>However, you also argue that till now, many chinese
have asked for the wikinews and that we
>are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user
>>request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a
fundamental policy and the >>fact part of users support and part of users oppose the
creation should NOT be taken into >>account... or we decide it is important, but
require clearer community support. Not so easy >>to all agree on what should be done
Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was
just about to go offline.)
As far as I understand, normally when there is enough
interest in a language version of >Wikinews, the language is launched.
That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on
"community" in my argument.
It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a
"habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is
usually done does not mean it will be done forever.
Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is
actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty
in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a
language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a
"habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed.
Why did it changed ?
Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or
sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work.
Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy
here conflicts with a fundamental policy >of freedom.
What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one
which makes the *discussion* a bit more >"tricky" as you say, but not the gut
Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a
new language wiki? Should there be a way not just >to express interest in building one,
but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is >"no", because
anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply
>doesn't have to!
I understand that this latter question caused problems
for the French Wikinews, though I >don't know the details.
However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is
connected only to the secondary >policy question, namely, should the policy for
creating new languages, when the languages >are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also
allow for opposition? Though I think in normal >circumstances probably not, this is
completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!
My point is to completely disengage the two issues:
Whether or not "opposition" should be >allowed to creating a new language in
a project is one question, and it is a completely >legitimate question (though I
personally think the answer should be "no" in normal >circumstances).
You make a very good point here.
I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you
seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being
It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the
Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the
project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express
support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose
things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support
or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if
one counts both support and opposition.
Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese
community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of
taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our
In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-)
And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement
either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves,
* one did not answer
* one opposed
* one thought the decision should be global community one
* one thought the decision should be local community one
* one supported
However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind
that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered.
But when such "opposition" is based on the
threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even >be a question at all. Censorship is
not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the >project stands
As explained above, our position is not opposition.
Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around