I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench. Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
Regards, Gutza
Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers. Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance between informed or involved parties with different views.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench. Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
Regards, Gutza
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think Milos proposal was about to discuss the issue of the "moldovan" wikipedia inside the interested people, the ones who sustain the idea of a such, and the opponents (maybe the word is not the most appropriate one - but i can remember any other more neutral word), together with the Langcom. In order not to monopolize the discussions on the [foundation-l] (and I have the feeling that otherwise the subject will become very "hot", and maybe somewhere too personalized), as M. Williams points out regarding the discussions that may take place.
I want to remember that the question of the existence of a "moldovan language" separated by Romanian language, with a distinct grammar, vocabulary and literature, partially or totally different, it is an extremely politicized question inside Republic of Moldova, first of all. There has been no clear conclusion/decision on the question, since it implies a lot of political issues to be brought up. In the last years it is more a silent consensus in society that "moldovan" is identical with Romanian language, and that "moldovan" is merely the name of the spoken language used by people living in historical Moldova, divide between Romania and Republica Moldova (as Irish or Scottish dialect of English, or American-English), with some different words - *but* - with totally identical *grammar*.
Thus the idea of Gutza to create a special discussion page on Meta will fit the idea of an open, public and transparent discussion with the support of Language subcommittee. And that we should not use the foundation-l for sharing inside talks on the issue.
with respect, somewhere from Chisinau/Moldova, /gheorghe
On 12.10.2010 23:27, M. Williamson wrote:
Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers. Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance between informed or involved parties with different views.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench. Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
Regards, Gutza
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:49, Zugravu Gheorghe zugravu.gheorghe@gmail.com wrote:
I think Milos proposal was about to discuss the issue of the "moldovan" wikipedia inside the interested people, the ones who sustain the idea of a such, and the opponents (maybe the word is not the most appropriate one - but i can remember any other more neutral word), together with the Langcom. In order not to monopolize the discussions on the [foundation-l] (and I have the feeling that otherwise the subject will become very "hot", and maybe somewhere too personalized), as M. Williams points out regarding the discussions that may take place.
I want to remember that the question of the existence of a "moldovan language" separated by Romanian language, with a distinct grammar, vocabulary and literature, partially or totally different, it is an extremely politicized question inside Republic of Moldova, first of all. There has been no clear conclusion/decision on the question, since it implies a lot of political issues to be brought up. In the last years it is more a silent consensus in society that "moldovan" is identical with Romanian language, and that "moldovan" is merely the name of the spoken language used by people living in historical Moldova, divide between Romania and Republica Moldova (as Irish or Scottish dialect of English, or American-English), with some different words - *but* - with totally identical *grammar*.
Thus the idea of Gutza to create a special discussion page on Meta will fit the idea of an open, public and transparent discussion with the support of Language subcommittee. And that we should not use the foundation-l for sharing inside talks on the issue.
One side wants to close the project, while it is against the core principle of Wikimedia: closing the project which serves strong majority of 177.000 Moldovans from Transnitria without giving them at least some other option is not according to the idea to "give the sum of all human knowledge to every human being".
In other words, plain deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia in Cyrillic is not an option for the near future (let's say, next couple of years), while it is unlikely that it would be an option at all. So, some other idea is needed.
I have some ideas how it could be solved, but my ideas are irrelevant. In any case, their implementation would be treated as imposing a solution "from the above". Thus, interested parties should find solution.
Years passed in open discussions and nothing acceptable has been concluded. So, I suggest that a couple of you should discuss privately and articulate [a draft for] some sensible solution and present it publicly for further discussion and, after that discussion, the final implementation.
According to the present situation, I have no confidence in continuing any public discussion without making a proposal. To be honest, I am highly skeptical about public discussion after making proposal, but, at least, at that time the proposal would be in the focus.
This issue is probably the most important reason why we don't have Wikimedia Romania yet. That means that the interest of the whole Wikimedian community is to have that problem solved. However, we are not able to solve it instead of you; as well as creating Wikimedia Romania is in the interest of Romanian Wikimedians, too.
I suppose that you understand the circumstances under which Moldovan Wikipedia [in Cyrillic] has been created. At the early time of Wikipedia, Moldovan language was codified as a separate language. If it was not the situation, it would have been highly unlikely that we have the project now, but it would have been likely that we would have it in the future, if Transnitrian Moldovans would have adopt Internet in significant numbers. That situation would have been much fortunate as the linguistic and national issues in Moldova and Romania won't be so hot after ten more years or so. However, the situation is different.
From the point of a person who cares about Wikimedia movement, I would
say that we should close Moldovan Cyrillic Wikipedia. It is obviously that we should care much more about living Romanian Wikimedian community, than about non-existent Moldovan Cyrillic Wikimedian community. However, there are some principles behind our work and they are stronger than utilitarian reasoning. As the project exists, we are not able just to remove it. In other words, please understand our position.
During the past years, Mark has given strong *arguments* against the deletion of Moldovan Cyrillic Wikipedia. Note that it is about arguments, not about partisan speech. He has also shown ability to seek for solutions. Because of those things, he is the best person to talk in the name of those Moldovans who are using Cyrillic orthography as their native one. If you feel that you have problems in articulating your own arguments, you can ask other Wikimedians to help to formulate your own needs toward this issue. I see that Marcus Buck, like Mark, is giving good arguments in favor of your position. So, ask him to help you.
Exactly because this is a hot political issue in Moldova and Romania, there is no way that the Language committee or the Board would be willing to decide before two sides reach an agreement. So, the right target for discussion are not members of Language committee or Board, but persons interested to have this problem solved. In other words, don't count on our involvement before you make a sensible proposal for the solution of the problem.
On 13-Oct-10 07:58, Milos Rancic wrote:
but it would have been likely that we would have it in the future, if Transnitrian Moldovans would have adopt Internet in significant numbers
Why not create the new subdomain ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org at that point in time? Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop serving it. Whenever there will be a request from an actual native to open such a project, open the new project as usual, and migrate the current content from mo.wiki to that new subdomain.
Why do we need to open a new subdomain today, when the only real person pleading for its existence is an American? Why not do the sensible thing and wait until someone actually needs it?
Gutza
On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop serving it.
Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it."
- d.
On 13-Oct-10 13:32, David Gerard wrote:
On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop serving it.
Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it."
No, I am not playing with words -- saying that something will be deleted implies a loss. I am contending that my proposal doesn't involve any loss: Mark's work invested in creating content would not be lost from the face of the Earth (because the content would be preserved in the database), and no Transnitrian would feel any loss from the fact that the content is no longer served, for the simple reason that such a hypothetical Transnitrian (i.e. one that would be interested in such a Wikipedia) doesn't exist for the time being. Whenever he/she will make their presence known, the current content will be restored, so there will be no loss at that point either.
Not at all the same thing as deleting the content.
Gutza
On 13.10.2010 13:41, Gutza wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 13:32, David Gerard wrote:
On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop serving it.
Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it."
No, I am not playing with words -- saying that something will be deleted implies a loss. I am contending that my proposal doesn't involve any loss: Mark's work invested in creating content would not be lost from the face of the Earth (because the content would be preserved in the database), and no Transnitrian would feel any loss from the fact that the content is no longer served, for the simple reason that such a hypothetical Transnitrian (i.e. one that would be interested in such a Wikipedia) doesn't exist for the time being. Whenever he/she will make their presence known, the current content will be restored, so there will be no loss at that point either.
Not at all the same thing as deleting the content.
Short point of view regarding the deletion or not of mo:wp: I think that we discuss not about the content of the mo:wp, since it is almost absent at this moment (the actual content present there now its sounds more as a joke for me - and also showing the interest of people to cooperate in this language), but we are discussing about the existence or not of such a language as "moldovan" in opposition to Romanian language. And this is a bigger question than the content.
The arguments brought into discussion was more about who, where and by whom kirilic script was used to write down the language entity, later known as romanian. M. Williams himself accepts and agrees that:
Cyrillic has been and is currently used, including in schools, for the Eastern Romance/Daco-Romanian/Romanian/Moldovan/whatever variety spoken in all or some parts of Moldova (and/or, depending on your chosen political reality, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic)
thus, IMHO, he says that romanian and "moldovan" are actually the same language, one using the latin script and the second - kirilic. And that kirilic was a historical period in the development of the language, which no one says its not true. Writing English with Thai or whatever alphabet will not stop the language from being english, the same point with romanian in kirilic - it will not cease being romanian, *but* is not *"moldovan"* also.
with respect, /gheorghe
Mark,
You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of inconsistencies in your reply:
1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for such implications. 2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar arguments are moot. 3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the decision-making process from the very interested parties it was intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties before my message here, but you were replying to the very message which revealed their existence. 4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their presence in the new, "private" medium.
Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven to the outside world?
Thank you, Gutza
On 12-Oct-10 23:27, M. Williamson wrote:
Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers. Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance between informed or involved parties with different views.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench. Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
Regards, Gutza
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
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of inconsistencies in your reply:
This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters", I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect each other as thinking individuals.
1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for such implications.
"Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the same level of internet connectivity as either.
2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar arguments are moot.
This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If, theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes, but things are often reduced to that.
3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the decision-making process from the very interested parties it was intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties before my message here, but you were replying to the very message which revealed their existence.
The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in my view, I'd like to find something better.
4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their presence in the new, "private" medium.
Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven to the outside world?
Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
-m.
Mark,
There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?
Thank you, Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of inconsistencies in your reply:
This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters", I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect each other as thinking individuals.
- Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for such implications.
"Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the same level of internet connectivity as either.
- Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar arguments are moot.
This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If, theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes, but things are often reduced to that.
- Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the decision-making process from the very interested parties it was intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties before my message here, but you were replying to the very message which revealed their existence.
The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in my view, I'd like to find something better.
- All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their presence in the new, "private" medium.
Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven to the outside world?
Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
-m.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On the matter of the disposition of mo.wp - I have stated it several times clearly in the other thread, that there should be some sort of accommodation available for users of the Cyrillic alphabet that enables both reading from and contributing to a Wikipedia, be it ro.wp or a separate Wikipedia.
On the matter of how a decision should be reached in this matter, my opinion is that we should learn lessons from the past and that endless votes and debates which involve the whole community in a single page do not seem an ideal solution; I also believe in transparency. I also believe in protecting the rights of those who are not present or who are underrepresented, that is my main reason for continued involvement in this discussion.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?
Thank you, Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of inconsistencies in your reply:
This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters", I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect each other as thinking individuals.
1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for such implications.
"Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the same level of internet connectivity as either.
2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar arguments are moot.
This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If, theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes, but things are often reduced to that.
3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the decision-making process from the very interested parties it was intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties before my message here, but you were replying to the very message which revealed their existence.
The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in my view, I'd like to find something better.
4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their presence in the new, "private" medium.
Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven to the outside world?
Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
-m.
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
Mark,
I hope I didn't touch the actual mo.wp issue in any way -- I was obviously referring to the decision process. On which your opinion seems to be "don't involve the community, keep it transparent, protect the absent". Milos came up with a proposal. I came up with a proposal. What is your proposal?
Thank you, Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 03:53, M. Williamson wrote:
On the matter of the disposition of mo.wp - I have stated it several times clearly in the other thread, that there should be some sort of accommodation available for users of the Cyrillic alphabet that enables both reading from and contributing to a Wikipedia, be it ro.wp or a separate Wikipedia.
On the matter of how a decision should be reached in this matter, my opinion is that we should learn lessons from the past and that endless votes and debates which involve the whole community in a single page do not seem an ideal solution; I also believe in transparency. I also believe in protecting the rights of those who are not present or who are underrepresented, that is my main reason for continued involvement in this discussion.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?
Thank you, Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
Mark,
You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of inconsistencies in your reply:
This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters", I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect each other as thinking individuals.
- Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for such implications.
"Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the same level of internet connectivity as either.
- Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar arguments are moot.
This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If, theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes, but things are often reduced to that.
- Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the decision-making process from the very interested parties it was intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties before my message here, but you were replying to the very message which revealed their existence.
The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in my view, I'd like to find something better.
- All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their presence in the new, "private" medium.
Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven to the outside world?
Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
-m.
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, It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at the language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this extravaganza. However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members of the language committee.
Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of the Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 October 2010 20:08, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench. Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
Regards, Gutza
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
True. But which language is this about, specifically?
Gutza
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are yours):
1. a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country 2. the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a project for English written in Thai)
So then, which *language* is this about?
Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
True. But which language is this about, specifically?
Gutza
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
Gutza, your #2 statement does not follow, Cyrillic has been and is currently used, including in schools, for the Eastern Romance/Daco-Romanian/Romanian/Moldovan/whatever variety spoken in all or some parts of Moldova (and/or, depending on your chosen political reality, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).
The Thai script has never been used for English on a wide scale (read: beyond one person, as a novelty), and certainly not by native or heritage speakers of the English language. There is no comparison.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are yours):
1. a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country 2. the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a project for English written in Thai)
So then, which *language* is this about?
Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
True. But which language is this about, specifically?
Gutza
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
Mark,
You have been designated by Milos as the representative for the wonderful, if elusive, Cyrillic-writing Romanian-speakin people of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. You seem to have taken your responsibilities seriously, so you wouldn't mind if I ask: where is your people? No Wikipedia project starts out of the blue, on a theoretical basis -- there's always a catalyst, a representative of the people, who wants to read and write, who wants to immerse him or herself in the culture of the language, and generate content in their own, native language. Where is that elusive Pridnestrovian who yearns to write content in Romanian, in Cyrillic? Don't give me Russian statistics on schools -- give me e-mails from real people, give me pleas, give me petitions. I can give you e-mails, pleas and petitions regarding the *closure* of the Moldovan Wikipedia -- show me yours.
Thank you, Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 04:56, M. Williamson wrote:
Gutza, your #2 statement does not follow, Cyrillic has been and is currently used, including in schools, for the Eastern Romance/Daco-Romanian/Romanian/Moldovan/whatever variety spoken in all or some parts of Moldova (and/or, depending on your chosen political reality, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).
The Thai script has never been used for English on a wide scale (read: beyond one person, as a novelty), and certainly not by native or heritage speakers of the English language. There is no comparison.
-m.
2010/10/12 Gutza gutza@moongate.ro:
But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are yours):
- a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country
- the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a project for English written in Thai)
So then, which *language* is this about?
Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
True. But which language is this about, specifically?
Gutza
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
An'n 13.10.2010 03:29, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at the language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this extravaganza. However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members of the language committee.
Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of the Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
Really interesting news! After all the years where you and other language committee members have exclaimed "We only process proposals for _new_ projects. We are not involved in closing projects or resolving language conflicts!" when did this change? A link to the discussion where this change was decided would be very useful.
We are yet again at the stage that the question "which language is this about?" appears. I feel I have to make some clarifications. "Romanian" and "Moldovan" are national varieties of the same language. National varieties are not the same as dialects. Dialects are things like Geordie, Scouse or Kentish. These are language differences that have developed over a period of hundreds or a thousand of years by local oral tradition. Dialects can vary widely and there are fluent transitions between "dialect" and "language" (e.g. Scots is considered a language of its own by many linguists although it is treated like a dialect by many English people). National varieties on the other hand have not developed locally by oral tradition. They originated in the adoption of a standardized language by a country. In the 19th century a standardized language evolved among the educated speakers of Eastern European Romance languages. This standardized language was adopted as a base for written language in all regions where Eastern European Romance languages where spoken irrespective of the fact that the standardized language usually differed from the local dialects. The standardized language in theory was identical everywhere. But some small differences (usually in the lexicon) existed, e.g. when dialectal terms were adopted into the standardized language or when laws used differing terms to regulate things that are otherwise similar.
That's in no way special to Romanian/Moldovan. The same happened with British vs. American English, German vs. Austrian vs. Swiss German, French vs. Canadian French, Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish vs. Mexican vs. Argentinian etc. Spanish, Dutch vs. Flemish Dutch etc.
The discussion we are having is not about Romanian vs. Moldovan. It's about Latin vs. Cyrillic. It's only about the characters you use to write it down not about the content of the words.
What are the options? - keep the status quo - just change the URL from 'mo' to 'ro-cyrl' - delete mo.wp - re-open the Cyrillic wiki for editing - create an equal rights latn-cyrl conversion on ro.wp - create an unequal rights conversion from latn to cyrl at ro-cyrl.wp
== Status quo ==
Advantages: - nothing needs to be done by anybody
Disadvantages: - everybody keeps dissatified - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Change the URL ==
Advantages: - the request that started the thread is satisfied, the wiki can no longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic"
Disadvantages: - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Delete mo.wp ==
Advantages: - the wiki can no longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic" - the Latin script users would welcome the abolition of a project that many of them perceive to be a remnant sting of Soviet cultural imperialism in the flesh of the Romanian language
Disadvantages: - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Re-open the wiki ==
Advantages: - gives the Cyrillic users the chance to build their own resource
Disadvantages: - redundancy with ro.wp, doubling the effort - there are almost no users who want to fill the project with content - the Latin script users will get upset - it will take a looong time until a useful resource comes out of it
== Equal rights conversion on ro.wp ==
Advantages: - full participation chances for Cyrillic users - all content fully available to Cyrillic users
Disadvantages: - risking a revolt among ro.wp users and risking to loose a good part of the community, possibly risking a fork - much extra work to be done by a community largely unwilling to spend work on it
== Unequal rights conversion off of ro.wp ==
Advantages: - all content available to Cyrillic users
Disadvantages: - no participation chances for Cyrillic users - still unpopular among Latin users
From a strictly Wikipedia-ideological and politically unideological point of view the equal rights conversion would be the right thing to do. But given the fact that that could totally blow the whole and very active community of ro.wp and given the fact that we would risk this for a less than 1% minority, a minority we have no proof of that they would take the chance to participate if we gave it to them or that they are even interested in the content, I think we would be ideological dumbasses if we would accept this risk.
@FoundationStaff (one of whom is hopefully reading these discussions on Foundation-l): I hope the Foundation is interested in this discussion too. Bringing knowledge to the people of the world and stuff. So, what's the Foundation's position on this? The current lack of any action from the Foundation's side suggests that it opts for "status quo". So what's the Foundation's rationale for not serving the Cyrillic users? (Oh, and please don't answer with "limited resources, other important stuff to do". That would be a weak response. Any of the above options should be technically implementable in a single working day and I think it's worth to spend one working day if that means making Wikipedia available to 177,000 additional people.)
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
Hoi, The language committee does not involve itself normally. In this thread it was suggested that it could by exception.
What I have done is apply the normal arguments we use for new languages. The history of a language is of no relevance. What is relevant is that we have one series of projects for one language. Given that Romanian is the same as Moldovan. Given that we do not allow for restrictions in new projects, the point I make is completely predictable.
As to "links to discussion" ... we are not policy wonks, I prefer to apply "there are no rules" this is in line with the capable people we have in our committee and the fact that objections mean that we have to get to an agreement in the committee. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 14:41, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 13.10.2010 03:29, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at
the
language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this
extravaganza.
However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members
of
the language committee.
Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of
the
Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country.
Really interesting news! After all the years where you and other language committee members have exclaimed "We only process proposals for _new_ projects. We are not involved in closing projects or resolving language conflicts!" when did this change? A link to the discussion where this change was decided would be very useful.
We are yet again at the stage that the question "which language is this about?" appears. I feel I have to make some clarifications. "Romanian" and "Moldovan" are national varieties of the same language. National varieties are not the same as dialects. Dialects are things like Geordie, Scouse or Kentish. These are language differences that have developed over a period of hundreds or a thousand of years by local oral tradition. Dialects can vary widely and there are fluent transitions between "dialect" and "language" (e.g. Scots is considered a language of its own by many linguists although it is treated like a dialect by many English people). National varieties on the other hand have not developed locally by oral tradition. They originated in the adoption of a standardized language by a country. In the 19th century a standardized language evolved among the educated speakers of Eastern European Romance languages. This standardized language was adopted as a base for written language in all regions where Eastern European Romance languages where spoken irrespective of the fact that the standardized language usually differed from the local dialects. The standardized language in theory was identical everywhere. But some small differences (usually in the lexicon) existed, e.g. when dialectal terms were adopted into the standardized language or when laws used differing terms to regulate things that are otherwise similar.
That's in no way special to Romanian/Moldovan. The same happened with British vs. American English, German vs. Austrian vs. Swiss German, French vs. Canadian French, Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish vs. Mexican vs. Argentinian etc. Spanish, Dutch vs. Flemish Dutch etc.
The discussion we are having is not about Romanian vs. Moldovan. It's about Latin vs. Cyrillic. It's only about the characters you use to write it down not about the content of the words.
What are the options?
- keep the status quo
- just change the URL from 'mo' to 'ro-cyrl'
- delete mo.wp
- re-open the Cyrillic wiki for editing
- create an equal rights latn-cyrl conversion on ro.wp
- create an unequal rights conversion from latn to cyrl at ro-cyrl.wp
== Status quo ==
Advantages:
- nothing needs to be done by anybody
Disadvantages:
- everybody keeps dissatified
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Change the URL ==
Advantages:
- the request that started the thread is satisfied, the wiki can no
longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic"
Disadvantages:
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Delete mo.wp ==
Advantages:
- the wiki can no longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a
Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic"
- the Latin script users would welcome the abolition of a project that
many of them perceive to be a remnant sting of Soviet cultural imperialism in the flesh of the Romanian language
Disadvantages:
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
== Re-open the wiki ==
Advantages:
- gives the Cyrillic users the chance to build their own resource
Disadvantages:
- redundancy with ro.wp, doubling the effort
- there are almost no users who want to fill the project with content
- the Latin script users will get upset
- it will take a looong time until a useful resource comes out of it
== Equal rights conversion on ro.wp ==
Advantages:
- full participation chances for Cyrillic users
- all content fully available to Cyrillic users
Disadvantages:
- risking a revolt among ro.wp users and risking to loose a good part of
the community, possibly risking a fork
- much extra work to be done by a community largely unwilling to spend
work on it
== Unequal rights conversion off of ro.wp ==
Advantages:
- all content available to Cyrillic users
Disadvantages:
- no participation chances for Cyrillic users
- still unpopular among Latin users
From a strictly Wikipedia-ideological and politically unideological point of view the equal rights conversion would be the right thing to do. But given the fact that that could totally blow the whole and very active community of ro.wp and given the fact that we would risk this for a less than 1% minority, a minority we have no proof of that they would take the chance to participate if we gave it to them or that they are even interested in the content, I think we would be ideological dumbasses if we would accept this risk.
@FoundationStaff (one of whom is hopefully reading these discussions on Foundation-l): I hope the Foundation is interested in this discussion too. Bringing knowledge to the people of the world and stuff. So, what's the Foundation's position on this? The current lack of any action from the Foundation's side suggests that it opts for "status quo". So what's the Foundation's rationale for not serving the Cyrillic users? (Oh, and please don't answer with "limited resources, other important stuff to do". That would be a weak response. Any of the above options should be technically implementable in a single working day and I think it's worth to spend one working day if that means making Wikipedia available to 177,000 additional people.)
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In light of all the arguments, political and otherwise, discussed here, I propose the following:
* Redirect mo.wiki to ro.wiki; I think this is undisputed, per the LoC recognition that Moldovan is deprecated; * Store the mo.wiki content, in whatever state it may be, for later use; * Implement a JavaScript gadget at ro.wiki that allows for on-the-fly transliteration to Cyrillic, for whoever prefers to read Romainan in Cyrillic; if the gadget can be designed in such a way that it also allows writing in Cyrillic (with automatic transliteration back to Latin before saving), then all the merrier; * If, in the future, the language committee receives a serious request for opening a distinct ro-cyrl.wiki project, the language committee will make a decision at that time, based on the realities of that moment; depending on the decisions made at that time, the content, interface translations and so on currently hosted at mo.wiki can be migrated to the new project.
My proposal is based on the following facts:
* The Moldovan language proper is universally recognized as non-existent; * Apart from Mark, nobody actually said they wanted to /read/, never mind write Romanian content in Cyrillic; the gadget I propose for ro.wiki would be more of a gesture of courtesy than any real help to anyone, but I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that. * We do not need to make decisions in the name of people who can't represent themselves. Milos has suggested that Mark represent the Transnitrians, but how would Mark know what they want? How is it reasonable to contemplate opening a new project that has no known readers, never mind contributors? Isn't it more logical to deal with that problem if and when it is actually raised?
Regards, Gutza
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 15:36, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
* Apart from Mark, nobody actually said they wanted to /read/, never mind write Romanian content in Cyrillic; the gadget I propose for ro.wiki would be more of a gesture of courtesy than any real help to anyone, but I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that.
Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies?
If it is so, the problem has been solved.
On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that.
Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies?
I'm saying that I *think* the ro.wp wouldn't mind a *gadget*, even though I have already received some negative feedback on ro.wiki for advancing that proposal without consulting the community first. But it's impossible to juggle two heated conversations at once -- I'm trying to find what I think is an acceptable compromise here, and, if we do actually find it, I'll get that back to ro.wiki and see if that's allright with everybody.
Gutza
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:49, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that.
Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies?
I'm saying that I *think* the ro.wp wouldn't mind a *gadget*, even though I have already received some negative feedback on ro.wiki for advancing that proposal without consulting the community first. But it's impossible to juggle two heated conversations at once -- I'm trying to find what I think is an acceptable compromise here, and, if we do actually find it, I'll get that back to ro.wiki and see if that's allright with everybody.
According to Gerard's and my positions, that would be fully acceptable solution; with a couple of pages which you should write at ro.wp for users from Transnitria: how to edit pages in both scripts (I don't think that you would mind for probably less than 1% of articles written in Cyrillic after 10 years of the conversion engine implementation), how to report bugs (mostly for Latin->Cyrillic conversion) and similar. And, of course, it is needed that ro.wp community express clear support for that solution.
In that case, LangCom's suggestion to the Board would be that after the implementation of the conversion engine, mo.wp should be removed.
The implementation for this idea would take some time, but we would finally know the path for the solution.
Milos,
I'm not proposing turning ro.wiki to ro-latin-and-cyrl.wiki. I'm proposing a gadget that would seamlessly transliterate to Cyrillic *and back to Latin again, if possible* -- that way everybody reads in their own script, and (if possible) writes in their own script, while the database remains 100% in Latin.
I do not envisage any support whatsoever for a solution that would involve articles written in Cyrillic on ro.wiki -- that would be several degrees worse than the (already annoying) status quo.
Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 17:59, Milos Rancic wrote:
According to Gerard's and my positions, that would be fully acceptable solution; with a couple of pages which you should write at ro.wp for users from Transnitria: how to edit pages in both scripts (I don't think that you would mind for probably less than 1% of articles written in Cyrillic after 10 years of the conversion engine implementation), how to report bugs (mostly for Latin->Cyrillic conversion) and similar. And, of course, it is needed that ro.wp community express clear support for that solution.
In that case, LangCom's suggestion to the Board would be that after the implementation of the conversion engine, mo.wp should be removed.
The implementation for this idea would take some time, but we would finally know the path for the solution.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:10, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
I'm not proposing turning ro.wiki to ro-latin-and-cyrl.wiki. I'm proposing a gadget that would seamlessly transliterate to Cyrillic *and back to Latin again, if possible* -- that way everybody reads in their own script, and (if possible) writes in their own script, while the database remains 100% in Latin.
I do not envisage any support whatsoever for a solution that would involve articles written in Cyrillic on ro.wiki -- that would be several degrees worse than the (already annoying) status quo.
What is possible to be done [relatively] fast is Chinese/Serbian implementation of the engine.
However, it could be used differently than in two previous cases, but it needs cooperative community.
The first goal is to have Latin->Cyrillic conversion, so people from Transnitria would be able to read [easily] Romanian Wikipedia. By policy, you can say that it is not possible to write in Cyrillic, but just in Latin.
And when enough Transnitrians come to Wikipedia, they would be able to choose to negotiate with you or to ask for ro-cyril Wikipedia.
That also means that you should make FAQ for Moldovans from Transnitria about their options.
That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom members think about it.
On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote:
That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom members think about it.
What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I don't know how the Chinese/Serbian engine works -- you're moving ahead with incomplete data.
Gutza
An'n 13.10.2010 17:31, hett Gutza schreven:
On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote:
That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom members think about it.
What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I don't know how the Chinese/Serbian engine works -- you're moving ahead with incomplete data.
Gutza
Look at http://sr.wikipedia.org/. There's a tab with an arrow besides the link for the talk page. You can choose between Latin and Cyrillic script. I don't think that would find consensus on ro.wp.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:31, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote:
That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom members think about it.
What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I don't know how the Chinese/Serbian engine works -- you're moving ahead with incomplete data.
Conversion engines for Chinese and Serbian Wikipedias (and I think at least one more) work in both ways.
However, the most important thing is community consensus around the rules. In the case of Chinese Wikipedia, I think that they are using both scripts (Traditional and Simplified) inside of the same text (as both scripts share some characters and as it is not a big deal; however, I just think that it works like that). In the case of Serbian Wikipedia, the rule is that the text which has been started in one script, should be written in the same script.
The both ways are products of the consensus inside of the communities and doesn't have anything with the software implementation. Thus, you can say that all texts have to be written in Latin script and just shown in Cyrillic.
There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/ -- you will find the page in Cyrillic. However, if you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/ -- you'll find the same page in Latin script.
Present and not so perfect solution for Serbian Wikipedia -- but very elegant for Romanian -- is the method for choosing scripts at the page. If you go to the default version of Serbian Wikipedia, you'll see "Чланак" ("Read"), "Разговор" ("Discussion") and the arrow after them. If you scroll over the arrow, you'll see the options "Ћирлица" ("Cyrillic") and "Latinica" ("Latin").
In other words, you'll have two variants for reading: Latin (default) and Cyrillic (if explicitly asked).
Options for writing, as I said above, are completely up to your community. If you decide not to have any article written in Cyrillic, it'll be so, as it is just up to you.
On 13-Oct-10 18:52, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/ -- you will find the page in Cyrillic. However, if you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/ -- you'll find the same page in Latin script.
Milos,
When I said a JavaScript gadget I meant a JavaScript gadget. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget, where these things are defined like so: "a JavaScript and/or a CSS snippet that can be enabled simply by checking an option in your Wikipedia preferences".
Rewrite rules with engines and stuff are NOT JavaScript gadgets -- they are rewrite rules with engines and stuff. That will not be accepted by the ro.wiki community in a million years, unless the Red Army occupies the country and the ro.wiki community is contributing from labor camps.
Gutza
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:59, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 18:52, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/ -- you will find the page in Cyrillic. However, if you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/ -- you'll find the same page in Latin script.
Milos,
When I said a JavaScript gadget I meant a JavaScript gadget. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget, where these things are defined like so: "a JavaScript and/or a CSS snippet that can be enabled simply by checking an option in your Wikipedia preferences".
Rewrite rules with engines and stuff are NOT JavaScript gadgets -- they are rewrite rules with engines and stuff. That will not be accepted by the ro.wiki community in a million years, unless the Red Army occupies the country and the ro.wiki community is contributing from labor camps.
OK. I am out of this discussion, until interested parties find the solution.
Hoi, What reason would there be that is consistent with the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation. What reason could be given that explicitly does not negate your wish for the deletion of the mo.wikipedia?
You can not have it both ways imho. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2010 17:59, Gutza gutza@moongate.ro wrote:
On 13-Oct-10 18:52, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/ -- you will find the page in Cyrillic. However, if you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/ -- you'll find the same page in Latin script.
Milos,
When I said a JavaScript gadget I meant a JavaScript gadget. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gadget, where these things are defined like so: "a JavaScript and/or a CSS snippet that can be enabled simply by checking an option in your Wikipedia preferences".
Rewrite rules with engines and stuff are NOT JavaScript gadgets -- they are rewrite rules with engines and stuff. That will not be accepted by the ro.wiki community in a million years, unless the Red Army occupies the country and the ro.wiki community is contributing from labor camps.
Gutza
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
An'n 13.10.2010 16:49, hett Gutza schreven:
On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote:
I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that.
Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies?
I'm saying that I *think* the ro.wp wouldn't mind a *gadget*, even though I have already received some negative feedback on ro.wiki for advancing that proposal without consulting the community first. But it's impossible to juggle two heated conversations at once -- I'm trying to find what I think is an acceptable compromise here, and, if we do actually find it, I'll get that back to ro.wiki and see if that's allright with everybody.
Gutza
Yep, that proposal sounds sensible. Much better than my proposal because it allows full participation as requested by Mark and Gerard and yet not being intrusive and combined with the same level of perceived "recognition" that upsets the Latin users. And it's even implementable without action from the Foundation!
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
I created a small test script at http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Slomox/vector2.js. Works well to Cyrillize nds.wp ;-) (or any other wiki). It only supports reading so far, editing will be harder. The problem will be cases like a Romanian article written in Latin script and containing Cyrillic characters on purpose (like http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscova). The word "Москва́ " in the first line would be latinized when a Cyrillic user edits it. Hard to fix it without escaping (which is done with -{ ... }- syntax in conversion wikis like zh or sr). But with escaping we are again at imposing stuff on ro.wp. Cyrillic users could escape strings in the edit window which would be removed on save, but that of course means escaping on every edit. On the other hand Javascript-based escaping could lead to increased revert quotas if Cyrillic users forget to Javascript-escape strings. Well, that's all theory as long as there are no active Transnistrians editors...
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org