Hi everyone,
while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal authority to handle this case.
The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many Russians.
Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects as they see fit.
Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian...
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia.
"historical contemporary"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Should have been "historical *and* contemporary".
Verbose: Russian dialects of Western Siberia which are, as far as I know, mostly extinct, and the dialect of the Pomors which I understand is still preserved in some remote places of Arkhangelsk region and maybe neighbouring provinces in North-Western Russia.
Thanks,
Johannes
At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias it has a low depth, but it is higher than some Wikis that are much larger:
- Lombard (0 depth) - Telugu (3 depth) - Cebuano (0) - Volapuk (0) - Newari (2) - Bishnupriya Manipuri (3) - Ido (3) - Sundanese (4) - Javanese (3) - Piedmontese (2) - Tajik (3) - Sanskrit (2) - Yoruba (1)
Mark
On 31/07/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal authority to handle this case.
The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many Russians.
Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects as they see fit.
Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com writes:
At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
[...]
Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.
Thanks,
Johannes
That's still 1,211 pages.
Mark
On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
"Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com writes:
At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
[...]
Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson a écrit :
That's still 1,211 pages.
The quantity is garbage is not relevant to judge the existence of a new language.
Yann
Mark
On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
"Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com writes:
At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
[...]
Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.
Thanks,
Johannes
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal authority to handle this case.
The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many Russians.
Without making any deeper judgement on the language in question, much less the content; I think you have seriously misunderstood the meaning of the word "constructed language".
A _constructed language_ is one that is created without any historical precedent at all of people speaking anything remotely like it.
On this basis I don't think you can be talking about a constructed language as such, even though I make no judgement on whether the language/dialect - what have you - is notable enough to merit any presence on wikimedia.
Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects as they see fit.
I am not saying the same solution is a wrong solution, but I *do* think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
There may or may not be double standards, but circumstances certainly alter cases, and whatever might be fair in the particular case you are discussing, pretty certainly it will not hinge on a comparison to klingon or toki pona.
Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
"Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com writes:
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
[...]
The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many Russians.
Without making any deeper judgement on the language in question, much less the content; I think you have seriously misunderstood the meaning of the word "constructed language".
A _constructed language_ is one that is created without any historical precedent at all of people speaking anything remotely like it.
I don't think you are right here. Most conlangs borrow heavily from existing vernaculars or historical languages. Take for instance Esperanto, Interlingua, Slovio, Latina sine flexione.
Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it, "Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from standard Russian as possible).
On this basis I don't think you can be talking about a constructed language as such, even though I make no judgement on whether the language/dialect - what have you - is notable enough to merit any presence on wikimedia.
The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.
Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects as they see fit.
I am not saying the same solution is a wrong solution, but I *do* think you are comparing apples and oranges.
...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences do you see?
Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
There may or may not be double standards, but circumstances certainly alter cases, and whatever might be fair in the particular case you are discussing, pretty certainly it will not hinge on a comparison to klingon or toki pona.
[...]
I cannot see what you mean by "circumstances alter cases" when referring to this case. In fact, if ru-sib was proposed today, it would almost certainly be rejected. The ru-sib guys were just lucky that they managed to get their Wiki created just before a comprehensive policy on new languages had been developed.
Thanks,
Johannes
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
<lots of good stuff>
I think what you said in that last posting clarified the situation admirably. Where I lacked the proper context before, your posting was greatly informative and I at least feel your position is much stronger as a result (in my eyes, even if it may not mean that much in the larger scheme of things).
What you describe would indeed be a very fishy situation.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it, "Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from standard Russian as possible).
Of course it isn't a vernacular. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural language - there are several natural "standard" languages that aren't anybody's vernacular, or that weren't until very recently.
I find your statement regarding intelligibility suspect. Please provide references to support it.
The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.
Yes, but it doesn't make sense to me that we should close all existing Wikis that would not be created under the current policy. I feel that we should grandfather them in and treat proposed removals on a case-by-case basis.
...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences do you see?
First of all, that offending content is part of a poem used as an example of a certain author, or at least that is what I have been told.
Second of all, the differences are very great, and they lie in the intention of the respective languages: Toki Pona is intended as a simple international auxiliary language; Klingon is the language of a fictional race of aliens. Siberian, on the other hand, is intended to be a language for a specific geocultural group.
I cannot see what you mean by "circumstances alter cases" when referring to this case. In fact, if ru-sib was proposed today, it would almost certainly be rejected. The ru-sib guys were just lucky that they managed to get their Wiki created just before a comprehensive policy on new languages had been developed.
There are dozens of other Wikis that would not be created today because current policy is very restrictive due to the xenophobic idea that "we already have enough Wikis". If the current policy had existed at the beginning, who knows how many languages we'd have today?
"Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com writes:
On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it, "Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from standard Russian as possible).
Of course it isn't a vernacular. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural language - there are several natural "standard" languages that aren't anybody's vernacular, or that weren't until very recently.
I find your statement regarding intelligibility suspect. Please provide references to support it.
Almost all terms for modern terms are completely invented and do not exist elsewhere. Just some examples from the main page: "mezhugigma" ("Internet"), "robotny vedy" (probably "natural sciences"), "vseznaika" ("encyclopaedia"), "bashlykoznaisvo" ("management"), "artelezaisvo" (probably "social science"), "mudrionozaisvo" (probably "philosophy"). I could continue for quite a while but I'm afraid it will get boring. However, the creator of the language has explicitely stated this intention in his blog:
,---- | "I don't think it will be too hard to construct a Siberian language, | adding to chaldon's dialect grammar the required amount of Tatar | roots, up to making the Siberian language unintelligible to European | Russians. "[1]. `----
The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.
Yes, but it doesn't make sense to me that we should close all existing Wikis that would not be created under the current policy. I feel that we should grandfather them in and treat proposed removals on a case-by-case basis.
When there are no issues, there is certainly no need to do anything. But, alas, this is not the case here.
...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences do you see?
First of all, that offending content is part of a poem used as an example of a certain author, or at least that is what I have been told.
A "poem" - what a lame pretext. This poem has been uploaded by its very author, who is at the same time the creator of the language and the founder and one of the administrators of this wiki. Gimmie a break! There have been many pleas to take this page down. He has consistently refused to do so.
Additionally, there are many articles, which are just as non-encyclopaedic as this one. Take the article "Rosseia", ("Russia"), which i.a. states that "the symbols of Russian mentality are Vodka and herring" or Yaroslav Zolotaryov's original article on Alexander Pushkin, where he described him as "Russian nigger and poet". N.b.: This version has been written by the creator of the language, and founder and administrator of the ru-sib Wikipedia.[2]
Second of all, the differences are very great, and they lie in the intention of the respective languages: Toki Pona is intended as a simple international auxiliary language; Klingon is the language of a fictional race of aliens. Siberian, on the other hand, is intended to be a language for a specific geocultural group.
...if you call a bunch of bloggers at livejournal.com a "geocultural group", maybe. So what?
[...]
Thanks,
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] "Не думаю, что будет сложно сконструировать сибирский язык, залив в чалдонскую диалектную грамматику нужное количество татарских корней, вплоть до непонимания сибирского языка европейскими русскими." http://samir74.livejournal.com/2005/04/30/
[2] http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8...
Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com writes:
or Yaroslav Zolotaryov's original article on Alexander Pushkin, where he described him as "Russian nigger and poet". N.b.: This version has been written by the creator of the language, and founder and administrator of the ru-sib Wikipedia.[2]
I just saw, that I'm actually wrong here. The offensive term was introduced by an anon. However, it was left there for almost half a year. (I recall that this was probably the only instance, where Zolotaryov finally responded to public protest).
Thank
Johannes
According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the problem:
- Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However, Board may do that. - Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project, so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according to all other circumstances. - Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
On 7/31/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal authority to handle this case.
The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many Russians.
Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects as they see fit.
Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I stand for the first solution: the Language SubCom gives advice about this case to the Board and then the Board decides whether closing or keeping the project alive.
IMHO if we started a Wikimedia-wide vote, I'm afraid that relatively few editors and many sockpuppets (to be identified and their votes rejected) will vote. I have no direct idea of how expensive a Wikimedia-wide vote is (in terms of energy, time and personal commitment as well), but I'm afraid it would cost too much when done just for deciding the survival of a single project.
G. (aka Paginazero)
2007/8/1, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
- Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project, so
possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according to all other circumstances.
- Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
On 8/1/07, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
Or more precisely any new Siberian Wikipedias will have to get their ISO TLA first, before getting into the wikipedia/incubator.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
"Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com writes:
According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the problem:
- Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
Board may do that.
- Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,
...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]
so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according to all other circumstances.
except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik Möller's statement on this.[2]
- Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes, at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in such a sharkpool.
The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However, practical steps in this direction have yet to been taken.
The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
[...]
While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally materialise, if ever.
Thanks,
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sib...
In general, I understand both: Language SubCom and Board for lack of will/time to work on such issues: LangSubCom shouldn't deal with closure of some project and Board has much more important issues to work on. However, in the present situation only Board is able to make such decision and only LangSubCom is body which may give expertize. So, my first suggestion was based on the simple relation: what do we have and what do we need.
If both bodies are not willing to deal with such issues, the idea about making Meta ArbCom is better then nothing. So, I support this idea in the sense "what do we have and what do we need".
However, positions of ArbComs shouldn't be strong, because ~10 persons shouldn't be able make Wikimedia-wide decisions. Also, it is quite reasonable to suppose that such body will be under strong pressure: I may suppose that a lot of people will try to find a way how to make influence on those people, as well as I am sure that they will have much more job then they would be able to do.
Also, even we have such body, it is always possible that it will say the same as Board and LangSubCom said for this case: we are not competent for this issue (or: sorry, we have a lot of job to do and we are not able to work on your issue because we think that it is less important then other issues).
Because of all of such cases I think that the best solution is to make a body which will just work on preparing of Wikimedia-wide votings.
And it is not so hard to make a good enough model for voting (which, btw, may be different from for different cases). For example, rules may be:
We need people who are enough in Wikimedia and her projects, so: - Board members, chapter board members, (sub)committee members, stewards, Meta community and developers (may some groups more?) are enough trusting, so we don't need to check them. - Other method for persons to whom Wikimedian projects are important is at least non-bot 1000 edits on all Wikimedian projects. Also, one year of presence may be another condition. - A method for checking reliability may be one year without any block more then 24 hours. - etc. etc.
We need this because we need a general method for making decisions which are global, but not WMF related. Today we have problem related to Siberian Wikipedia, but tomorrow we will have a problem which even wouldn't be related to any (sub)committee's expertise.
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
"Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com writes:
According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the problem:
- Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
Board may do that.
- Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,
...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]
so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according to all other circumstances.
except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik Möller's statement on this.[2]
- Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes, at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in such a sharkpool.
The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However, practical steps in this direction have yet to been taken.
The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
[...]
While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally materialise, if ever.
Thanks,
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sib...
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The language committee does not seek power. It can and will however address issues when it is asked to do so.
From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a linguistic entity. The second one is can it be adopted by bodies like the ISO. The arguments that I have seen so far are not persuasive at all. GIven also the POV attitude of the Siberian Wikipedia, the question to research this further is not really that interesting. When the Siberian Wikipedia were to be a normal project, we could ask for recognition but I do not feel that this is appropriate in this case.
Personally I would not have a problem when the Siberian Wikipedia is given a warning that it has to mend its POV ways. Second they have to get the ISO recognition and certainly if it is not seen that they do change their ways and do not get this recognition within half a year I would close the project.
NB This is clearly my personal opinion.
Thanks, GerarrdM
On 8/2/07, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
In general, I understand both: Language SubCom and Board for lack of will/time to work on such issues: LangSubCom shouldn't deal with closure of some project and Board has much more important issues to work on. However, in the present situation only Board is able to make such decision and only LangSubCom is body which may give expertize. So, my first suggestion was based on the simple relation: what do we have and what do we need.
If both bodies are not willing to deal with such issues, the idea about making Meta ArbCom is better then nothing. So, I support this idea in the sense "what do we have and what do we need".
However, positions of ArbComs shouldn't be strong, because ~10 persons shouldn't be able make Wikimedia-wide decisions. Also, it is quite reasonable to suppose that such body will be under strong pressure: I may suppose that a lot of people will try to find a way how to make influence on those people, as well as I am sure that they will have much more job then they would be able to do.
Also, even we have such body, it is always possible that it will say the same as Board and LangSubCom said for this case: we are not competent for this issue (or: sorry, we have a lot of job to do and we are not able to work on your issue because we think that it is less important then other issues).
Because of all of such cases I think that the best solution is to make a body which will just work on preparing of Wikimedia-wide votings.
And it is not so hard to make a good enough model for voting (which, btw, may be different from for different cases). For example, rules may be:
We need people who are enough in Wikimedia and her projects, so:
- Board members, chapter board members, (sub)committee members,
stewards, Meta community and developers (may some groups more?) are enough trusting, so we don't need to check them.
- Other method for persons to whom Wikimedian projects are important
is at least non-bot 1000 edits on all Wikimedian projects. Also, one year of presence may be another condition.
- A method for checking reliability may be one year without any block
more then 24 hours.
- etc. etc.
We need this because we need a general method for making decisions which are global, but not WMF related. Today we have problem related to Siberian Wikipedia, but tomorrow we will have a problem which even wouldn't be related to any (sub)committee's expertise.
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
"Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com writes:
According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the problem:
- Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
Board may do that.
- Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,
...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]
so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according to all other circumstances.
except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik Möller's statement on this.[2]
- Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes, at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in such a sharkpool.
The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However, practical steps in this direction have yet to been taken.
The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
[...]
While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally materialise, if ever.
Thanks,
Johannes
Footnotes: [1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html
[2]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Sib...
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hallo,
2007/8/2, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a linguistic entity. The second one is can it be adopted by bodies like the ISO. The arguments that I have seen so far are not persuasive at all. GIven also the POV attitude of the Siberian Wikipedia, the question to research this further is not really that interesting. When the Siberian Wikipedia were to be a normal project, we could ask for recognition but I do not feel that this is appropriate in this case.
I don't find anything about a Siberian Russian language (or dialect, if you like that term) in official materials about languages.
For example, http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90707 Ethnologue lists 4 eastern Slavic languages, all of them are well known and do not include Siberian Russian.
The specific language entry of Russian (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=rus) names two dialects, Northern and Southern Russian. According to first language speakers I asked this seems to be not a very good subdivision, but all of them denied that there is a specific Siberian dialect. Maybe some first language speakers of Russian who read this list can say something more about that.
My personal observation is that [[ru-sib:User:YaroslavZolotaryov]] is a kind of king of the project. And if I see things like http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%DD%A7%... I doubt that this can be called encyclopedic content. There are lessons for learners of "Siberian", for instance http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%DA%A7%.... (translated: 13th chapter - what to learn) I think Zolotaryov wants to introduce his artifical Russian dialect to other people, which is clearly Original Research. In my opinion this project should be moved to Wikia asap.
Saludos cordiales, Thogo.
"Thomas Goldammer" thogol@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
I don't find anything about a Siberian Russian language (or dialect, if you like that term) in official materials about languages.
For example, http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90707 Ethnologue lists 4 eastern Slavic languages, all of them are well known and do not include Siberian Russian.
The specific language entry of Russian (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=rus) names two dialects, Northern and Southern Russian. According to first language speakers I asked this seems to be not a very good subdivision, but all of them denied that there is a specific Siberian dialect.
The base of Zolotar'ev's languge is indeed the Northern dialect. Even though the "Sibirskoi govor" as a whole is an invention, it is true that the Northern dialect is quite distinct from Central and Southern Russian. Notable features include presense of a postpositive article (e.g. "zemlia-ta" "earth-the") some very odd grammatical constructions and peculiar phonetics. You can find all of these features represented in ru-sib. So it is not 100% made-up. In modern Russia, this dialect is accutely threatened by extinction and I believe that it is preserved only in very remote places of the North of European Russia.
In the Asian part, Old Settlers, whose ancestors settled eastwards of the Urals since the 16th centuries are likely to have preserved the Northern accent and developed their own regional variants. Some of this appears to have been recorded by researchers of Tomsk State University. (TSU) I don't have any idea, how distinct Siberian variants of the Northern dialect may have been. However, they may have existed, even though I believe they are virtually or completely extinct today.
As I said, this research has been undertaken in Tomsk, the city where Zolotar'ev lives. The authors of a report in the Russian online journal "bolshoi gorod"[1] asked a leading linguist at Tomsk State University for their opinion on Zolotarev's "Siberian language", and their verdict was devastating. As I wrote above, they confirmed that Zolotarev got some aspects right, including the peculiar Northern phonetics, most of the rest was just was just invented or taken from god knows where.
Maybe some first language speakers of Russian who read this list can say something more about that.
My personal observation is that [[ru-sib:User:YaroslavZolotaryov]] is a kind of king of the project. And if I see things like http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%... I doubt that this can be called encyclopedic content. There are lessons for learners of "Siberian", for instance http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0%.... (translated: 13th chapter - what to learn) I think Zolotaryov wants to introduce his artifical Russian dialect to other people,
[...]
yes, of course, for him, the ru-sib Wiki is a tool to popularise his personal project. In the above referred article he is cited saying:
,---- | «Википедии» на редких, вымерших и искус | ственных языках сохраняют знания о дан | ном языке», `----
("Wikipedias in rare, extinct and artificial languages preserve knowlege about the given language")
Creating an encyclopaedia in the sense of "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" is clearly not among his goals.
which is clearly Original Research.
More so when he uploads insulting poems as examples for the language, which have been written by himself and not published anywhere else.[2]
In my opinion this project should be moved to Wikia asap.
That is exactly what I think.
Thanks,
Johannes
Footnotes: [1] http://www.bg.ru/article/6539/
[2] http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%...
Thomas Goldammer schrieb: [...]
I don't find anything about a Siberian Russian language (or dialect, if you like that term) in official materials about languages.
The Russian Wikipedia has an article on the Siberian Old Settler dialects:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B...
The article itself is quite brief, however it gives quite a number of references.
Thanks,
Johannes
I want to point to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Latinized_Russian, another Zolotaryov project proposal.
--~~~~
---- Thomas Goldammer Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
Left a comment. By the way, --~~~~ doesn't work on emails :)
Alex (Majorly)
On 08/08/07, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com wrote:
I want to point to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Latinized_Russian , another Zolotaryov project proposal.
--~~~~
Thomas Goldammer Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here is my comment from there. (With "--~~~~" ;) )
* While I think that is a good idea to see some languages in different scripts (it is particularly useful for Slavic languages because I am sure that one young Czech will be more able to read Bulgarian in Latin and vice versa), projects like this are typical wasting of resources: it is possible to make transcription/transliteration engines for all languages. Personally, I would like to see French Wikipedia written in IPA and so on. All in all, this particular idea is not good, while it opened some interesting general possibilities. --~~~~
On 8/8/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Left a comment. By the way, --~~~~ doesn't work on emails :)
Alex (Majorly)
On 08/08/07, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com wrote:
I want to point to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Latinized_Russian , another Zolotaryov project proposal.
--~~~~
Thomas Goldammer Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
[...]
Personally I would not have a problem when the Siberian Wikipedia is given a warning that it has to mend its POV ways. Second they have to get the ISO recognition and certainly if it is not seen that they do change their ways and do not get this recognition within half a year I would close the project.
[...]
I think, this is an excellent suggestion. It leaves us with the question: Who might deliver such a warning shot and who would evaluate the subsequent development at ru-sib and eventually take a final decision? I believe that one or more persons with good command of Russian should be involved, what about Bèrto 'd Sèra who has classified himself as ru-3?
Thanks,
Johannes -- http://www.infoe.de/
From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a linguistic entity.
How does "Does the language have a dictionary?" work as a definition of whether or not something qualifies as a language? Obviously we need a restriction on what kind of dictionaries count (eg. novelty dictionaries of Cockney Rhyming Slang don't mean we should create a cockney wikipedia), and some other requirements would probably be needed as well (mutual intelligibility with other languages, for example), but I don't see how we can write a Wikipedia in a language which doesn't have a dictionary, since there is no way of determining what the language actually consists of (and you end up in the situation of having to invent words, as has been mentioned in this thread).
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a linguistic entity.
How does "Does the language have a dictionary?" work as a definition of whether or not something qualifies as a language? Obviously we need a restriction on what kind of dictionaries count (eg. novelty dictionaries of Cockney Rhyming Slang don't mean we should create a cockney wikipedia), and some other requirements would probably be needed as well (mutual intelligibility with other languages, for example), but I don't see how we can write a Wikipedia in a language which doesn't have a dictionary, since there is no way of determining what the language actually consists of (and you end up in the situation of having to invent words, as has been mentioned in this thread).
In fact there is a Siberian dictionary, the Полный словарь сибирского говора / polnyi slovar sibirskogo govora (complete dictionary of the Siberian dialect), by O.I. Blinova (ed.), published in Tomsk, 1992-1995 in 4 volumes.
I suspect that this /is/ a reliable and authoritative source. However, if you would cross-check the language used at ru-sib against the contents of this dictionary, you would come to the conclusion, that the vocabulary of ru-sib is largely invented or borrowed from other languages (with the explicite intent of making the language unintelligible to speakers of standard Russian) and thus is a misrepresentation of the original Northern dialect.
Thanks,
Johannes
In fact there is a Siberian dictionary, the Полный словарь сибирского говора / polnyi slovar sibirskogo govora (complete dictionary of the Siberian dialect), by O.I. Blinova (ed.), published in Tomsk, 1992-1995 in 4 volumes.
I suspect that this /is/ a reliable and authoritative source. However, if you would cross-check the language used at ru-sib against the contents of this dictionary, you would come to the conclusion, that the vocabulary of ru-sib is largely invented or borrowed from other languages (with the explicite intent of making the language unintelligible to speakers of standard Russian) and thus is a misrepresentation of the original Northern dialect.
If we were to use my suggested rule, there would, of course, be a requirement that the language used in the project be the same as the language in the dictionary. There being a real language with the same name as the one you're using isn't the same as actually using a real language, after all.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org