Organizations often have a "mission statement" and a "vision statement". For a typical distinction, see e.g.: http://www.cfbroward.org/new/tips/1.html
At the Board Retreat in October, we revisited our existing "Vision", which is: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
After some further discussion, the Board has come up with the following Mission and Vision statements. I would like to invite comments on these statements, and perhaps we can identify changes that we can all agree on. I would also like to encourage you to propose alternative statements on Meta (see URLs below).
The idea is that, after a discussion and editing period of at least two weeks, the Board will choose a version of the M&V statements. These versions will then be put forward to the community, for a simple "up" or "down" vote. If a statement reaches at least a two thirds majority of support, it will be implemented as such. If it only reaches a simple majority, further discussion and potential revision may follow, at the Board's discretion. A statement that does not reach a majority will not become an official statement of the WMF. The usual voting restrictions will apply (minimum participation period etc.) and will be announced together with the vote.
A general note: Our mission statement is perhaps longer than it needs to be, and our vision statement shorter. But in these matters, we can be flexible -- the most important question is whether both statements meet the specific needs of _our_ organization and community.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
Comment:
This is a slightly edited version from the Retreat, see the URL below for the original. It was important to us to emphasize that the relationship between WMF and its chapters, in general practice, is more one of organizations with different scope working towards the same goals, rather than a top down chain of command. The last sentence seemed important to emphasize the distinction between "free licensing" and "free access", both of which we are equally committed to.
== Comments & edits welcome ==
In the spirit of "stable versions", the M&V statements above can be found, as protected pages, on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision
You can suggest changes in this thread, or edit the unstable versions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission/Unstable http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision/Unstable
You are also encouraged to "fork" new versions if that becomes necessary due to lack of consensus on the wiki. Again, after at least two weeks, the Board will nominate the versions to be voted upon by the community. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.
You are encouraged to translate the proposed Mission & Vision statements, and to carry this discussion into other languages -- see the language links at the top of the above-referenced pages to get started.
Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too corporate. If a change is needed, I would suggest:
"Imagine a world in which every single person can freely access the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
As for the mission statement, I would only do very small changes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world, in order to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively in a global scale."
"In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and the organizational framework necessary for the support, development and growth of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve our mission. The Foundation is committed to making and maintaining all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:37 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the WikimediaFoundation
Organizations often have a "mission statement" and a "vision statement". For a typical distinction, see e.g.: http://www.cfbroward.org/new/tips/1.html
At the Board Retreat in October, we revisited our existing "Vision", which is: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
After some further discussion, the Board has come up with the following Mission and Vision statements. I would like to invite comments on these statements, and perhaps we can identify changes that we can all agree on. I would also like to encourage you to propose alternative statements on Meta (see URLs below).
The idea is that, after a discussion and editing period of at least two weeks, the Board will choose a version of the M&V statements. These versions will then be put forward to the community, for a simple "up" or "down" vote. If a statement reaches at least a two thirds majority of support, it will be implemented as such. If it only reaches a simple majority, further discussion and potential revision may follow, at the Board's discretion. A statement that does not reach a majority will not become an official statement of the WMF. The usual voting restrictions will apply (minimum participation period etc.) and will be announced together with the vote.
A general note: Our mission statement is perhaps longer than it needs to be, and our vision statement shorter. But in these matters, we can be flexible -- the most important question is whether both statements meet the specific needs of _our_ organization and community.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
Comment:
This is a slightly edited version from the Retreat, see the URL below for the original. It was important to us to emphasize that the relationship between WMF and its chapters, in general practice, is more one of organizations with different scope working towards the same goals, rather than a top down chain of command. The last sentence seemed important to emphasize the distinction between "free licensing" and "free access", both of which we are equally committed to.
== Comments & edits welcome ==
In the spirit of "stable versions", the M&V statements above can be found, as protected pages, on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision
You can suggest changes in this thread, or edit the unstable versions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission/Unstable http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision/Unstable
You are also encouraged to "fork" new versions if that becomes necessary due to lack of consensus on the wiki. Again, after at least two weeks, the Board will nominate the versions to be voted upon by the community. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.
You are encouraged to translate the proposed Mission & Vision statements, and to carry this discussion into other languages -- see the language links at the top of the above-referenced pages to get started.
On 11/15/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too corporate.
There were two primary reasons for the changes:
1) We're not only about access, but also about participation. A read-only wiki is not very interesting. We saw "share in" as a phrase that could transport many meanings.
2) Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially misleading for such an ambitious claim. Given how fucked up the situation still is in much of the developing world, we need to be careful not to come across as pretentious.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/15/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too corporate.
There were two primary reasons for the changes:
- We're not only about access, but also about participation. A
read-only wiki is not very interesting. We saw "share in" as a phrase that could transport many meanings.
Nod. If you can come up with another way of expression that "share in", it will be interesting to look at.
But the big change indeed is an attempt to reflect the reality of what WE are trying to do. We are not seeking only to feed the world with information/knowledge/content; we are also collecting and organising this knowledge. And the collection is not restricted to a happy few, but is an open and collaborative process.
- Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
misleading for such an ambitious claim. Given how fucked up the situation still is in much of the developing world, we need to be careful not to come across as pretentious.
yup.
Ant
2006/11/15, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
- Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
yup.
Something alike that old phrase could be the "link" from the Vision to the Mission, implying the
Try to put "That's our commitment." there...
I'd also remove "The Foundation is committed to" from the Mission statement, along with another minor change (all->useful), since the communities sometimes decide to delete something).
In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission, making and keeping useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
Utente:M7 (M/) wrote:
2006/11/15, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
- Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
yup.
Something alike that old phrase could be the "link" from the Vision to the Mission, implying the
Try to put "That's our commitment." there...
I'd also remove "The Foundation is committed to" from the Mission statement, along with another minor change (all->useful), since the communities sometimes decide to delete something).
In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission, making and keeping useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
Please, [[edit the page]]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission/Unstable
ant
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/15/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too corporate.
There were two primary reasons for the changes:
- We're not only about access, but also about participation. A
read-only wiki is not very interesting. We saw "share in" as a phrase that could transport many meanings.
A read-only wiki is not a wiki. :-)
- Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
misleading for such an ambitious claim. Given how fucked up the situation still is in much of the developing world, we need to be careful not to come across as pretentious.
I agree. When you begin by asking people to "imagine" precisely telling them what to imagine seems to undermine the whole idea of imagination. You really want people to sit back, close their eyes, and imagine.
Ec
Only one response so far? If there's no interest we might as well do without a public referendum.
On 11/15/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Organizations often have a "mission statement" and a "vision statement". For a typical distinction, see e.g.: http://www.cfbroward.org/new/tips/1.html
At the Board Retreat in October, we revisited our existing "Vision", which is: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
After some further discussion, the Board has come up with the following Mission and Vision statements. I would like to invite comments on these statements, and perhaps we can identify changes that we can all agree on. I would also like to encourage you to propose alternative statements on Meta (see URLs below).
The idea is that, after a discussion and editing period of at least two weeks, the Board will choose a version of the M&V statements. These versions will then be put forward to the community, for a simple "up" or "down" vote. If a statement reaches at least a two thirds majority of support, it will be implemented as such. If it only reaches a simple majority, further discussion and potential revision may follow, at the Board's discretion. A statement that does not reach a majority will not become an official statement of the WMF. The usual voting restrictions will apply (minimum participation period etc.) and will be announced together with the vote.
A general note: Our mission statement is perhaps longer than it needs to be, and our vision statement shorter. But in these matters, we can be flexible -- the most important question is whether both statements meet the specific needs of _our_ organization and community.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
Comment:
This is a slightly edited version from the Retreat, see the URL below for the original. It was important to us to emphasize that the relationship between WMF and its chapters, in general practice, is more one of organizations with different scope working towards the same goals, rather than a top down chain of command. The last sentence seemed important to emphasize the distinction between "free licensing" and "free access", both of which we are equally committed to.
== Comments & edits welcome ==
In the spirit of "stable versions", the M&V statements above can be found, as protected pages, on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision
You can suggest changes in this thread, or edit the unstable versions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission/Unstable http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vision/Unstable
You are also encouraged to "fork" new versions if that becomes necessary due to lack of consensus on the wiki. Again, after at least two weeks, the Board will nominate the versions to be voted upon by the community. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.
You are encouraged to translate the proposed Mission & Vision statements, and to carry this discussion into other languages -- see the language links at the top of the above-referenced pages to get started. -- Peace & Love, Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
On 11/16/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Only one response so far? If there's no interest we might as well do without a public referendum.
Well, if you count my remark on the talk page of the Mission statement - unstable version, that's two.
hehe.
Delphine
Erik Moeller wrote:
Only one response so far? If there's no interest we might as well do without a public referendum.
Some of us take a couple of days to get to our e-mails.
To be more optimistic - maybe everyone is carefully deliberating on the answers before giving them. ;-)
Ec
On 11/15/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Involves a lot of running and screaming
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
Not quite true. There are a number of bits of information from the projects which the foundation generaly prevents from being freely availible for obvious reasons. the deletion log to start with.
geni wrote:
On 11/15/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Involves a lot of running and screaming
Stark naked?
Ec
Keeping this in mind --
On 15/11/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
I think some statement of the importance of multilinguality is needed here.
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
This just seems like an expanded version of the above. And it doesn't seem like this: "A vision statement articulates the future of an organization. The statement should be a rich, meaningful, detailed description of what an organization hopes to become."
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing here. "People around the world" are not collecting and developing knowledge in isolation. They are, first, getting welcomed by other users (ok, or maybe bots :)). They are getting guidance, help and warnings from more experienced users. They are being invited to help out with collaborative projects, and being invited to edit in a consensus-driven way. They are evaluating the quality of material collectively. They are running for positions of various power and status, and they are voting on such candidates. Perhaps all this is implied in the use of the word "wiki"... or perhaps not.
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
oop, I meant to sign that.
--Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 17/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Keeping this in mind --
On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I think some statement of the importance of multilinguality is needed here.
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
Would save us from haveing to work out if Montenegrin is a language or not.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Keeping this in mind --
On 15/11/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
I think some statement of the importance of multilinguality is needed here.
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
I am really glad that you picked up on this. This is very much imperialistic thinking; to the winner all the spoils. If you want to understand what the relevance is of native languages, you may want to read what the UN has to say about this.
http://webworld.unesco.org/imld/res_en.html
The notion that by providing information in English we provide sufficient information is fundamentally wrong. The English Wikipedia does not provide sufficient information for people to understand their culture. When it does provide information in the first place, it brings it into a context that is decidedly outside of the culture of these people. When you have read and listened to people explaining what knowledge is lost with the demise of minority languages, you would understand that the tapestry of human knowledge is become threat bare as a consequence. Then again, when you do not know what you lost you did not lose it right ? Wikipedia may become a collection of much of the information that exists, when it does it may help us appreciate the loss that is happening to us all and to our detriment.
It has often been pointed out that the disconnect from the cultural values leads to a loss of cohesion and conflict. History also learned that the "upper classes" adopted the language of the cultural oppressor leading to eventual revolt. The sad thing is that much of the cultural values are lost in the process and one of the slogans for such a revolution is the promise for a cultural resurgence. A resurgence that seems to be always bleak compared to what is considered the "golden age" even if it was objectively not that great for the majority of the populace.
By preserving and promoting cultural diversity we contribute much more than by concentrating on what we happen to do best at the moment. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
I am really glad that you picked up on this. This is very much imperialistic thinking; to the winner all the spoils. If you want to understand what the relevance is of native languages, you may want to read what the UN has to say about this.
The ideas there are very interesting once you strip away the diplomatic verbiage. In particular the following:
- Also invites the Director-General to undertake the following concrete actions to promote multilingualism and cultural diversity on global information networks:
(a) to strengthen activities to make cultural heritage in the public domain which is preserved in museums, libraries and archives freely accessible on the global information networks;
(b) to support the formulation of national and international policies and principles encouraging all Member States to promote the development and use of translation tools and terminology for better interoperability;
(c) to encourage the provision of resources for linguistic pluralism through global networks, in particular by reinforcing the UNESCO international observatory on the information society;
(d) to pursue further consultations with Member States and competent international governmental and non-governmental organizations for closer cooperation on language rights, respect for linguistic diversity and the expansion of multilingual electronic resources on the global information networks;
I would suspect that we are already among the most engaged of the NGOs referred to in (d).
The notion that by providing information in English we provide sufficient information is fundamentally wrong. The English Wikipedia does not provide sufficient information for people to understand their culture. When it does provide information in the first place, it brings it into a context that is decidedly outside of the culture of these people. When you have read and listened to people explaining what knowledge is lost with the demise of minority languages, you would understand that the tapestry of human knowledge is become threat bare as a consequence. Then again, when you do not know what you lost you did not lose it right ? Wikipedia may become a collection of much of the information that exists, when it does it may help us appreciate the loss that is happening to us all and to our detriment.
Absolutely! The most important task for minority languages lies in relating to their own cultures. It may be interesting to translate into a minority language information about the latest discoveries in nuclear physics, or the politics of nations on the other side of the globe, but that has nothing to do with the soul of that language. :-) Although in most cases I prefer not to comment on erroneous idioms, I would like to point out that "threat bare" should normally be threadbare" indicating that the fabric is deteriorating to the point where one can almost see through it. It is nearly at the point where darning may no longer an effective way of bringing it back to life. To be sure, that which has become so impoverished is also barren of threats, but that is another story. :-)
It has often been pointed out that the disconnect from the cultural values leads to a loss of cohesion and conflict. History also learned that the "upper classes" adopted the language of the cultural oppressor leading to eventual revolt. The sad thing is that much of the cultural values are lost in the process and one of the slogans for such a revolution is the promise for a cultural resurgence. A resurgence that seems to be always bleak compared to what is considered the "golden age" even if it was objectively not that great for the majority of the populace.
None have been so effective at sharpening the oppresor's language into a weapon as the Irish, but they had already resisted Charlamagne's effort to impose a common European script.
Ec
On 11/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
relating to their own cultures. It may be interesting to translate into a minority language information about the latest discoveries in nuclear physics, or the politics of nations on the other side of the globe, but that has nothing to do with the soul of that language.
[snip]
A language can not live without useful material being both available in it, and being actively written in it.
That said, although it is a laudable goal, I do not believe that preserving dying languages should be part of Wikimedia's mission.
If the output of our efforts can be used by others to help preserve languages... If they can translate the content in the major Wikipedias or if we can find a little space on our servers for them to run Wikipedias in their languages, all the better. If our efforts to archive the past knowledge of the world in wikisource, and our efforts lower the real cost of sharing knowledge through Wiki technology causes the preservation of languages as a side effect then thats fantastic!
But preserving languages should not be our mission.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Keeping this in mind --
On 15/11/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point? Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't -- something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as possible.
I think some statement of the importance of multilinguality is needed here.
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
This just seems like an expanded version of the above. And it doesn't seem like this: "A vision statement articulates the future of an organization. The statement should be a rich, meaningful, detailed description of what an organization hopes to become."
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is another issue).
Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing here. "People around the world" are not collecting and developing knowledge in isolation. They are, first, getting welcomed by other users (ok, or maybe bots :)). They are getting guidance, help and warnings from more experienced users. They are being invited to help out with collaborative projects, and being invited to edit in a consensus-driven way. They are evaluating the quality of material collectively. They are running for positions of various power and status, and they are voting on such candidates. Perhaps all this is implied in the use of the word "wiki"... or perhaps not.
Would that do ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission%2FUnstable&diff=4707...
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Ah... Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter and the money from the butter at the same time". Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
Anthere
On 17/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is another issue).
Hm... well I guess that is up to the dev's to some extent... but given that they develop MediaWiki specifically in directions that serve direct uses to Wikimedia projects...and that they are some of WMF's paid employees...would it not make sense as a statement of support, if not control?
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Ah... Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter and the money from the butter at the same time". Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually: Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or is not willing to support, right?
I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be supported or not. I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support it?
What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it *only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't see in these statements?
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
cheers, Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 17/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
There's a lot of ambiguity that has developed around the use of the term "project". Resolving this would be very helpful.
Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually: Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
I believe that the Catholic Church should review the doctrine of papal infalibility. In theory it only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra',. but that is a difficult concept for the flock to grasp.
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or is not willing to support, right?
I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be supported or not. I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support it?
What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it *only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't see in these statements?
I think you are reading far too much into Anthere's answer. Where to put a games guide is not a particularly important question. The important point now is how we decide. Presuming that WMF would or would not support a project, and using that to generalize a policy is not a sound basis for developing policies. What decides whether or not we have Wikistalk as a project may be as simple as the common sense judgement of the people who decide. If any project proposal is really new, how can there possibly be a pre-existing policy about it?
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
You make it look like you are looking for answers from everyone else but yourself. If such a charter is a good idea, then maybe the niext step could be to develop what it should contain.
Ec
On 17/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What decides whether or not we
have Wikistalk as a project may be as simple as the common sense judgement of the people who decide. If any project proposal is really new, how can there possibly be a pre-existing policy about it?
OK... except that Erik specifically stated that these mission and vision statements would be the things cited in explaining why WMF would or would not support WikiFoo.
Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
You make it look like you are looking for answers from everyone else but yourself. If such a charter is a good idea, then maybe the niext step could be to develop what it should contain.
Well, if you don't ask, you never know. And I hate reinventing the wheel. But it seems it's not the most relevant thing right now.
regards, Brianna
On 11/17/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
OK... except that Erik specifically stated that these mission and vision statements would be the things cited in explaining why WMF would or would not support WikiFoo.
Only in a very broad and general way. We want to be careful not to exclude too much a priori. But I am personally very much in favor of using the word "Knowledge" in the Mission & Vision statements, because it is, depending on how we interpret it (and we can argue for an interpretation based on the existing projects), already a fairly good limitation of scope. Florence has now objected to this word in the unstable Mission Statement and replaced it with "content". I still haven't seen an adequate explanation why "knowledge" should not be used.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/17/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
OK... except that Erik specifically stated that these mission and vision statements would be the things cited in explaining why WMF would or would not support WikiFoo.
Only in a very broad and general way. We want to be careful not to exclude too much a priori. But I am personally very much in favor of using the word "Knowledge" in the Mission & Vision statements, because it is, depending on how we interpret it (and we can argue for an interpretation based on the existing projects), already a fairly good limitation of scope. Florence has now objected to this word in the unstable Mission Statement and replaced it with "content". I still haven't seen an adequate explanation why "knowledge" should not be used.
I answered here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mission/Unstable#knowledge_under_a_free_...
I have not *now* objected to the use of the word knowledge in the mission statement. This objection has been raised during the board retreat, left unsolved at the end of it, and was actually listed as the things for which no agreement was reached. So, this objection is now nearly a month old.
One of the arguments you used against the word "content" is that Stallman did not like the use of this word. I object to the word knowledge, because I do not think this is what we are doing. We seek to have all human being knowledgeable (that's definitly our vision), but knowledge is an unpalpable concept. And we are doing something very palpable. One of the relevant argument against the use of this word is that "knowledge" can not be copyrighted, so producing freely-licenced knowledge makes no sense. My most compelling argument is that "knowledge" is something personnal. Something different for each person.
I will bold (/me crosses her fingers) and copy here two private statements I read after the retreat, which have unfortunately not been posted in public. I hope their authors will be fine with me doing this. I think their words were wise and should be there.
------------------
Words of wisdom from Ilario
I have seen two or three contradictions during the discussions and I would clarify them.
1.difference between "content" and "knowledge". I have had a discussion with Oscar in a dinner but I was not sure about some points. I have checked and I can write. The difference is not trivial. If you know philosophy and particularly epistemology [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology] (but you can find more in-depth informations in gnoseology) you could know that the word "knowledge" is very complex. If you read particularly the chapter "truth" in en.wikipedia you see that the knowledge is what you see of the reality and IT'S THE TRUTH. From Plato to Kant there has been a long discussion about this problem: "Can a man have the knowledge?" "Can a man know the reality?". Saying that Wikipedia has the knowledge we are saying that Wikipedia has the truth, that what you read in Wikipedia cannot be discussed. It's important to understand the right position of this word: a man can share knowledge with another man in Wikipedia or everywhere but the knowledge cannot be "freely licensed" and the knowledge cannot be provided by Wikipedia because the knowledge is something personal and complex, if we accept some positions as Empiricism, or cannot be provided by any human person, if we accept the Platonism. There has been a long discussion in the past... if the knowledge is provided by the religion (platonism) or by the science (empiricism)... we are introducing a third actor: Wikipedia :)
------------
Words of wisdom from Tim Shell
I spoke very briefly with Erik about this and he began taking me down a similar path that Ilario followed here.
The term "knowledge" may have any number of esoteric meanings specific to any number of technical or philosophical schools of thought. However, 99.9% of the time, when people say knowledge, they do use the term in one of these esoteric senses. The word is used commonly to mean, "something in your head, that you know."
Incorporating the word "knowledge" into a vision statement is a bad idea, in my opinion, if we are trying to use the term in some esoteric sense. We would be implicitly endorsing a position, and we would be stating something in the vision statement that most people would not fully understand.
The objection to the use of the word "content" seemed to me to be very weak. Jimmy attributed to someone else the opinion that "content" implied something in a box that you would sell. This is silly. You can talk about the "content of one's character", the "content of a thought", the "semantic content of a word". None of this has anything to do with boxing and selling.
Content in our sense means, basically, "stuff with information content", or something like that. This is what people commonly understand it to mean in similar contexts. So in my opinion "content" is perfectly good for our vision statement.
-----------
Anthere wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/17/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
OK... except that Erik specifically stated that these mission and vision statements would be the things cited in explaining why WMF would or would not support WikiFoo.
Only in a very broad and general way. We want to be careful not to exclude too much a priori. But I am personally very much in favor of using the word "Knowledge" in the Mission & Vision statements, because it is, depending on how we interpret it (and we can argue for an interpretation based on the existing projects), already a fairly good limitation of scope. Florence has now objected to this word in the unstable Mission Statement and replaced it with "content". I still haven't seen an adequate explanation why "knowledge" should not be used.
I answered here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mission/Unstable#knowledge_under_a_free_...
I have not *now* objected to the use of the word knowledge in the mission statement. This objection has been raised during the board retreat, left unsolved at the end of it, and was actually listed as the things for which no agreement was reached. So, this objection is now nearly a month old.
One of the arguments you used against the word "content" is that Stallman did not like the use of this word. I object to the word knowledge, because I do not think this is what we are doing. We seek to have all human being knowledgeable (that's definitly our vision), but knowledge is an unpalpable concept. And we are doing something very palpable. One of the relevant argument against the use of this word is that "knowledge" can not be copyrighted, so producing freely-licenced knowledge makes no sense. My most compelling argument is that "knowledge" is something personnal. Something different for each person.
<snip>
Agree with all of that. The problem is that when you talk about "knowledge" you have to add the disclaimer "not in the biblical sense", and that if it's "information" we've got, hello Wikistalk...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
The problem is that when you talk about "knowledge" you have to add the disclaimer "not in the biblical sense", and that if it's "information" we've got, hello Wikistalk...
Biblical knowledge will still be necessary to ensure wiki-quickie growth in the population of Wikistan. ;-)
Ec
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 17/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
Wikiquote.
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is another issue).
Hm... well I guess that is up to the dev's to some extent... but given that they develop MediaWiki specifically in directions that serve direct uses to Wikimedia projects...and that they are some of WMF's paid employees...would it not make sense as a statement of support, if not control?
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Ah... Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter and the money from the butter at the same time". Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually: Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
Nod. But Jimbo is the foundator and the leader. So that's not the same :-)
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or is not willing to support, right?
I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be supported or not. I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support it?
What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it *only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't see in these statements?
Good point. Actually, in the bylaws, there is mention of the projects themselves, after the mission statement. Maybe that text should be reworked actually.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws_update
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
No guidelines. Actually, it is right now just an idea. The idea was to make it clearer what the goal of a project was. For example, just yesterday, some people questionned the role of wikicommons. Wikibooks is frequently in conflict over this. Some wikinews attempted to add pov editorials. Wikiversity is still in progress. Etc... Wikipedia may well be the best defined project.
Thanks for your feedback Brianna
Anthere
cheers, Brianna
On 11/17/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 17/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
Wikiquote.
Thanks for your clarification. To develop such, one possible problem may be that Wikiquote community international has no global discussion place (except Metapub, but I wonder how many Wikiquoters know that). There is #wikiquote though, aiming to be such, but it is deserted. Perhaps since the language division in 2004, Wikiquote lost such a global discussion place.
There are some discussions and proposed detailed mission statements on English Wikiquote by JeffQ. I am sure English Wikiquote community support those, but not sure if the global Wikiquote community, since we haven't discuss such yet.
Wikiquote as Wikimedia project has no dedicated mailinglist as far as I know. Once I proposed that, most of Wikiquoters were doubtful if we needed such. But if we are going to have global charter and should, we indeed need such for now?
Anthere wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
No problem with this process in principle, but any formal adoption should probably wait until the vision/mission proposal is more advanced.
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is another issue).
The words "essential infrastructure" would seem to already imply adequate software development.
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Ah... Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter and the money from the butter at the same time".
In English: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
The problem is bigger than Wikimedia. People are afraid that if they reach for the brass ring they will fall off the merry-go-round horse.
Personally, I have no objection to video game guides, but would have serious concerns about "Wikistalking" or personal photo albums. The point is not about any one of these, but about the fact that we all think differently about what should be included and where.
Adding the adjective "educational" somewhere doesn't help because opinions on just what is educational are likely to open a whole new round of debate.
The mission statement is a big picture document. It is about wishes and possibilities, not about restrictions. Where needed those restrictions can come later.
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
I think it's a little early for a proposal of this kind. While there is some merit to such a charter, the greater the detail the greater the difficulty in developing a common position. This could easily be seen as an attempt by the major languages to dominate the smaller.
Ec
On 11/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
Adding the adjective "educational" somewhere doesn't help because opinions on just what is educational are likely to open a whole new round of debate.
[snip]
Although it is difficult to say what is educational, there are many cases where it is not difficult to obtain broad consensus that a particular item is not.
[snip]
The mission statement is a big picture document. It is about wishes and possibilities, not about restrictions. Where needed those restrictions can come later.
I'd prefer to say that a mission statement should not attempt to micromanage.
It should fully define the destination, but not every footstep along the path.
The question of a statement about 'educational' being too close to micromanagement is one I can not answer with certainty. However, "educational", in a broad sense, is an actual and important aspect of our implemented mission, and it would be unfortunate if we couldn't find a clear way to express that in the written expression of our mission.
On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me, supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where?
Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on technology and lacks the dedication to become one.
Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing here.
Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both M&V might make sense.
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge? Is unverifiable information knowledge?)
As for VG guides, I wouldn't _want_ them to be excluded from Wikimedia's scope. That Wikibooks is becoming more narrowly focused on textbooks may make sense from a strategic point of view to attract the right authors and institutions, but I don't see why we should not ever host HOWTOs about video games in a separate project, for example.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion languages, right? I don't think so...
The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me, supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
Hoi, With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world to unite under one language does horrify me. The image that I get is shopping centres all over the world that have exactly the same shops, the same products. Television that has the same programs, the same adverts. Going to Italy and only to be told how it used to be with nothing going on that I cannot find in Almere (FYI Almere as a city is only some 30 years old). Supporting multi linguality you do in order to appreciate that there is more than what you to take for granted. Not knowing at least two languages and cultures ensures you that you do not appreciate what is around you. Being able to appreciate things from a different perspective is what provides depth to the world as you perceive it.
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where?
Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.
Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as well, considering how important it is to the projects...
Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on technology and lacks the dedication to become one.
Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing here.
Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both M&V might make sense.
It is even dangerous to think that we are ONE community, we are one community in that we share commons values. But many other values are starkly different. This is easy to observe, just watch the interaction between the ro and mo communities. It is so bad that the ro go as far as denying the existence of mo.
Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school teacher. Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge? Is unverifiable information knowledge?)
If you ask a teacher if it is useful to show the same information in 10 marginally different ways, he will tell you no two of his kids are the same and that by being able to say the same things slightly different the message will come across where it did not at first. Certainly when the background of people is different, information that is well written, NPOV may not inform because the assumptions no not coincide with the assumption of the reader. It is exactly to overcome these issues that makes it so important to tell the same information in "ten" marginally different ways.
Honestly and truly, let us cherish our differences by being aware of how we differ. But let the differences not be what drives us apart while we have so much in common.
Thanks, GerardM
On 11/16/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me, supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world to unite under one language does horrify me.
That's perfectly fine, and we can have a debate about the relative merits of our positions. My point, however, is that we should avoid phrases like "in their own language", because they transport an inherent POV about what the correct strategy is to disseminate knowledge. If we can express support for multilinguality in a more neutral fashion, I'd be supportive of it -- such as "breaking down language barriers".
On 16/11/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/16/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me, supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world to unite under one language does horrify me.
That's perfectly fine, and we can have a debate about the relative merits of our positions. My point, however, is that we should avoid phrases like "in their own language", because they transport an inherent POV about what the correct strategy is to disseminate knowledge. If we can express support for multilinguality in a more neutral fashion, I'd be supportive of it -- such as "breaking down language barriers".
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge..."
"...regardless of [their] nation, culture or language"?
On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"...regardless of [their] nation, culture or language"?
point of view, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc etc.
I hope that someday the entire world will expect that non-discrimination will be the norm and that discrimination will be the exception which needs enumeration.
Even so, if we're going to make it unreasonably long I can think of more important points to make than the fact that we don't intend to discriminate.
On 16/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"...regardless of [their] nation, culture or language"?
point of view, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc etc.
I hope that someday the entire world will expect that non-discrimination will be the norm and that discrimination will be the exception which needs enumeration.
Back when I was working for a student union, there was a Plaque on the wall of the bar (of all places) detailing all the many and myriad ways in which the union did not intend to discriminate among people. It was a very long list.
We occasionally sat there for hours debating a) if the existence of such a list meant we were allowed to discriminate in any ways not listed; and b) if there were any possible ways one could discriminate against somebody which were left...
Even so, if we're going to make it unreasonably long I can think of more important points to make than the fact that we don't intend to discriminate.
Fairy nuff. I just feel that if we are going to mention it, it'd be nice to do it in a way that sounds good...
I actually quite like that [their] can be elided, and it leaves the nice ambiguity - of course we don't discriminate against people, but it's nice to state we don't distinguish among *knowledge* ;-)
On 11/16/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: [snip]
The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me, supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
[snip]
Erik's position on languages isn't a new one, .. and I can only assume that the community was aware of it when we elected him to the board. :)
While I doubt Erik and I would agree on all the details, I broadly agree that multilingualism should not be, for us, an end in and of itself. Of course, this is another engineer speaking here...
Consider a language with a great many speakers, and a reasonable number of internet connected speakers, but a completely unsuccessful Wikipedia (there are a couple of good examples, but I'll avoid naming them now). The reasons for this are sure to be complex and hard to pin down.
We could, were we strongly committed to being very multilingual, expend our resources (both 'social' and monetary) to fill this Wikipedia with content... We could teach people the language, we could hire authors... etc. Or we could decide that being highly multilingual isn't our first priority, and we could spend far less on it.. Instead we allow Jeff Merkey's translation software to make first cuts for those who speak languages without momentum in our projects... and our resources can be spent in other ways.
Most of all... I think that the proposed vision adequately captures the important aspects of working with multiple languages.
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
It's clear that the "sum of all knowledge" is material which currently exists spread across multiple languages and I think "freely share" implies a form of useful sharing where the shared material isn't trapped in languages which make it inaccessible.
Within that context we can be free to translate (via machines or humans), to teach people new languages, or both as we see best, with no preordained bias towards a specific tool.
And when it comes down to it this is the only sane solution: Language is a complex issue that goes beyond the the few hundred primarily languages spoken by man, there are cultural complexities, and people in various fields speak their own dialects.
So should we be required by our vision offer three separate articles in English for the [[Euler Lagrange equation]], one written in the dialect spoken by physicists, one written in in the dialect of pure mathematicans, and one in the dialect of a US high school graduate? or should we write one version and expect people to learn enough of the dialect (using wikipedia).. should we accept the notion that the total layman will either not care about the subject or will be willing to learn enough to learn?
These are questions which depends not only on the demands and needs of our readers but the willingness of our volunteers and the availability of other resources.
I think this type of problem is best decided on a case by case basis and I see no reason why we should be any less nuanced in our approach to all our language issues.
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement.
The more I ponder this statement the more I dislike it. Forget dissemination -- what about knowledge collection? As if knowledge only exists in English, or major European languages. The "language barrier" goes both ways. To access some of the world's oldest and most classic texts, we should also advocate teaching everyone classical Chinese. How likely is that? The gift of accessing information in your native language should not be underestimated by those who are lucky enough to take it for granted.
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale. It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
regards, Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement.
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale. It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
As much as agreeing with the retreat cabal may be contrary to this curmudgeon's world view, I think that leaving "in their own language" out is best. Nevertheless, I find Erik's rationale somewhat condescending and misleading. The vision statement is not about the role or importance of English, or any other language. The statement will presumably be translated (both linguistically and culturally) into as many languages as required, where it strikes me as normal that every person will imagine in the context of a world vision unique his own language and culture. We want a Yaqui person to imagine within the context of a world not too dissimilar to that described by Castañeda. Vision may not even be about language, so why restrict vision by mentioning it.
In fact I would be inclined to shorten the statement even furtherr to
'''Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all knowledge.'''
"Single", even if it's purpose is to be emphatic, is not necessary. Some people could even draw the conclusion that marriage is the point in life when we stop imagining. ;-)
"Person" strikes me as less coldly technical than "human being".
"The sum of" is a pointless redundancy and cliché.
Ec
On 11/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
The statement will presumably be translated (both linguistically and culturally) into as many languages as required, where it strikes me as normal that every person will imagine in the context of a world vision unique his own language and culture. We want a Yaqui person to imagine within the context of a world not too dissimilar to that described by Castañeda. Vision may not even be about language, so why restrict vision by mentioning it.
Thank you, this was the point I was trying to make about our proposed vision statement already capturing the required aspects of multilinguality.
In fact I would be inclined to shorten the statement even furtherr to
'''Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all knowledge.'''
So, while I agree with every point of your reduction and I recognize that my argument would apply to the initial draft just as well, I'm a bit concerned that a vision of "Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all knowledge" fails do differentiate us from communications technology projects like Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html) or a project to make 'Free Hardware' networking equipment. :)
None of the current Wikimedia projects, for example, are currently intended to facilitate the sharing of all fetish porn videos. But are not these videos a part of all knowledge taken in the absolute sense?
"The sum of" is a pointless redundancy and cliché.
To me, "The sum of" implies aggregation, distillation, and synthesis. Perhaps my understanding of the words is unconventional?
In any case, I believe our vision should succinctly express an intention to not merely facilitate a lossless retransmission of all data, but to enable the world through repositories of knowledge in the most useful and apropreiately accessible forms.
I thought "the sum of" took us closer to that...
On 16/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
None of the current Wikimedia projects, for example, are currently intended to facilitate the sharing of all fetish porn videos. But are not these videos a part of all knowledge taken in the absolute sense?
Right. I'm going to spend this week setting up Wikipr0n ... wonder what I'll make on Google ads.
- d.
On 11/17/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
The more I ponder this statement the more I dislike it. Forget dissemination -- what about knowledge collection? As if knowledge only exists in English, or major European languages. The "language barrier" goes both ways. To access some of the world's oldest and most classic texts, we should also advocate teaching everyone classical Chinese. How likely is that? The gift of accessing information in your native language should not be underestimated by those who are lucky enough to take it for granted.
Well said! Once I was interviewed by Nick Hill, I stressed this point - that is why I am involved into project: thinking in your native language is, even if it seemed to be strange for the majority, *a genuine privilege*. Most of languages on this planet have such advantages in occasion to be initiated into the intellectual world. Besides some languages which lack writing system, there are thousands of people whose governments don't provide the educational opportunity in their native languages. If you are educated only in your mother tongue, you are highly privileged. And personally I think it is unfair: we human being is equally invited to heir the wealth of human beings? But I find no equal opportunity in this situation.
You may remember the thread "why Indian editors are not interested in their native language projects". One of answers is here; in India as same as other countries, middle and high education is provided mainly in English. High educated people are familiar to think in English. And English is even one of their government official language. It is not their mother tongue though, but they can claim English is one of India languages. But OTOH it is still no their mother language.
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale. It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
So principally I think we share a same stance, Brianna. On the other hand I am a bit hesitant to add "in their own language" as the way once proposed. Because of their current situations - most of those language lack terminology to describe highly developed knowledge for example - it wouldn't go straightly I am afraid. We need coinage perhaps but ... well, is it really our tasks? To create enormous vocabulary for resources we would like to provide? I am not sure and at a corner of my brain a motto "avoid original researches" is blinking ...
Another case is the case of bi/multilingual. We also see an example on Indian language projects and Indian editors ... "Their own languages" don't meant their native languages exclusively in that case.
I would therefore like to retain a mention to our favor to multilingualism basically and in a modest way. Like "to help people having knowledge in their (own?) languages as far as they want". For example, an Ainu native who is basically educated in a Japanese educational system, I suppose, would prefer to read something, eh, for instance about financing, or in some cases about their own ethnic culture, in Japanese, not in their language. However, with such complication, I still agree it will be far great to mention to promotion of multilingualism in a certain way. I would appreciate people/person who proposed it on Frankfurter retreat.
I agree with Brianna here 100%.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Brianna Laugher wrote:
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement.
The more I ponder this statement the more I dislike it. Forget dissemination -- what about knowledge collection? As if knowledge only exists in English, or major European languages. The "language barrier" goes both ways. To access some of the world's oldest and most classic texts, we should also advocate teaching everyone classical Chinese. How likely is that? The gift of accessing information in your native language should not be underestimated by those who are lucky enough to take it for granted.
It is not simply a gift. As you suggest, treating this issue lightly limits the efficacy of collection. More knowledge is lost when there are no native speakers trained as archivists, because archiving or gathering is something done [in all languages] by people who only speak a limited set of languages.
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale.
Absolutely. It is not only special to Wikimedia, it is one of the more beautiful goals of the organization, despite having been a difficult one to pursue to date. It has led to Wikimedia being one of the prime places where one can observe debates about small-language classification, naming, and categorization -- because we have a practical use for the decisions we are making.
--SJ
It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
regards, Brianna _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20/11/06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Brianna Laugher wrote:
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale.
Absolutely. It is not only special to Wikimedia, it is one of the more beautiful goals of the organization, despite having been a difficult one to pursue to date. It has led to Wikimedia being one of the prime places where one can observe debates about small-language classification, naming, and categorization -- because we have a practical use for the decisions we are making.
Indeed. Look at recent discussions on wikitech-l of how MediaWiki implements usability in multiple languages - rather than "internationalisation", which has tended to mean "write it in English and bolt other languages on the side," everything they do has hundreds of languages allowed for very early in the design.
It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
- d.
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and in some cases creating a written script.
On 21/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and in some cases creating a written script.
"No original research" is a policy of the Wikimedia projects, not a cast-iron operating procedure for the Wikimedia Foundation. WMF's goal isn't to work on language preservation, but if we have a thriving oral language we try to build a prooject from, and WMF's work happens to be the impetus for providing an orthography for it... well, so be it. There are worse things that could happen, and it isn't some kind of betrayal of our core principles.
On 21/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and in some cases creating a written script.
See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on this list ad nauseam in the past.
- d.
On 11/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on this list ad nauseam in the past.
Sure but it is still dissputed. Surely the mo: and the Montenegrin issues are enough to show that when it comes to languages original research is still a problem since the whole thing tends to be so political. Unscripted languages are likely to have issues releated to dialect and unless we get lucky personal issues between those creating the script.
Idealism is nice but sometimes you need to look at the cost.
David Gerard schreef:
On 21/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and in some cases creating a written script.
See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on this list ad nauseam in the past.
- d.
Hoi, Defining what a language is, defining a script is a non trivial matter. When you want to get into these kinds of thing there is a space for it. There are people who dedicate their life to these kinds of thing. There are two types of people (and many classifications), there are those that do and there are those who don't.
Both for the defining what a language is and, for coming up for a script, you are in the wrong place when you want to do it in the Wikimedia Foundation. There are other organisations that deal with that. There are people in those organisations that are "approachable" that do not bite and who are happy when people show a "do and can" attitude.
When there is a need for doing original research to have a language or a dialect or an orthography or a script recognised or dismissed by Standard organisations, then the need for this within the Wikimedia Foundation is to have it done outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. Voting on "is this a language" is a bad idea. It just does not work. Demonstrating that there is a big corpus in what is supposed to be a language does work. This however has to be shown to relevant Standard organisations because that is what they are there for.\
The question is, do you want to go that extra mile ..
Thanks, GerardM
Erik Moeller wrote
== Mission Statement ==
'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed to making and keeping all information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
You are encouraged to translate the proposed Mission & Vision statements, and to carry this discussion into other languages -- see the language links at the top of the above-referenced pages to get started.
I have one very broad complaint about this mission statement, apart from any specific points within it. My vocabulary is reasonably good, and I can understand what appears to be said.
Has anyone considered a translation that would benefit the people at Simple English? I've heard it said somewhere that simple language can be very effective.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org