Were there any Transnistrians that voted ?
No, I am against both the closure and the deletion of this project. I do not
vote when it voting is the wrong instrument. When people vote for a new
language the only thing I look at are arguments. The number of them I do not
care for. The ratio for or against is equally irrelevant. I do not vote when
voting is a flawed instrument.
When you do not insist on native speakers, you can not use it as an argument
for Moldovan either.
Again, there are only flawed arguments for closure and it would be adding
insult to injury to delete this project.
On Nov 10, 2007 8:12 PM, Johannes Rohr <jorohr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am quite happy to have anyone have their say. I am equally happy not
have a vote. When you say that there was
unanimous support, you are
have and Mark have expressed our opposition and
we both had our own
I said there was, as far as I can see, unanimous support *by native*
*speakers*. I think I made that more than clear enough.
You present your position as a defense of a right, i.e. the right to
use a specific writing system. Now, a writing system makes only sense
in connection with a language. And as the discussions have indicated
quite strongly, the potential right-holders, those who do speak the
language in question, do not seem to give a damn about this right. So,
whose rights are you defending?
When I make the point that voting is a flawed
instrument, I do not
vote. Your suggestion that this equates with no one being against is
is wrong given the massive amount of arguments that have been
spilled on it.
So are you saying that you do not oppose the closure of mo.wiki? That
you oppose only the process? If so, you are contracting
yourself. Else, this is just hair-splitting to me.
When your sense of tidiness is offended by
Not only mine is. The issue with the unfixable interwiki conflicts was
actually brought up by folks from the Russian Wikipedia who, while
expressing their delight at the deletion of ru-sib, pointed to the
fact that mo continues to be a problem in that respect..
you have to realise that opening it up is in this
unreasonable and it is certainly an alternative to deletion.
Well sure. I just cannot see any use in having it open..
Do you assert that every project should have a
includes native speakers ??
Well, for Esperanto, Lojban, Old Church Slavonic and Interlingua I
wouldn't insist. And there might be cases of African indigenous
languages, where there are simply no native speakers with net access
and the necessary technical skills, so that non-native speakers may
act as stewards until the situation improves. However, in this very
case, there is a large online community of speakers of the language in
A situation in which all original contributions come from
editors who have been attested utterly insufficient command of
Romanian/Moldovan by native speaker seems just bizarre to me.
Are you prepared to accept the consequences of
this position ?
I'm certainly not prepared to bear the consequences of a position,
which is not mine.
foundation-l mailing list