed by the Board or the sysadmins directly. More likely, the membership would be changed in case of problems. I think the language committee does more good than ill, but persons who disagree can certainly gather together and propose a change.
Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
Hello,
There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one, are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
Very cool parenthetical remark there, just as an aside.
New simple-language wikis will not be created under the current policy, simply because the policy does not have objective criteria that would allow them. Do we allow any simple wikis, like a "simple Cherokee" Wikipedia? If not, what objective criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving languages? If so, should we also permit scientific-language wikis, and any other arbitrary variant contributors may legitimately propose? If not, what criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving variants?
I think this is a conundrum, and I tried to offer a shortcut way of proceeding with non-English simples, without thinking about the criteria at all, by just dumping them all into incubator, and following the criteria of viable community size/activity criteria or what have you - I frankly have no idea what they are at all, but I am betting they are getting viable project results, or you would be adjusting them - and hatching them when they meet the criteria.
Don't see why you couldn't have a go at letting non- simples from at least a few of the largest languages have a test at creating a viable community of editors in a simple variant of their language.
I know as a fact that even such a minor language as Finnish, does have many many books in any decent public library worthy of the name (studying as I am Library and information sciences - and paddling very hard below the surface for my "craftsmanship work") here would have a respectable number of books written both in large print, and in simplified form (not always intersecting). But I confess that may be an artifact of being a citizen of one of the nations with the highest literacy rates on record.
There are two ways to create new simple-language wikis. The first, most obvious but most difficult, is to formulate those criteria so that the policy can be changed to allow them. The second is to circumvent the policy, by convincing the Board to accept such a proposal directly. (The second may be possible, but would be very unfair to contributors who want a simple non-English wiki, which won't have the same amount of popular support to sway the Board.)
I frankly don't understand what would be "very unfair" to let larger language projects with more weight behind them, be the ones to do the hard lifting to actually establish the fact gosh-darn it, English is *not* the only simple that can be viable.
Baby steps, baby steps. Get a beach head first, and soon you can haul in smaller languages.
The language committee itself was created by Board approval, and can be dismantled or have its membership changed by Board approval. Without a language subcommittee, requests would need to be processed by the Board or the sysadmins directly. More likely, the membership would be changed in case of problems. I think the language committee does more good than ill, but persons who disagree can certainly gather together and propose a change.
Or of course, people on the committee can grow themselves noses, ears, and other senses, and observe the environment more clearly.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I second Geni's question... how do we get rid of you?
skype: node.ue
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, <grin> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list </grin> sad.. it kinda kills effective conversation Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will
read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually
consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there
is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that
actually
talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin>
You
are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Okay, that's enough everyone!
The question "How do we get rid of you?" is utterly rude and impolite. If you want to ask "How can we get rid of the language committee?", then formulate it in that way. (By the way: the answer is "By persuading the board of trustees to dissolve the committee", so you would probably rather want to ask "Should we abolish the language committee"?)
But I won't allow further personal attacks.
Michael
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I second Geni's question... how do we get rid of you?
skype: node.ue
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, <grin> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list </grin> sad.. it kinda kills effective conversation Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will
read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually
consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there
is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that
actually
talks and engages in the discussion, <grin> I can be convinced </grin>
You
are doing a poor job at that. Thanks, GerardM
You are in a position of power thus I repeat how do we get rid of you?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Do you have a substantive opinion on the essence of my suggestion, that is that even large language simple projects should pass through the incubator?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
"No, Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works.
I think this is exactly what he was suggesting - I'm not sure why you're objecting to it...
i agree that there are many problems with a discussion or vote on one project impacting another. community participation and language / context barriers are one. having people discussing who themselves aren't editors or readers is another. privileging "having edited 100 articles in any one wikipedia" over "being an active daily reader, republisher, and online or offline user" or "being a developer or researcher working with WP data" is silly.
For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most users of WP as well,
Cary writes:
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en, because of the difference in article quality and coverage.
However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short readers). (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is definite interest in simple spanish articles.)
And two other ideas * this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style. * simple: and en: could well come in the same package for offline use. a link from the top of an article could take you between the two (with pride of place before links to other languages, for instance) one could imagine other same-language variants to show there -- specialist v. overview, for instance.
I don't know the right way to make this visible for online editors/readers, but harder problems have been overcome. One of the primary things limiting the growth of simple: (and its theoretical twin, 'specialist:' for 172-style detail) is its lack of visibility, despite the fact that most editors of en: could contribute meaningfully, even casually as a fun exercise, in a different english sublanguage.
SJ
ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR.
-- Samuel Klein +1 617 529 4266 One Laptop per Child
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language.
Ec
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein sj@laptop.org wrote:
For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most users of WP as well,
That's probably the best possible use for Simple, but I don't think it alone justifies Simple's existence.
Cary writes:
In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote.
Cary Bass
The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en, because of the difference in article quality and coverage.
However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short readers). (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is definite interest in simple spanish articles.)
If someone can find the first request for deletion of Simple, they'll find that I made my case against it then. I still think that encyclopedia articles should be in plain language, and that splitting efforts from enwiki (though not that big a deal, anymore) doesn't help anyone, particularly when you're dealing with an entirely undefined subset of English.
And, again, what's the goal? English is horribly irregular and difficult to learn, but what problem is Simple actually solving?
When Simple Spanish was proposed, I opposed it even more strongly. The eswiki community was already fractured (read: gone); and, to its credit, Spanish isn't that hard. It's a pretty regular language when it comes to grammar, and it shares a vocabulary with most Romance languages. There's not a whole lot you can do to simplify it.
And two other ideas
- this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids
learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style.
Efforts targeted at kids should definitely use simpler language. Kids should also be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia articles in their native language, at whatever level they're comfortable with. Others can come by later and polish up their prose.
ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR.
I'm actually very interested in this, academically, and hope we get more information.
Austin
2009/2/22 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au:
I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
If it's mentioned on their main page, one would hope they know about it. Do you have a better way of informing them? The discussion has to take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question, but that would most likely result in few people from other projects being involved, which is a bad thing). As others have pointed out, there is no requirement to be active on meta, just active on some Wikimedia project.
Projects are not closed without significant discussion and a clear consensus and the procedure we have seems to be the best way to achieve that. If you have a better procedure, please do speak up.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:16:32 +0000, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/22 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au:
I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sim...
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it likely will not happen, there are issues. Is this kind of discussion on Meta really the best way to handle this kind of issue? I am particularly concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than 100 edits there) can contribute. This prevents or at least discourages the users of Simple from going to Meta to comment. I also wonder whether Simple editors really know about this issue, although I see it is mentioned on their main page.
If it's mentioned on their main page, one would hope they know about it. Do you have a better way of informing them? The discussion has to take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question, but that would most likely result in few people from other projects being involved, which is a bad thing). As others have pointed out, there is no requirement to be active on meta, just active on some Wikimedia project.
Projects are not closed without significant discussion and a clear consensus and the procedure we have seems to be the best way to achieve that. If you have a better procedure, please do speak up.
OK, I think I have no problem with discussion on meta. Perhaps there should be discussion on simple as well, and in this case since there is a proposal to move it all under en:wp, there as well. I think my concern is on how such a discussion might be closed. I am completely unclear how the meta discussion would be closed. Does a crat there just come along and decide? I would like to think that there would be wide discussion in several places and then a decision by the WMF before a project such as Simple would be closed.
Fortunately this time there is no majority to close it. The second Poll on the suggested conversion of SE articles to EN namespace however shows that the people who do not like simple are being persistent and this must be very disturbing to editors on that project. This is not the way to treat a project that gets so many reader hits,
Brian.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
The discussion has to take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question, but that would most likely result in few people from other projects being involved, which is a bad thing).
Why is that a bad thing? Why should people not involved in a project be involved in deciding whether or not the project should exist?
Reminds me of an anecdote by Clay Shirky ( http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html):
---
3.) The third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in.
In the early Nineties, a proposal went out to create a Usenet news group for discussing Tibetan culture, called soc.culture.tibet. And it was voted down, in large part because a number of Chinese students who had Internet access voted it down, on the logic that Tibet wasn't a country; it was a region of China. And in their view, since Tibet wasn't a country, there oughtn't be any place to discuss its culture, because that was oxymoronic.
Now, everyone could see that this was the wrong answer. The people who wanted a place to discuss Tibetan culture should have it. That was the core group. But because the one person/one vote model on Usenet said "Anyone who's on Usenet gets to vote on any group," sufficiently contentious groups could simply be voted away.
2009/2/23 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
The discussion has to take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question, but that would most likely result in few people from other projects being involved, which is a bad thing).
Why is that a bad thing? Why should people not involved in a project be involved in deciding whether or not the project should exist?
Because people involved in the project are almost certainly in favour of the project remaining. If they didn't think it should exist, they wouldn't be involved in it. If you want to get a balanced discussion, you need wider suffrage. Restricting discussion to just that project is equivalent to a rule that active projects are never shut down (there is certainly an argument for such a rule, but that's a discussion for another day).
In community draft, there is a proposal of an alternative language policy.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
And there is a section of Simple English projects at the discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_...
You can provide your ideas about this issue.
C.m.l.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org