(This message contains my personal opinions, not those of the subcommittee.)
Hello,
The policy is not at fault for the delays. A slightly different version was ready four months ago; the unfortunate problem is that the subcommittee is ill-suited for policy development, which is best accomplished by a proactive editor with changes by others through the wiki process. The subcommittee is much better suited to actually processing requests, but we still have to get the policy development out of the way first.
I've said this so many times I'm starting to doubt whether it's possible, but it should not take much longer. Assuming nobody suddenly notices another all-important problem and forces a full halt, we should begin processing requests within a week or two.
Although the current delays are unacceptable, please be careful not to mistakenly hearken back to the good old days before the subcommittee; it was common for a request to take over a year, be approved and archived, and forgotten (without being created) forever more until a subcommittee came along and replaced the old process. For example, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Cook_Islands_Maori, proposed in July 2005 and still open as of December 2006, when the subcommittee closed it along with other old requests.
Feedback on the policy would be much appreciated. Is there anything in particular you oppose or dislike?
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
From: "Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com But for new languages, I do not think it is a good idea anymore to have a committee. I supported the idea in the beginning, but I have seen NO REAL ACTION and 0 agreement between members. No new Wikipedias have been formed since the creation of this committee, while certain test Wikis are bursting at their seams!!! (Kabyle, Latgalian, Lower Sorbian, Crimean Tatar, Saterfrisian).
The Incubator Wiki was not made to hold such large projects. It was made to hold proto-projects, not a web of standalone projects (like Wikia).
Also, I am strongly against the "new proposal policy" by Pathoschild.
While I do see a problem with a voting system, I ALSO see a problem with a system where it takes ten thousand years for a Wiki to get approved!!!
Thanks for your reply, Jesse.
2007/3/26, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
The policy is not at fault for the delays.
Correct
but we still have to get the policy development out of the way first.
You mean the subcommittee itself considers [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] not final? Is that what you're saying? If so, why did it reject requests (e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ladin) "in accordance with the Language proposal policyhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy" for incompatibility with the same?
I've said this so many times I'm starting to doubt whether it's possible, but it should not take much longer. Assuming nobody suddenly notices another all-important problem and forces a full halt, we should begin processing requests within a week or two.
So what exactly is the problem?
Although the current delays are unacceptable, please be careful not to mistakenly hearken back to the good old days before the subcommittee;
We agree that there's no going back to the old, often chaotic system. I still think that a language subcommittee _can_ play a positive role in fostering multilingualism. But unfortunately that's only a potentiality so far, while the reality is far from it. So let's see to changing that.
Feedback on the policy would be much appreciated. Is there anything in particular you oppose or dislike?
The policy is not bad, especially since it picks up many criteria that had previously been applied already, in a less formalized manner. Of course, one could always place a slightly different emphasis here and there but the very last thing we need now is another endless, tedious policy discussion.* What we really need now are _results_. What I'm really dreading is a new, infinite discussion of principles locking out all those fellow Wikipedians who speak Kabyle, Lower Sorbian and forth for another, dunno, three years.
So I'd suggest to work with what we have. Let's apply the Language proposal policy _judiciously_, not prohibitively. Especially, let's not expect potential new Wikipedians to do things that are not part of the policy and then wonder why highly promising new projects never come to live. Let's always bear in mind that proposers of new Wikipedias from remote regions of the earth might not necessarily have ten years of Internet experience and be wiki-savvy and that many of them don't understand English as well as you and I. Let's support them proactively. Let's never forget that there's tens of millions of people out there who are currently excluded from our treasure of free knowledge because they cannot understand any of the languages we're using at the moment.
And above all: Let's put aside un-wikilike nitpicking and boldly say: "Yes, you can. Go ahead. Welcome aboard, good to have you here!"
Have a good day everybody --Arbeo
* Just one small suggestion. Policy says under section "Conditional approval": "At least five active users must edit that language regularly before a test project will be considered successful." I'd set a lower requirement (e. g. 3 users) here for small languages (under, say, 100,000 speakers or so) in order to make the policy non-discriminatory. While it might be fairly easy for communities like the Kabyle to round up a start-up team of five editors, it is probably disproportionately difficult for small language communities.
Hoi, When we are to support languages, we have to support them well and, we have to support them in an equal way. With Incubator we have the potential of having people prove that there language is viable as a new language. For users the ability of having support of their user interface is an important factor of this.
The technical procedures of creating new languages are faulty because they do not create message files for these languages and when new projects are created, the only place where these language files are created are the new projects. When you ask for these message files to be imported into MediaWiki proper, there are too many hoops to jump through.
It is for this reason that we explicitly want the message files to be created in the Incubator and have the messages created in this way supported in MediaWiki. At this moment we are waiting for the developers to create the missing message files in the Incubator.
If you can find a friendly developer to create these message files in Incubator, when the basic messages have been translated, we LOVE to have more projects.
You have to appreciate that by having a committee, a committee that spends a lot of time to come up with some sensible policies, they have to have a certain authority because only this will make things move forward. The requirement of the message files has been communicated on many occasions. It is the one thing stopping projects becoming full projects.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/26/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Jesse.
2007/3/26, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
The policy is not at fault for the delays.
Correct
but we still have to get the policy development out of the way first.
You mean the subcommittee itself considers [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] not final? Is that what you're saying? If so, why did it reject requests (e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ladin) "in accordance with the Language proposal policyhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy" for incompatibility with the same?
I've said this so many times I'm starting to doubt whether it's possible, but it should not take much longer. Assuming nobody suddenly notices another all-important problem and forces a full halt, we should begin processing requests within a week or two.
So what exactly is the problem?
Although the current delays are unacceptable, please be careful not to mistakenly hearken back to the good old days before the subcommittee;
We agree that there's no going back to the old, often chaotic system. I still think that a language subcommittee _can_ play a positive role in fostering multilingualism. But unfortunately that's only a potentiality so far, while the reality is far from it. So let's see to changing that.
Feedback on the policy would be much appreciated. Is there anything in particular you oppose or dislike?
The policy is not bad, especially since it picks up many criteria that had previously been applied already, in a less formalized manner. Of course, one could always place a slightly different emphasis here and there but the very last thing we need now is another endless, tedious policy discussion.* What we really need now are _results_. What I'm really dreading is a new, infinite discussion of principles locking out all those fellow Wikipedians who speak Kabyle, Lower Sorbian and forth for another, dunno, three years.
So I'd suggest to work with what we have. Let's apply the Language proposal policy _judiciously_, not prohibitively. Especially, let's not expect potential new Wikipedians to do things that are not part of the policy and then wonder why highly promising new projects never come to live. Let's always bear in mind that proposers of new Wikipedias from remote regions of the earth might not necessarily have ten years of Internet experience and be wiki-savvy and that many of them don't understand English as well as you and I. Let's support them proactively. Let's never forget that there's tens of millions of people out there who are currently excluded from our treasure of free knowledge because they cannot understand any of the languages we're using at the moment.
And above all: Let's put aside un-wikilike nitpicking and boldly say: "Yes, you can. Go ahead. Welcome aboard, good to have you here!"
Have a good day everybody --Arbeo
- Just one small suggestion. Policy says under section "Conditional
approval": "At least five active users must edit that language regularly before a test project will be considered successful." I'd set a lower requirement (e. g. 3 users) here for small languages (under, say, 100,000 speakers or so) in order to make the policy non-discriminatory. While it might be fairly easy for communities like the Kabyle to round up a start-up team of five editors, it is probably disproportionately difficult for small language communities. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You have to appreciate that by having a committee, a committee that spends a lot of time to come up with some sensible policies, they have to have a certain authority because only this will make things move forward. The requirement of the message files has been communicated on many occasions. It is the one thing stopping projects becoming full projects.
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language, it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
...
It's a nice policy.
I'm sure the moon would be a pleasant place to live, if only I could get there and had a supply of water and oxygen and food.
Mark
On 26/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
You have to appreciate that by having a committee, a committee that spends a lot of time to come up with some sensible policies, they have to have a certain authority because only this will make things move forward. The requirement of the message files has been communicated on many occasions. It is the one thing stopping projects becoming full projects.
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language, it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/27, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language, it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
What if your interest is in writing an encyclopedia, and not in translating software? If you have 10 people happily writing articles, but none of them having interest in going through all 200+ MediaWiki-pages, does that mean that it can never be an encyclopedia?
On 27/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language, it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
What if your interest is in writing an encyclopedia, and not in translating software? If you have 10 people happily writing articles, but none of them having interest in going through all 200+ MediaWiki-pages, does that mean that it can never be an encyclopedia?
Exactly. There is a lot of crud in the MediaWiki messages. Even when you start a new wiki in English, how many people go through the messages to localise them and create all the referenced pages such as Project:About? (I sure don't.) As opposed to, how many dive into the exciting project of content creation?
Why is localisation so important? The messages will be translated as the wiki progresses. I am not convinced that localisation before launch is more likely to ensure a successful project. Is there some research or some cases that show this?
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Well, most of the more successful recently-created Wikis did not have translated interfaces until they left the incubator, by which point some of them were already relatively large.
Mark
On 27/03/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language, it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
What if your interest is in writing an encyclopedia, and not in translating software? If you have 10 people happily writing articles, but none of them having interest in going through all 200+ MediaWiki-pages, does that mean that it can never be an encyclopedia?
Exactly. There is a lot of crud in the MediaWiki messages. Even when you start a new wiki in English, how many people go through the messages to localise them and create all the referenced pages such as Project:About? (I sure don't.) As opposed to, how many dive into the exciting project of content creation?
Why is localisation so important? The messages will be translated as the wiki progresses. I am not convinced that localisation before launch is more likely to ensure a successful project. Is there some research or some cases that show this?
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because nobody bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the language committee requires them.
Please set up these message files so that we can move from here. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most of the more successful recently-created Wikis did not have translated interfaces until they left the incubator, by which point some of them were already relatively large.
Mark
On 27/03/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new
language,
it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork
for
MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
What if your interest is in writing an encyclopedia, and not in
translating
software? If you have 10 people happily writing articles, but none of
them
having interest in going through all 200+ MediaWiki-pages, does that
mean
that it can never be an encyclopedia?
Exactly. There is a lot of crud in the MediaWiki messages. Even when you start a new wiki in English, how many people go through the messages to localise them and create all the referenced pages such as Project:About? (I sure don't.) As opposed to, how many dive into the exciting project of content creation?
Why is localisation so important? The messages will be translated as the wiki progresses. I am not convinced that localisation before launch is more likely to ensure a successful project. Is there some research or some cases that show this?
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because nobody bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the language committee requires them.
What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik stated that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message files, it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either. Mark now answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one argument. Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee has decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization as the Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
Hoi, The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence of not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that happened before the policy came into effect.
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because this is an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would like to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because nobody bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the
language
committee requires them.
What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik stated that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message files, it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either. Mark now answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one argument. Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee has decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization as the Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, yes, but the policy is written partly by you.
You speak about the policy as if it's written in stone and as if criticism of it is illogical because it cannot or will not ever be changed.
Please read the last 10 messages on this thread. The consensus so far _in this thread_ seems to be that it is illogical to require full translation of MediaWiki messages before allowing a new Wikipedia to be created.
Then please read the title of this thread, and note that it was posted by Arbeo, who is a very respectable person.
Mark
On 27/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence of not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that happened before the policy came into effect.
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because this is an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would like to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because nobody bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the
language
committee requires them.
What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik stated that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message files, it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either. Mark now answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one argument. Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee has decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization as the Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does not say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in the first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a current stumbling block is silly.
Get a friendly developer to create some message files. Be part of the solution.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, yes, but the policy is written partly by you.
You speak about the policy as if it's written in stone and as if criticism of it is illogical because it cannot or will not ever be changed.
Please read the last 10 messages on this thread. The consensus so far _in this thread_ seems to be that it is illogical to require full translation of MediaWiki messages before allowing a new Wikipedia to be created.
Then please read the title of this thread, and note that it was posted by Arbeo, who is a very respectable person.
Mark
On 27/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence
of
not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things
that
happened before the policy came into effect.
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been
two
languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For
one
of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has
rolled
out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because
this is
an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from
within
the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo
with
many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would
like
to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because
nobody
bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the
language
committee requires them.
What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik
stated
that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message
files,
it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either.
Mark
now answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one
argument.
Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee has decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization
as
the Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 27/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does not say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in the first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a current stumbling block is silly.
Get a friendly developer to create some message files. Be part of the solution.
Thanks, GerardM
That sounds remarkably like "it's not our fault; blame the developers". There is nothing technically that means a wiki couldn't start with a message file, is there? And the only thing keeping some projects from being approved is this lack of a message file? Wouldn't common sense say, let the project go ahead for now and the message file will happen when the devs get around to it?
regards Brianna
Hoi, The result would be like it was before that an increasing number of projects are not supported with a language message file. There are two parts to this problem; MediaWiki is not only used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki is not only used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Creating a message file for a language is a job that does not take long. It needs doing.
Once a new project IS started, a message file HAS to be created. The difference is that the moment when the message file is created is moved forward. The difference is that a new language has to be supported like any other language. It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a substandard service.
Every language is to be treated equal; at this moment some languages are more equal then others.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does
not
say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in
the
first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is
a
current stumbling block is silly.
Get a friendly developer to create some message files. Be part of the solution.
Thanks, GerardM
That sounds remarkably like "it's not our fault; blame the developers". There is nothing technically that means a wiki couldn't start with a message file, is there? And the only thing keeping some projects from being approved is this lack of a message file? Wouldn't common sense say, let the project go ahead for now and the message file will happen when the devs get around to it?
regards Brianna
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
The result would be like it was before that an increasing number of projects are not supported with a language message file. There are two parts to this problem; MediaWiki is not only used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki is not only used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Creating a message file for a language is a job that does not take long. It needs doing.
But does it need doing before anything else is done? If people are happy to work in a strange interface, why not let them? And if they HAVE made an interface, as you say 2 languages have already been bullied by you into doing, then why not simply use that? All it takes is someone with SVN access to upload it, no?
Once a new project IS started, a message file HAS to be created. The
difference is that the moment when the message file is created is moved forward. The difference is that a new language has to be supported like any other language. It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a substandard service.
Apparently it is more acceptable to you to not give it any service at all....
Every language is to be treated equal; at this moment some languages are
more equal then others.
And I don't see how you are improving on this situation by not allowing the languages a place in Wikipedia at all.
Hoi, You have got it wrong. Two languages that DID not have language files in MediaWiki. They had a full Wikipedia and now these languages ARE supported in MediaWiki itself. To get there.. THEY did not have to do anything.. I have been asking developers for a favour, and I am grateful to Nikerabbit for the great work he did for me. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
The result would be like it was before that an increasing number of projects are not supported with a language message file. There are two parts to this problem; MediaWiki is not only used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki is not
only
used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Creating a message file for a language is a job that does not take long. It needs doing.
But does it need doing before anything else is done? If people are happy to work in a strange interface, why not let them? And if they HAVE made an interface, as you say 2 languages have already been bullied by you into doing, then why not simply use that? All it takes is someone with SVN access to upload it, no?
Once a new project IS started, a message file HAS to be created. The
difference is that the moment when the message file is created is moved forward. The difference is that a new language has to be supported like any other language. It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a substandard service.
Apparently it is more acceptable to you to not give it any service at all....
Every language is to be treated equal; at this moment some languages are
more equal then others.
And I don't see how you are improving on this situation by not allowing the languages a place in Wikipedia at all.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, You have got it wrong. Two languages that DID not have language files in MediaWiki. They had a full Wikipedia and now these languages ARE supported in MediaWiki itself. To get there.. THEY did not have to do anything.. I have been asking developers for a favour, and I am grateful to Nikerabbit for the great work he did for me.
I'm starting to understand less and less of this. First you say that there should be message files before the project is started. Now you say that it's not the people from the projects who have to create these, but the developers. Surely, if there IS already the material you want from the people of the project, there is even LESS reason to have them wait longer?
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, You have got it wrong. Two languages that DID not have language files in MediaWiki. They had a full Wikipedia and now these languages ARE supported in MediaWiki itself. To get there.. THEY did not have to do anything.. I have been asking developers for a favour, and I am grateful to Nikerabbit for the great work he did for me.
In short, you are using these languages as a weapon in your fight to get your favorite tool in through the MediaWiki developers - as long as you don't implement my thing, I'm not going to allow any new languages. Firstly, you are not the one to decide what the developers must do first and what later. And second, even if you were, prospective Wikipedians are not the one who should be the victim of your petty fights.
I regret that you are on the Wikipedia languages committee when you are willing to sacrifice Wikipedia languages for the, in your opinion, greater good of MediaWiki languages.
Andre Engels schrieb:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, You have got it wrong. Two languages that DID not have language files in MediaWiki. They had a full Wikipedia and now these languages ARE supported in MediaWiki itself. To get there.. THEY did not have to do anything.. I have been asking developers for a favour, and I am grateful to Nikerabbit for the great work he did for me.
In short, you are using these languages as a weapon in your fight to get your favorite tool in through the MediaWiki developers - as long as you don't implement my thing, I'm not going to allow any new languages. Firstly, you are not the one to decide what the developers must do first and what later. And second, even if you were, prospective Wikipedians are not the one who should be the victim of your petty fights.
I regret that you are on the Wikipedia languages committee when you are willing to sacrifice Wikipedia languages for the, in your opinion, greater good of MediaWiki languages.
Andre, now that reaction is a bit silly, don't you think? We are not fighting here - we are trying to make sure projects really have a good chance. People can work on the contents on incubator without problems, but it is also relevant to make sure the UI is there. I know what it means to pull up a small wikipedia and having to hassle with loads of vandalism that comes around without even permitting me anymore to create content or care about localization. If all that basic stuff is done before a wikipedia is started it helps a lot ... really a lot. Believe it or not - I am talking based on my very personal experience.
Then again: when we started nap.wikipedia people wanted to create contents, I was the only admin that could edit the UI, but I had my problems with that since I had to edit everything more than once not being native, but the only techie that was around for that langauge. Still we have some localization problems since not anybody can work on it and who does has limited time - just not even a handful of people can edit the UI ... so Incubator (and for now Betawiki) is a great place to make sure things work out fine. As for Neapolitan now it is too late to get people to work there. They simply don't see the reason why they should do things there and so we are still with a half-way (in the mean time probably 3/4) localized UI - and that does not help the language. But be sure: I am grateful for the time that one very specific user takes to do some localization every now and then.
Small wikipedias do work and function in a different way than big ones do. There are often language issues related as well: what if there is programming needed to get the chars right? Even one and half a year after having started the nap.wikipedia we still don't have a solution for the '' (double quote that causes italic script) that we find within a word - we have to write ' instead of the single quote ... that is plain annoying. And: I am the only one who could hurry after the programmers to do that stuff and I don't have time to do so ... so we go along with that. By requiring certain stuff to be done first you avoid that kind of mess and you avoid people to have that really bad experience that new editors get annoyed since they cannot write like they should/would. By doing the localization + some creation of contents first: well we can make sure newbies do not have to deal with such issues. (how would I love to see English with such an issue ... and how would I like to see how long it takes to have it solved).
It is not just a "we play the hard way" thigie - it is a "let's make sure that potential editors that are not wikiphile find their way through the wiki" and let the communities build up easier. Of course in the beginning all seems to be somewhat more difficult, but all that is done before the project is acutally an own wiki will help it afterwards to have a nicer way to go, an easier job to build communities etc.
I repeat: we are not sacrificing any language, we are trying to make sure they can survive and grow more easily. Who knows me should know that I am all for new languages, but it does not make sense if the communities afterwards have to hassle with thousands of issues they were not aware of and they don't even know with who to talk. These people most of the time are simply left alone and that has nothing to do with "our own little fights".
If you need an example for a wikipedia that instead of localising in their language localises into another one ... just to have something similar since there seems to be nobody able to create their UI, please let me know ... I will happily show you the project. I did not bring up that issue up to now, but probably it is time to do so in order to show why certain requests are legitimate.
Thank you for your understanding and maybe help to get the nap issue solved after such a long time (the '' - '' thingie I mean).
Best wishes from Italy.
Sabine
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Andre Engels schrieb:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
In short, you are using these languages as a weapon in your fight to get your favorite tool in through the MediaWiki developers - as long as you don't implement my thing, I'm not going to allow any new languages. Firstly, you are not the one to decide what the developers must do first and what later. And second, even if you were, prospective Wikipedians are not the one who should be the victim of your petty fights.
I regret that you are on the Wikipedia languages committee when you are willing to sacrifice Wikipedia languages for the, in your opinion, greater good of MediaWiki languages.
I support the requirement that MediaWiki language files be completed first before lauch. MediaWiki support has been neglected by the community and is only given concerns as an afterthought. I guess people have forgetton that MediaWiki is the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. It should have stable and complete language support for every project.
Try to import an XML dump from the foundation without MediaWiki language files properly formatted. Many of the dumps will not work properly since the language files are not available for many of these projects. This is a reasonable request.
Jeff
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
I repeat: we are not sacrificing any language, we are trying to make sure they can survive and grow more easily. Who knows me should know that I am all for new languages, but it does not make sense if the communities afterwards have to hassle with thousands of issues they were not aware of and they don't even know with who to talk. These people most of the time are simply left alone and that has nothing to do with "our own little fights".
I think this is very important point. If the new language committee cannot attract the help of developers for a language, pre-launch. There is very, very little chance the new community will ever get help from developers to fix issues afterwords. It is extremely difficult to get anything implemented on a small project even when you speak English natively and know who to contact. I have personally never actually succeeded, and am less hopeful each passing month.
I really do sympathize with the communities stuck in the incubator, but from what has been said here it seems to be for their own good in the long run. There are very serious problems with the lack of developer resources for anything outside of the largest Wikipedias. They will not benefit from going live now, and having to struggle to attract developer attention on their own later.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
2007/3/27, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
I really do sympathize with the communities stuck in the incubator, but from what has been said here it seems to be for their own good in the long run.
I don't see how they are helped by it at all.
There are very serious problems with the lack of developer
resources for anything outside of the largest Wikipedias.
And how are those problems helped by holding a couple of languages hostage?
They will not benefit from going live
now, and having to struggle to attract developer attention on their own later.
So instead we don't let them get life, and force them to attract developer attention now when it is even more difficult?
On 27/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
They will not benefit from going live now, and having to struggle to attract developer attention on their own later.
So instead we don't let them get life, and force them to attract developer attention now when it is even more difficult?
Does no-one on the language committee have svn access?
- d.
No, apparently not.
But they insist on keeping these Wikis hostage.
Way to foster friendship and help new Wikis, guys. You've been waiting a year? Great, we have some more things you've gotta do before you can get your Wiki!!
l'll bet the dinosaurs became extinct while waiting for their own dino.wp...
Mark
On 27/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
They will not benefit from going live now, and having to struggle to attract developer attention on their own later.
So instead we don't let them get life, and force them to attract developer attention now when it is even more difficult?
Does no-one on the language committee have svn access?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No, apparently not.
But they insist on keeping these Wikis hostage.
Way to foster friendship and help new Wikis, guys. You've been waiting a year? Great, we have some more things you've gotta do before you can get your Wiki!!
l'll bet the dinosaurs became extinct while waiting for their own dino.wp...
Mark
There are a small number of system messages that are system critical.
Then why didn't the world explode when vec.wiki was created without already-translated messages?
Mark
On 27/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No, apparently not.
But they insist on keeping these Wikis hostage.
Way to foster friendship and help new Wikis, guys. You've been waiting a year? Great, we have some more things you've gotta do before you can get your Wiki!!
l'll bet the dinosaurs became extinct while waiting for their own dino.wp...
Mark
There are a small number of system messages that are system critical.
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Then why didn't the world explode when vec.wiki was created without already-translated messages?
Mark
Because the copyright cabal is too busy argueing with the italians to get round to yelling at minority languages for not localiseing their copyright notices.
[[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]
Needs to be localised.
As does [[MediaWiki:Licenses]] if you are going to allow local image uploads.
I'm sorry, but all of this seems rather strange to me. First, the world is not going to explode if a wiki does not have a language file - the wiki will just return to the default language, English. You do not *need* a language file to customize the interface - that is what the MediaWiki namespace is for. You can begin customizing the interface gradually, see what you need, and do it at your own pace. If for some reason that I do not comprehend, that is unacceptable, then you can generate a language file from the customized wiki itself! Just go to Special:Allmessages, click on the "PHP" output format (for the English Wikipedia, this page would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages&ot=php ) and you have 80% of your language file right there. The rest is basic language information, such as whether you write left to right or right to left, and you can see it, for example, at the top of the Spanish language file at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/messages/Me ssagesEs.php?view=markup (for full, copious comments as to what these statements are, see the corresponding English file at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/messages/Me ssagesEn.php?view=markup ). After this, you can submit a bug to BugZilla. Adding a new internationalization file is usually a fairly trivial operation. What the developers won't do is internationalize the file for you - you need to provide them with the details. But again, this is *not* something that has to be done *before* the wiki is set up.
Titoxd.
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
On 27/03/07, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but all of this seems rather strange to me. First, the world is not going to explode if a wiki does not have a language file - the wiki will just return to the default language, English. You do not *need* a language file to customize the interface - that is what the MediaWiki namespace is for. You can begin customizing the interface gradually, see what you need, and do it at your own pace. If for some reason that I do not comprehend, that is unacceptable, then you can generate a language file from the customized wiki itself! Just go to Special:Allmessages, click on the "PHP" output format (for the English Wikipedia, this page would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages&ot=php ) and you have 80% of your language file right there. The rest is basic language information, such as whether you write left to right or right to left, and you can see it, for example, at the top of the Spanish language file at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/messages/Me ssagesEs.php?view=markup (for full, copious comments as to what these statements are, see the corresponding English file at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/messages/Me ssagesEn.php?view=markup ). After this, you can submit a bug to BugZilla. Adding a new internationalization file is usually a fairly trivial operation. What the developers won't do is internationalize the file for you - you need to provide them with the details. But again, this is *not* something that has to be done *before* the wiki is set up.
Titoxd.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ... they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see things that are not there.
/me veeery ironic
Sabine
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
Well, I can't read Mark's mind, but my guess is that he was trying to be ironic and was in fact using that phrase to refer to the Langcom, as did Arbeo in the title of the thread.
-Node
On 27/03/07, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ... they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see things that are not there.
/me veeery ironic
Sabine
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark,
Stop trolling please, and if you have two personalities, you need to see a doctor... ;o)
Yann
Mark Williamson wrote:
Well, I can't read Mark's mind, but my guess is that he was trying to be ironic and was in fact using that phrase to refer to the Langcom, as did Arbeo in the title of the thread.
-Node
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.
Mark
On 29/03/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Mark,
Stop trolling please, and if you have two personalities, you need to see a doctor... ;o)
Yann
Mark Williamson wrote:
Well, I can't read Mark's mind, but my guess is that he was trying to be ironic and was in fact using that phrase to refer to the Langcom, as did Arbeo in the title of the thread.
-Node
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.
Mark
Of course, trolls never admit that they are trolling. Any way, there may be a disagreement about the language policy, but your comments are not constructive.
Yann
That is your opinion.
As I said before, you are welcome to add me to your killfile.
I personally think it's trolling that you are telling me my messages are not constructive. Did you think it would be constructive to tell me that, or are you just trying to make me angry at you? I'm not sure why you would think I would take your opinions into consideration after you have called me a troll many times in the past.
Mark
On 29/03/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.
Mark
Of course, trolls never admit that they are trolling. Any way, there may be a disagreement about the language policy, but your comments are not constructive.
Yann
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ... they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see things that are not there.
Like new languages being created? Then they indeed see things that are not there.
2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ... they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see things that are not there.
/me veeery ironic
Sabine
Sabine, in previous contexts we've been able to see that you _are_ an advocate of multilingualism. But please be realistic and check out what _tangible_ results your committee (which I'm sure was created with the best of intensions, no irony here) has brought about in the recent four and a half months. As far as I can see the only outcome in terms of new wikis is one French Wikiquote (French not exactly being a "new language"). IMHO, the subcommittee should shift its focus from theory to producing actual results now, for the sake of those who cannot yet benefit from the great things we have to offer. Wouldn't that be a more rewarding experience to the langcom members, too?
Regards, --Arbeo
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at all. If things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from what our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free content.
When you prefer that that there is a steady stream of languages that start providing good content, you are in good company as that is what we aim to achieve. However, the thing we do not want is have more situations like with the Belarus Wikipedia, something that has cost us a lot of time. There are however several other situations we are trying to resolve. The absence of message files is the easiest to resolve. It just needs a developer to do so.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ... they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see things that are not there.
/me veeery ironic
Sabine
Sabine, in previous contexts we've been able to see that you _are_ an advocate of multilingualism. But please be realistic and check out what _tangible_ results your committee (which I'm sure was created with the best of intensions, no irony here) has brought about in the recent four and a half months. As far as I can see the only outcome in terms of new wikis is one French Wikiquote (French not exactly being a "new language"). IMHO, the subcommittee should shift its focus from theory to producing actual results now, for the sake of those who cannot yet benefit from the great things we have to offer. Wouldn't that be a more rewarding experience to the langcom members, too?
Regards, --Arbeo
Mark Williamson schrieb:
It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short) won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even
Perhaps that is because you have so far pretty much prevented any new languages from being created? Who would want to bang on the drums of that?
Mark
On 3/29/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at all. If things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from what our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free content.
Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of your committee should be considered a sign of success?
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/29/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at all. If things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from what our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free content.
Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of your committee should be considered a sign of success?
Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
Cary Bass
On 3/30/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/29/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not
even
mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at
all. If
things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from
what
our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free content.
Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of your committee should be considered a sign of success?
Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
I am respectful of other members on the list.
Would you like me to refer to particular quotations by Donald Rumsfeld that Gerard's statement resembles?
Do you think it is disrespectful to criticize the actions of people acting in an official capacity for the project?
Or do you just think it's disrespectful to compare people to Donald Rumsfeld?
At least that I can understand.
Hoi, When you forget what Donald Rumsfeld stands for politically, being compared to Donald Rumsfeld is a compliment. When you criticize and do not know what has been done, it does not matter really does it ?
As to "official capacity" be careful because it is a knife that cuts both ways. When certain things have an official status and there are other parties required to do their part, it is reasonable to blame the consequences on those that fail to fulfil their part. The language committee is dependent on others in this.
I fail therefore to see what the language committee should do differently. I fail to see it because the WMF has said officially that this does not have a priority. It is not for us to wonder why.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/30/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/29/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do
not
even
mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at
all. If
things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from
what
our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free
content.
Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of your committee should be considered a sign of success?
Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
I am respectful of other members on the list.
Would you like me to refer to particular quotations by Donald Rumsfeld that Gerard's statement resembles?
Do you think it is disrespectful to criticize the actions of people acting in an official capacity for the project?
Or do you just think it's disrespectful to compare people to Donald Rumsfeld?
At least that I can understand. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/30/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you forget what Donald Rumsfeld stands for politically, being compared to Donald Rumsfeld is a compliment. When you criticize and do not know what has been done, it does not matter really does it ?
Again, beautifully Rumsfeldian.
As to "official capacity" be careful because it is a knife that cuts both
ways. When certain things have an official status and there are other parties required to do their part, it is reasonable to blame the consequences on those that fail to fulfil their part. The language committee is dependent on others in this.
I fail therefore to see what the language committee should do differently. I fail to see it because the WMF has said officially that this does not have a priority. It is not for us to wonder why.
The simple fact is that no new language Wikipedias have been created since the establishment of the language subcommittee, whereas before the subcommittee new language Wikipedias were regularly generated. Furthermore, if what people have been saying in this thread is correct, there are several languages that are ready and have been ready for establishment.
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
The nature of the response from committee members serves to support that assumption.
On 3/30/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/29/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do
not
even
mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything
at
all. If
things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts
from
what
our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free
content.
Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of
your
committee should be considered a sign of success?
Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
I am respectful of other members on the list.
Would you like me to refer to particular quotations by Donald Rumsfeld that Gerard's statement resembles?
Do you think it is disrespectful to criticize the actions of people
acting
in an official capacity for the project?
Or do you just think it's disrespectful to compare people to Donald Rumsfeld?
At least that I can understand. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The simple fact is that no new language Wikipedias have been created since the establishment of the language subcommittee, whereas before the subcommittee new language Wikipedias were regularly generated. Furthermore, if what people have been saying in this thread is correct, there are several languages that are ready and have been ready for establishment.
Yes. Kabyle = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kab (over 200 pages already), Lower Sorbian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/dsb (approx. 300 pages already), Saterlandic = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq (approx. 300 pages already), Latgalian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/bat-ltg (approx. 150 pages already), Crimean Tatar = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/crh (approx. 100 pages already), Dolomitic Ladin = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lld (over 40 pages), Karakalpak = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kaa (unfortunately only 15 pages).
I personally support the creation of all of those except for Dolomitic Ladin and Karakalpak because those two so far, despite unopposed requests, have not gotten many pages and it seems their supporters either left or have abandoned the test-wikis at an early stage.
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
The nature of the response from committee members serves to support that assumption.
Yeah, no kidding.
I should add that these are not all minor languages: Kabyle is spoken by between 3 million and 7 million people worldwide.
Mark
On 30/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The simple fact is that no new language Wikipedias have been created since the establishment of the language subcommittee, whereas before the subcommittee new language Wikipedias were regularly generated. Furthermore, if what people have been saying in this thread is correct, there are several languages that are ready and have been ready for establishment.
Yes. Kabyle = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kab (over 200 pages already), Lower Sorbian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/dsb (approx. 300 pages already), Saterlandic = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq (approx. 300 pages already), Latgalian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/bat-ltg (approx. 150 pages already), Crimean Tatar = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/crh (approx. 100 pages already), Dolomitic Ladin = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lld (over 40 pages), Karakalpak = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kaa (unfortunately only 15 pages).
I personally support the creation of all of those except for Dolomitic Ladin and Karakalpak because those two so far, despite unopposed requests, have not gotten many pages and it seems their supporters either left or have abandoned the test-wikis at an early stage.
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
The nature of the response from committee members serves to support that assumption.
Yeah, no kidding.
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
--Arbeo
On 31/03/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
The system is nice in principle but has proven itself unworkable. Perhaps, rather than just decrying the failing system, we could come up with ideas for how a different system could be implemented more effectively and workably. The old system had its failings too.
The main problem seems to be a disjoint between the wish to create a project in one's own language and the technical process of preping the interface and whatnot. Is this a reasonable summary?
Aside from the kabyle, ottoman turkish, and crimean tatar wikipedias, what requests are you thinking of where editors are serious about starting their wiki?
By the way -- I haven't said it often enough since incubator.wikimedia got set up, but Three Cheers for that lovely site. It is wonderful to have a proper space to develop a new language wiki, precisely so that these issues of how to fix a reasonable language policy can take place without preventing interested editors from developing new articles in their chosen language.
I'm not sure anyone is saying "everything is fine, move along", but I think we also have a familiar exaggeration on both sides of the issue of what the differences are between two fairly similar positions about what is required to start a new wiki... perhaps it is time for a loud broadcasting of the new language policy, and a call (in more languages than just English) for interested participants to return to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_languages and weigh in?
SJ
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Arbeo M wrote:
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
--Arbeo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
He's probably thinking of Lower Sorbian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/dsb (approx. 300 pages already), Saterlandic = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq (approx. 300 pages already), and Latgalian = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/bat-ltg (approx. 150 pages already), among others.
The new policy has been confusing for the people who made these requests originally. They cannot understand why they should have to make a second request. And besides, if their first request can just be shot down for no reason at all, why couldn't their second request? I think this is starting to seem pointless to them. Going directly from "approved requests" to "automatically denied requests"... makes 0 sense.
Mark
On 31/03/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from the kabyle, ottoman turkish, and crimean tatar wikipedias, what requests are you thinking of where editors are serious about starting their wiki?
By the way -- I haven't said it often enough since incubator.wikimedia got set up, but Three Cheers for that lovely site. It is wonderful to have a proper space to develop a new language wiki, precisely so that these issues of how to fix a reasonable language policy can take place without preventing interested editors from developing new articles in their chosen language.
I'm not sure anyone is saying "everything is fine, move along", but I think we also have a familiar exaggeration on both sides of the issue of what the differences are between two fairly similar positions about what is required to start a new wiki... perhaps it is time for a loud broadcasting of the new language policy, and a call (in more languages than just English) for interested participants to return to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_languages and weigh in?
SJ
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Arbeo M wrote:
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
--Arbeo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, It takes something like an hour to create the requested and required language files. I have asked at different levels within the WMF to spend this time. I have spend a lot of time trying to get this resolved.
In the mean time, an effort is underway to localise the messages in the BetaWiki for Kabyle (information from Nikerabbit). The standard Belarus wikipedia has been created. I have requested funding to have outside people solve this issue; it is likely that we will get this funding.
There are two languages, Marathi and kiRuanda that are now properly supported in MediaWiki. There are many more languages that demonstrate how bad the old procedure is for starting new projects.
There is nothing stopping people working on content. We are quite content to have new languages start in the Incubator.
The arguments that are used to get new projects now ignore all the reasons why localisation is so important and why there is a language committee in the first place. It is made out as if the situation was so great before. We have had "languages" forced on us that do not exist, languages that take the codes because it was voted that way. We have ugly political situations like the Belarus where people are not willing to work together. Situations where a NPOV cannot be expected.
It is quite clear that the situation is not good. It is equally clear that the solution is simple. It just takes a friendly developer to take the hour it takes to create all the message files in the Incubator. When there are no friendly developers willing to do this, then it is for the board to give it the required priority. It is ultimately the board that gave us our mandate we are quite happy to think outside of the box and find solutions. It is plain stupid to pull the requirements when the existence of the localisation has proven so essential in getting projects to attract new editors.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/31/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new Wikipedia.
That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy rules are left untouched. Please!
--Arbeo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/4/2, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
There are two languages, Marathi and kiRuanda that are now properly supported in MediaWiki. There are many more languages that demonstrate how bad the old procedure is for starting new projects.
There is nothing stopping people working on content. We are quite content to have new languages start in the Incubator.
The incubator was intended to *start* languages. Not to keep them indefinitely.
The arguments that are used to get new projects now ignore all the reasons why localisation is so important and why there is a language committee in the first place. It is made out as if the situation was so great before. We have had "languages" forced on us that do not exist, languages that take the codes because it was voted that way. We have ugly political situations like the Belarus where people are not willing to work together. Situations where a NPOV cannot be expected.
That's all good and well, and no doubt the language committee would improve those things, but NONE of those have anything to do with localisation. If there are reasons why localisation is important, those are not the reasons. Do I think that localisation is important? Yes, though not as much as you do. But I do not think that localisation is so important that we should keep projects on hold until it has been reached. You have not been close to convincing me otherwise.
It is quite clear that the situation is not good. It is equally clear that the solution is simple. It just takes a friendly developer to take the hour it takes to create all the message files in the Incubator.
Alternatively, you could let the languages go through and trust that there is a developer who will do that some time. As simple a solution, and one that YOU can do. Just give the languages that you think are ready their Wikipedia, and when a developer decides that it's a good idea to create the message file, bring it to that wiki.
When there are no friendly developers willing to do this, then it is for the board to give it the required priority. It is ultimately the board that gave us our mandate we are quite happy to think outside of the box and find solutions. It is plain stupid to pull the requirements when the existence of the localisation has proven so essential in getting projects to attract new editors.
Has it? Where is your evidence? And it doesn't seem that being on the incubator is so much better than having an own wiki either. Why force others to do what you want before you do what others want? If it is your job to do that....
Since I apparently hate all projects besides Wikipedia (according to an e-mail Mr Meijssen sent me), I'll stick with a nice "ditto" instead of rehashing all of Andre's arguments.
Nice job, Andre :-)
Mark
On 02/04/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/4/2, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
There are two languages, Marathi and kiRuanda that are now properly supported in MediaWiki. There are many more languages that demonstrate how bad the old procedure is for starting new projects.
There is nothing stopping people working on content. We are quite content to have new languages start in the Incubator.
The incubator was intended to *start* languages. Not to keep them indefinitely.
The arguments that are used to get new projects now ignore all the reasons why localisation is so important and why there is a language committee in the first place. It is made out as if the situation was so great before. We have had "languages" forced on us that do not exist, languages that take the codes because it was voted that way. We have ugly political situations like the Belarus where people are not willing to work together. Situations where a NPOV cannot be expected.
That's all good and well, and no doubt the language committee would improve those things, but NONE of those have anything to do with localisation. If there are reasons why localisation is important, those are not the reasons. Do I think that localisation is important? Yes, though not as much as you do. But I do not think that localisation is so important that we should keep projects on hold until it has been reached. You have not been close to convincing me otherwise.
It is quite clear that the situation is not good. It is equally clear that the solution is simple. It just takes a friendly developer to take the hour it takes to create all the message files in the Incubator.
Alternatively, you could let the languages go through and trust that there is a developer who will do that some time. As simple a solution, and one that YOU can do. Just give the languages that you think are ready their Wikipedia, and when a developer decides that it's a good idea to create the message file, bring it to that wiki.
When there are no friendly developers willing to do this, then it is for the board to give it the required priority. It is ultimately the board that gave us our mandate we are quite happy to think outside of the box and find solutions. It is plain stupid to pull the requirements when the existence of the localisation has proven so essential in getting projects to attract new editors.
Has it? Where is your evidence? And it doesn't seem that being on the incubator is so much better than having an own wiki either. Why force others to do what you want before you do what others want? If it is your job to do that....
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Since I apparently hate all projects besides Wikipedia (according to an e-mail Mr Meijssen sent me), I'll stick with a nice "ditto" instead of rehashing all of Andre's arguments.
Nice job, Andre :-)
Mark
This thread has gone on for some time with very little constructive suggestions, and lots of accusations flying back and forth. I am not certain I understand all the objections.
The requirement that people starting new Wiki's actually BE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF THE LANGUAGE AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE IT and that a MEDIAWIKI MESSAGES FILE be created is very reasonable and a great barrier to entry to keep out those who are not competent with a target language. It seems those complaining about it the most are folks who may not be fluent enough to be able to complete a Messages File for MediaWiki.
Just because people have a few college classes in "outer frabanian" or some other obscure languages does not warrant the foundation going through the expense and time of setting up a wiki for a group of folks who A) are not part of the culture the language is concerned with B) don't speak it or are immersed in it well enough to understand the underlying cultural impacts.
The whole idea is to promote other languages to a target audience of speakers, not to create "busy projects" for folks with nothing better to do with their time who are marginally interested in a particular language.
Jeff
The requirement that people starting new Wiki's actually BE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF THE LANGUAGE AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE IT
Nobody disputes this. I don't think anyone arguing here actually has their own project proposal. All of the projects under discussion: the Kabyle Wiki, the Latgalian Wiki, the Saterlandic Wiki, et al., are all supported and proposed by native speakers of these languages.
that a MEDIAWIKI MESSAGES FILE be created is very reasonable and a great barrier to entry
It is this requirement that is currently disputed.
Also, please don't use so many caps, it is considered to be the internet equivalent of "yelling" and is totally unnecessary.
Mark
Also, I'm wondering if you might not have an underlying hidden reason for this message; it seems to be a veiled attack on my involvement with the Navajo Wikipedia.
1) The Wikipedia existed already before I did anything; it was just 100% empty. 2) I figured that minimal, poorly-written content made the place more inviting than 0 content. 3) As far as I can tell, my Navajo proficiency is still greater than your own, and you have yet to produce any tangible results re:nv.wp, despite your assertion that you and I are no longer the only people working there - a look at Special:Recentchanges reveals that the only recent edits have been vandalism, bot edits, and my reversion of vandalism. 4) I would never had requested a Navajo Wikipedia if I had had the opportunity, precisely for the reasons you have outlined. Last year, I took 2 semesters of the O'odham language taught by Sharon Selestewa and Gary "Juḏum" Frederick. I have not requested a Wikipedia in that language, nor do I plan to, although I think such a site would be wonderful. 5) Your indirect labelling of American indigenous languages as "obscure" shows how much of an activist of language use and reclamation you are...
Mark
On 02/04/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The requirement that people starting new Wiki's actually BE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF THE LANGUAGE AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE IT
Nobody disputes this. I don't think anyone arguing here actually has their own project proposal. All of the projects under discussion: the Kabyle Wiki, the Latgalian Wiki, the Saterlandic Wiki, et al., are all supported and proposed by native speakers of these languages.
that a MEDIAWIKI MESSAGES FILE be created is very reasonable and a great barrier to entry
It is this requirement that is currently disputed.
Also, please don't use so many caps, it is considered to be the internet equivalent of "yelling" and is totally unnecessary.
Mark
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
This thread has gone on for some time with very little constructive suggestions, and lots of accusations flying back and forth. I am not certain I understand all the objections.
The requirement that people starting new Wiki's actually BE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF THE LANGUAGE AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE IT and that a MEDIAWIKI MESSAGES FILE be created is very reasonable and a great barrier to entry to keep out those who are not competent with a target language. It seems those complaining about it the most are folks who may not be fluent enough to be able to complete a Messages File for MediaWiki.
Just because people have a few college classes in "outer frabanian" or some other obscure languages does not warrant the foundation going through the expense and time of setting up a wiki for a group of folks who A) are not part of the culture the language is concerned with B) don't speak it or are immersed in it well enough to understand the underlying cultural impacts.
The whole idea is to promote other languages to a target audience of speakers, not to create "busy projects" for folks with nothing better to do with their time who are marginally interested in a particular language.
Jeff
I disagree that native speakers of a language are necessarily a mandatory requirement here, but fluency in the language certainly ought to be a major component for those expressing a desire to support the language. Some languages I would have note with very strong non-native support would include Latin and Esperanto. I find the articles in the Latin Wikipedia (and Wikibooks!) to be facinating and wonderfully imaginative. Not just made up stuff, but written with a unique flair and style that gives a sometimes refreshing take to what I read in English Wikipedia. And many of these articles are of an incredibly high scholarship quality as well. It takes a particularly skillful vandal to do vandalism in Latin.
If non-native support is to be given to a particular language, some very high standards ought to apply that perhaps would have to exceed a similar effort by native speakers. I think that is reasonable. Not to rehash the issue again, but the Klingon-language Wikipedia did suffer from a lack of fluent individuals who really understood the language beyond just a few choice curses and fan-speak at Trek conventions. Perhaps that language could be revisited again in the future, but the literacy of individuals speaking this particular language (and other constructed languages) would have to be noticeably higher.
I would like to see support for those languages that may have a huge potential for growth in the future, or for which a large number of native speakers want to get involved with even if they don't necessarily have technical skills like manipulating a configuration file. This is asking quite a bit for people who can't read English (or a major European language) to even understand what it is they are supposed to do or where to get that help.
One project I like to pick on quite a bit when new projects are talked about is the IsiZulu language Wikibooks. It currently has only one page, written in English. IsiZulu Wikipedia has only 190 pages written. Yet it is an "official" language of South Africa and recognized for official proceedings like judicial hearings in some provinces, and has over 10 million native speakers. Potentially the growth of the IsiZulu Wikibooks could be huge even if at the moment it is a project that needs to be ignored. In this case, if somebody was able to actually take a college course or two on the language, it would be helpful to developing this project even if it were just a raw academic exercise, as native support at some time in the future could build upon the efforts of these non-native contributors.
I would have to agree that native speakers ought to be given some consideration, particularly at the early stages of a project. And respect for the culture of those native speakers should also be given a very high priority. But as mandatory requirements for creation and participation I have to respectfully disagree.
-- Robert Horning
Robert Horning wrote:
I would have to agree that native speakers ought to be given some consideration, particularly at the early stages of a project. And respect for the culture of those native speakers should also be given a very high priority. But as mandatory requirements for creation and participation I have to respectfully disagree.
-- Robert Horning
I think the issue is related to being fluent enough in the language to complete the messages file. Cultural issues are also very important.
Jeff
Again, you are poorly informed, and simply ignoring me is not doing you any good.
There is already a _requirement_ that there be native speakers before a Wikipedia can be started. The people who have complained here are (mostly) not actually making their own requests, but are dismayed that the requests of others (who are, in fact, native speakers) have been put on hold for over a year.
Arbeo, myself, and David Gerard do not (at least I'm pretty sure none of us do) know a single word of Latgalian, but we have seen that this Wikipedia has several native contributors lined up and that they have been waiting for a very long time now. These people would certainly be capable of translating a message file, but what is being questioned is the utility of having it before the actual Wikipedia is allowed to begin especially since this requirement was created several months after their request was intially "approved".
Again, if you are going to respond to an e-mail that I sent in the first place and make veiled attacks on me, it's extremely rude to ignore my responses.
Mark
On 03/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Robert Horning wrote:
I would have to agree that native speakers ought to be given some consideration, particularly at the early stages of a project. And respect for the culture of those native speakers should also be given a very high priority. But as mandatory requirements for creation and participation I have to respectfully disagree.
-- Robert Horning
I think the issue is related to being fluent enough in the language to complete the messages file. Cultural issues are also very important.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Arbeo, myself, and David Gerard do not (at least I'm pretty sure none of us do) know a single word of Latgalian, but we have seen that this Wikipedia has several native contributors lined up and that they have been waiting for a very long time now. These people would certainly be capable of translating a message file, but what is being questioned is the utility of having it before the actual Wikipedia is allowed to begin especially since this requirement was created several months after their request was intially "approved".
Then the native speakers who are from the culture that concerns the language should be the ones setting up the wiki, running the wiki, and deciding who will or will not be contributors. It should not be done by folks who do not speak the language or do not know the culture.
By way of example, there's a lot of Dine folks who are interested in working on Wikipedia projects, but in my discussions with them, they have little interest in getting involved with non-natives with their language, and a lot of it deals with control issues and the lack of desire to interact with people outside of their culture.
There are a number of reasons for this, and I will not address all of the, here. Suffice to say its an issue of having sufficient "will" to be interested in dealing with non speakers, and the balancing the peer pressure many native groups deal with in self-reinforcing constraints imposed by their beliefs and society. I live inside such a world the dine live in (though not as closed), and I feel the pressure from my peers, but our culture is more open than many other native cultures to outsiders and always has been.
To the dine, you and I are outsiders and always will be (though being native, my interactions with the Dine are less stressful and more open than a non-native person would probably experience). The "rules" and attitudes of the English Wikipedia culture which permeate other projects are not the same views other cultures have. Without those views from inside the culture, you simply have no basis to understand or comprehend the needs of a culture with such a project or opportunity as wikipedia, or even how to respond to it.
I think the same applies to any non-english, non-european culture who has to interact with the English speaking world.
Jeff
Then the native speakers who are from the culture that concerns the language should be the ones setting up the wiki, running the wiki, and deciding who will or will not be contributors. It should not be done by folks who do not speak the language or do not know the culture.
They *are* the ones doing this. The discussion here is about restrictions being placed on these people. Nobody is trying to run the Latgalian Wiki or decide who will or won't be a contributor (however, the Foundation does seem to have an idea that anyone who contributes in good faith and is not disruptive should be allowed to contribute, and I would think that any exceptions to that need to be addressed individually - I do realise that there may be cultural reasons for changing rules or allowing exceptions, but I also feel that fundamental differences from the rules that have until now been applied to all Wikis need to be documented and discussed).
What we *are* discussing is whether or not these people should be burdened with translating LanguageBat-ltg.php before they even get their own Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less. The people wanting to create these Wikis do not seem to want to
By way of example, there's a lot of Dine folks who are interested in working on Wikipedia projects, but in my discussions with them, they have little interest in getting involved with non-natives with their language, and a lot of it deals with control issues and the lack of desire to interact with people outside of their culture.
If they wish to work on the Navajo Wikipedia, I would see no problem with finding a suitable sysop who is a native speaker of that language, and if they wish I would be willing to leave right away. There is no need to deal with non-speakers or non fluent speakers or "outsiders".
There are a number of reasons for this, and I will not address all of the, here. Suffice to say its an issue of having sufficient "will" to be interested in dealing with non speakers, and the balancing the peer pressure many native groups deal with in self-reinforcing constraints imposed by their beliefs and society. I live inside such a world the dine live in (though not as closed), and I feel the pressure from my peers, but our culture is more open than many other native cultures to outsiders and always has been.
To the dine, you and I are outsiders and always will be (though being native, my interactions with the Dine are less stressful and more open than a non-native person would probably experience). The "rules" and attitudes of the English Wikipedia culture which permeate other projects are not the same views other cultures have. Without those views from inside the culture, you simply have no basis to understand or comprehend the needs of a culture with such a project or opportunity as wikipedia, or even how to respond to it.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I have realised several times in the past in dealing with certain groups that promote specific American languages that while they may be willing to share their language with outsiders, it is often on a limited basis or only with people they are comfortable with on a person-to-person level. Certain groups are unwilling to have public resources in their languages.
I learned this a couple of years back when studying (in a group that was made up, besides myself, of only native people) the O'odham language at the O'odham Piipaash Language Center at the SRPMIC. After the classes concluded, I asked the people at the Language Center if there was any interest in offering the Tribe's website in O'odham and Piipaash versions. They responded that yes, it would be a possibility, but only if they could limit access to tribal members and others at their own discretion. (This attitude however is not universal; for example at the start of the trail for the petroglyphs at Picture Rocks there is a sign that gives information about the history of the area and the petroglyphs in English, Spanish, and O'odham and this is certainly not "password-protected").
I was later reminded of that situation when I heard about the interest in creating an extracurricular class in the Hopi language at Tuba City HS. The Hopi parents were very interested in the idea of their children getting Hopi classes at school, but were dismayed when they found out that Arizona law required that the class be offered to all interested students, which would have included non-Hopi students (mostly Navajo students). At that point they decided not to pursue the option further. (It should be noted though that the Hopis are one of the more extreme groups in regard to cultural isolationism; when Hopiikwa Lavaytutuveni was published, the publishers were sued by a group of Hopi although the dictionary was endorsed by the tribe and several Hopi were involved with its publication; this is largely due to the unique religious beliefs of the Hopi).
Although it was discussed earlier about a hypothetical Hopi Wikipedia (a Wikipedia for a very small community of speakers and how the dynamics would be very different there), I doubt that will happen anytime soon for the reasons we have both outlined.
Although some Navajo (and that *is* the term overwhelmingly used in English - see www.navajo.org or google "i am dine" and then google "i am navajo") may want to keep their language guarded or secret, it is too late for this. It's difficult to keep secret such a widely-spoken language.
I think the same applies to any non-english, non-european culture who has to interact with the English speaking world.
I agree, but I do think you exaggerate things a bit.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
Then the native speakers who are from the culture that concerns the language should be the ones setting up the wiki, running the wiki, and deciding who will or will not be contributors. It should not be done by folks who do not speak the language or do not know the culture.
They *are* the ones doing this. The discussion here is about restrictions being placed on these people. What we *are* discussing is whether or not these people should be burdened with translating LanguageBat-ltg.php before they even get their own Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less.
Completing a language file is reasonable and must be done. Period. There are XML dumps and other logostics reasons why this makes sense.
By way of example, there's a lot of Dine folks who are interested in working on Wikipedia projects, but in my discussions with them, they have little interest in getting involved with non-natives with their language, and a lot of it deals with control issues and the lack of desire to interact with people outside of their culture.
If they wish to work on the Navajo Wikipedia, I would see no problem with finding a suitable sysop who is a native speaker of that language, and if they wish I would be willing to leave right away. There is no need to deal with non-speakers or non fluent speakers or "outsiders".
I don't think it is all on you, and the issue goes beyond having admins who are not speakers. Dine people have an aversion to dealing with what they term "white culture". They would look at it more like "Do I want to help Wikipedia take in money by using our language without our consent". There's also the whole elder authority thing to deal with as well. 60 year old Dine speakers are not going to hang around long if they get chased around by trolls and 18 year old admins.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
You got the point, you just disagree with it. That's ok though.
Jeff
On 04/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Then the native speakers who are from the culture that concerns the language should be the ones setting up the wiki, running the wiki, and deciding who will or will not be contributors. It should not be done by folks who do not speak the language or do not know the culture.
They *are* the ones doing this. The discussion here is about restrictions being placed on these people. What we *are* discussing is whether or not these people should be burdened with translating LanguageBat-ltg.php before they even get their own Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less.
Completing a language file is reasonable and must be done. Period. There are XML dumps and other logostics reasons why this makes sense.
Nobody in the past was required to do it _before_ they could start a Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we need that requirement now. It's certainly possible to extract the messages from http://###.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages&ot=php post ipso facto. Translating the messages via the MediaWiki namespace is certainly a lot less 'technical' and is going to be a lot easier with little technical experience to do.
I remember when a user wanted to translate the LanguageXX.php into Breton, I had to walk him through certain parts (for example, the Breton language uses an apostrophe as part of a trigraph, c'h, and you have to type c/'h or it will think that's the end of the message).
By way of example, there's a lot of Dine folks who are interested in working on Wikipedia projects, but in my discussions with them, they have little interest in getting involved with non-natives with their language, and a lot of it deals with control issues and the lack of desire to interact with people outside of their culture.
If they wish to work on the Navajo Wikipedia, I would see no problem with finding a suitable sysop who is a native speaker of that language, and if they wish I would be willing to leave right away. There is no need to deal with non-speakers or non fluent speakers or "outsiders".
I don't think it is all on you, and the issue goes beyond having admins who are not speakers. Dine people have an aversion to dealing with what they term "white culture". They would look at it more like "Do I want to help Wikipedia take in money by using our language without our consent". There's also the whole elder authority thing to deal with as well. 60 year old Dine speakers are not going to hang around long if they get chased around by trolls and 18 year old admins.
Well, there are several things here.
1) Perhaps certain people have an aversion to "white culture", but there are many urban Navajo (in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Albuquerque/Santa Fe) who speak their language but also have no "aversion" to "white culture" because they must interact with it on a daily basis. 2) "Wikipedia" (the foundation?) is not making any money from the Navajo Wikipedia. Note that there are no ads there, and there never will be. The content is not for sale. It may be used freely by anybody. 3) Well, culturally it is important that respect for the opinions of elders is embedded into policy. However, I see that as a non-issue because as of yet, I have not heard of any elders with computers. I knew a woman who said her uncle liked to use her computer to play solitaire, but in this day and age, many elders are without electricity, running water, or telephone service, let alone Internet access. 4) Perhaps arguments can be made about linguistic ownership for languages like Hopi, with ~4000 speakers or O'odham with ~10000, but when you cross the threshhold of 50000 or 100000, really, it isn't something you can claim ownership of anymore. The idea that one person has control over how far their culture may reach is something that has been debated in the past, but the idea that one can complain about their language being used "without their consent" is absolutely ludicrous when there is a speaker body approaching larger numbers like that. I have talked to people in the past who showed an interest in nv.wp. Are their feelings to be denied by a small group of people who feel it is inappropriate that their language be used anywhere without their personal consent? What about the fact that certain municipal documents in Flagstaff are available in their language? I'm sure they didn't consent to that either. And what about people who genuinely _do_ use the language for profit? Rather than demonising a NFPO, perhaps they should pick on the people who make a living teaching "Navajo culture" and "the Navajo language" to Europeans? (I use quotes because it is often either a perversion of these or just entirely fabricated)
I'm not sure what your point is here.
You got the point, you just disagree with it. That's ok though.
I don't disagree with the idea that cultural sensitivity is important. I don't disagree with the idea that people cannot be forced to write content in their language. I do not believe that we should be purposefully insensitive.
If the Navajo Wikipedia were in Hopi instead, I would understand such objections because there is a religious basis for them, but the Navajo language has been used in public documents by Navajo people, many books have been written in it without a care as to who may buy them (as opposed to, say, Havasupai, where books in the language are really only available to tribal members). It's too late to say "oops, wait, we want to keep our language secret".
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 04/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
They *are* the ones doing this. The discussion here is about restrictions being placed on these people. What we *are* discussing is whether or not these people should be burdened with translating LanguageBat-ltg.php before they even get their own Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less.
Completing a language file is reasonable and must be done. Period. There are XML dumps and other logostics reasons why this makes sense.
Nobody in the past was required to do it _before_ they could start a Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we need that requirement now. It's certainly possible to extract the messages from http://###.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages&ot=php post ipso facto. Translating the messages via the MediaWiki namespace is certainly a lot less 'technical' and is going to be a lot easier with little technical experience to do.
I remember when a user wanted to translate the LanguageXX.php into Breton, I had to walk him through certain parts (for example, the Breton language uses an apostrophe as part of a trigraph, c'h, and you have to type c/'h or it will think that's the end of the message).
I'm having a hard time trying to understand this one as well. Certainly any such translation that already exists (for example, creating a new Wikibooks/Wikisource/etc. when a Wikipedia in that language already exists) perhaps ought to be carried over, but why would it be so much harder to simply open a new Wikipedia in a given target language and encourage early supporters and community members to simply make the appropriate changes to the MediaWiki namespace? This sounds like a technical problem that is forcing people into doing things to suit the technology than trying to be amiable to people who very likely are not technically inclined.
-- Robert Horning
That's what all the debate is about. Some people, such as Jeff and most of the people on the Langcom, seem to feel this is necessary.
Others, such as myself, Arbeo, David Gerard, yourself (Robert) and several others seem to be having difficulty understanding why this is necessary for precisely the reasons you have outlined.
Nobody seems to be making any new arguments.
Suffice to say, from discussions I have had with people who had _formerly_ *approved* Wikipedias, they cannot understand why they are required to do this, many of them don't know what exactly it is that is required of them, and they are confused. It should be the responsibility of the LAnguage Committee, not of me, to explain to them what is happening here and give them a tutorial on how to edit the messages file and give them help dealing with the problems like the ones Fulup encountered.
We need to be amicable and try to make this process easier for these people, not make it some sort of obstacle course.
Mark
On 04/04/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 04/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
They *are* the ones doing this. The discussion here is about restrictions being placed on these people. What we *are* discussing is whether or not these people should be burdened with translating LanguageBat-ltg.php before they even get their own Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less.
Completing a language file is reasonable and must be done. Period. There are XML dumps and other logostics reasons why this makes sense.
Nobody in the past was required to do it _before_ they could start a Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we need that requirement now. It's certainly possible to extract the messages from http://###.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages&ot=php post ipso facto. Translating the messages via the MediaWiki namespace is certainly a lot less 'technical' and is going to be a lot easier with little technical experience to do.
I remember when a user wanted to translate the LanguageXX.php into Breton, I had to walk him through certain parts (for example, the Breton language uses an apostrophe as part of a trigraph, c'h, and you have to type c/'h or it will think that's the end of the message).
I'm having a hard time trying to understand this one as well. Certainly any such translation that already exists (for example, creating a new Wikibooks/Wikisource/etc. when a Wikipedia in that language already exists) perhaps ought to be carried over, but why would it be so much harder to simply open a new Wikipedia in a given target language and encourage early supporters and community members to simply make the appropriate changes to the MediaWiki namespace? This sounds like a technical problem that is forcing people into doing things to suit the technology than trying to be amiable to people who very likely are not technically inclined.
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Aagain I am posting the link to my blog - it seems as if just some very few people read it - there is some experience behind all this. I posted this already on the date it was written here.
Sorry, I am overloaded right now with work and cannot really take part in this discussion:
http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2007/03/language-prevention-committee.htm...
Thanks, Sabine
Mark Williamson schrieb:
That's what all the debate is about. Some people, such as Jeff and most of the people on the Langcom, seem to feel this is necessary.
Others, such as myself, Arbeo, David Gerard, yourself (Robert) and several others seem to be having difficulty understanding why this is necessary for precisely the reasons you have outlined.
Nobody seems to be making any new arguments.
Suffice to say, from discussions I have had with people who had _formerly_ *approved* Wikipedias, they cannot understand why they are required to do this, many of them don't know what exactly it is that is required of them, and they are confused. It should be the responsibility of the LAnguage Committee, not of me, to explain to them what is happening here and give them a tutorial on how to edit the messages file and give them help dealing with the problems like the ones Fulup encountered.
We need to be amicable and try to make this process easier for these people, not make it some sort of obstacle course.
Mark
2007/4/5, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Sorry, I am overloaded right now with work and cannot really take part in this discussion:
Ciao Sabine!
Is that a permanent work overload? If so, maybe somebody else could chair the language subcommittee in the meantime.
I guess accepting more work than one can reasonably cope with is something familiar to many of us (it happens to me every now and then, unfortunately). I don't think anybody would resent it if somebody else with more time on their hands were in charge of that position for a while. And if helps to give the langcom's work a little more momentum than in the past five months - even better!
Tanti saluti --Arbeo
2007/4/5, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com: Suffice to say, from discussions I have had with people who had _formerly_ *approved* Wikipedias, they cannot understand why they are required to do this, many of them don't know what exactly it is that is required of them, and they are confused. It should be the responsibility of the LAnguage Committee, not of me, to explain to them what is happening here and give them a tutorial on how to edit the messages file and give them help dealing with the problems like the ones Fulup encountered.
We need to be amicable and try to make this process easier for these people, not make it some sort of obstacle course.
That sums it up pretty well. In a nutshell, the whole question is:
Which is the lesser evil - having a Wikipedia with a few, temporary imperfections or not having a Wikipedia at all? Though one, isn't it?
--Arbeo
--- Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Which is the lesser evil - having a Wikipedia with a few, temporary imperfections or not having a Wikipedia at all? Though one, isn't it?
Or more neutrally:
Which is the lesser evil - A) having a Wikipedia with a few, temporary problems or B) restricting a community to creating content in the Incubator until the few, temporary problems are solved?
And honestly the answer depends on what temporary turns out to be. I would ask everyone how long of time is acceptable to try and solve these problems with the oversight and help of LangCom before cutting the Incubator apron strings and expecting the new community to work the answers out on their own? It is obvious from the this thread that many people think that taking five months to solve such problems tips the scale towards A being the lesser evil. But what about 3 months or 1 month, which is the lesser evil at those points? What are the benchmarks that we need to look for to evaluate which is the lesser evil?
I think it obvious that people of both different opinions care about these new communities and believe their position is the best one for the benefit of the new wikis. However the attempts to shut down or show up those that one disagrees with does nothing further a solution or bring new insight to the problem that we all understand to exist.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
On 05/04/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
but why would it be so much harder to simply open a new Wikipedia in a given target language and encourage early supporters and community members to simply make the appropriate changes to the MediaWiki namespace? This sounds like a technical problem that is forcing people into doing things to suit the technology than trying to be amiable to people who very likely are not technically inclined.
I think you've described precisely why this new policy is such a stunningly bad and obstructive idea in practice. The people are being bent around the deficiencies in the technology, and that's completely the wrong way around.
- d.
David Gerard schrieb:
On 05/04/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
but why would it be so much harder to simply open a new Wikipedia in a given target language and encourage early supporters and community members to simply make the appropriate changes to the MediaWiki namespace? This sounds like a technical problem that is forcing people into doing things to suit the technology than trying to be amiable to people who very likely are not technically inclined.
I think you've described precisely why this new policy is such a stunningly bad and obstructive idea in practice. The people are being bent around the deficiencies in the technology, and that's completely the wrong way around.
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very offten it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
Enough for today - have to run.
Sabine
Hello,
On 4/5/07, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not.
In the past time (MediaWiki1.2?), it could. It was not bad at that time, at least on Japanese Wikipedia. I didn't remember UI was vandalized ... or I was too young to notice it. Anyway it looked not bad for a newcomer (me).
Sometimes this is an advantage, but very offten it is a disadvantage.
Slightly agreed. It has an advantage - but also disadvantage. Ratio of A/D would depend. On a small, newly launched project ... dunno, but UI anyone can edit sounds me not so a bad idea specially on a small project.
Can we change the setting for those young projects? I am aware it is not directly related to the issue setting Language.php, but it could be a way to accelerate the project. Or is it technically impossible to turn MediaWiki namespace editable by all?
Cheers,
2007/4/5, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very offten it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
Even if it takes an admin to change them, others can still make proposals etcetera. Sure, it's going to take an admin to implement it, but if you are doing it on the incubator, not even an admin can do it, so again it's not a reason to prefer the incubator.
Andre Engels schrieb:
2007/4/5, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very offten it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
Even if it takes an admin to change them, others can still make proposals etcetera. Sure, it's going to take an admin to implement it, but if you are doing it on the incubator, not even an admin can do it, so again it's not a reason to prefer the incubator.
Well there is betawiki right now ... and there we simply give anybody admin rights to do that job it is as simple as that.
/me back to do some work.
Ciao, Sabine
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very often it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
So why don't you simply make the people who are able to perform the localisation into admins?
What actually is the stumbling block here?
On 05/04/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very often it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
So why don't you simply make the people who are able to perform the localisation into admins? What actually is the stumbling block here?
Loss of face? Loss of control?
- d.
Phil Boswell schreef:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Please remember: only admins can edit the UI. Normal users on wikipedias can not. Sometimes this is an advantage, but very often it is a disadvantage. Nobody talks about a 100% localization though.
So why don't you simply make the people who are able to perform the localisation into admins?
What actually is the stumbling block here?
Hoi, When you talk about we .. you forget that someone is made admin after a lengthy involved procedure. A procedure that has nothing to do with the language committee. We do not have such power nor are we seeking such power.
My idea would be that people who work on the Incubator can have the right to edit the messages associated with the language involved.
This obviously has one prerequisite; there has to be the message file that is to be localised.
Thanks, GerardM
2007/3/30, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
I fail to see it because the WMF has said officially that this does not have a priority. It is not for us to wonder why.
Where did the WMF officially say that multilingualism isn't a priority? A link would be nice so readers can check that for themselves.
Or do you rather mean that having things exactly the way the subcommittee wants them to be has no priority? OK, fair enough - but what would be an adequate response to that?
Judging by the opinions brought forward in this thread so far, most users would opt for the most obvious choice and continue to handle the issue the way it's been handled in the past six years (which has worked well enough to get us where we are) until more perfect options will be available.
The language subcommittee, however, comes to a far less logical conclusion and chooses to cut off any progress instead - for reasons you keep repeating but very few people outside the committee understand.
I wish you guys would end this fundamentalist "all or nothing at all" approach, for the sake of our fellow Wikipedians from Kabylia, Yakutia and other places.
Regards, --Arbeo
On 31/03/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Where did the WMF officially say that multilingualism isn't a priority? A link would be nice so readers can check that for themselves. Or do you rather mean that having things exactly the way the subcommittee wants them to be has no priority? OK, fair enough - but what would be an adequate response to that?
Indeed.
Q. How many Wikipedias have been created since the creation of the language subcommittee?
[ ] 0 [ ] Some number greater than 0
Q. What is the difference?
[ ] The Language Subcommittee is having the same effect as a complete blockage [ ] Everyone who wants a new Wikipedia has become magically stupider since the creation of the Language Subcommittee [ ] Other: _______________________
- d.
Q. How many Wikipedias have been created since the creation of the language subcommittee?
[ ] 0 [X] Some number greater than 0
If you count the creation of the new be.wp. If you don't, then the answer is in fact 0.
Q. What is the difference?
[ ] The Language Subcommittee is having the same effect as a complete blockage [X] Everyone who wants a new Wikipedia has become magically stupider since the creation of the Language Subcommittee [ ] Other: _______________________
Isn't it obvious? It could never be Langcom's fault.
Mark
Why?
Mark
On 27/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Then why didn't the world explode when vec.wiki was created without already-translated messages?
Mark
Because the copyright cabal is too busy argueing with the italians to get round to yelling at minority languages for not localiseing their copyright notices.
[[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]
Needs to be localised.
As does [[MediaWiki:Licenses]] if you are going to allow local image uploads.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Why?
Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read.
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages? What about the unwritten ones?
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Why?
Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read. -- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages?
Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is available in 14 languages.
What about the unwritten ones?
It would be a bit hard to have a wiki in an unwritten language.
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages?
Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is available in 14 languages.
If someone can read enough English to upload media using a completely untranslated interface, I would hope they also know enough to understand the copyright notice. If everything else were translated, that would be another matter entirely.
And how do you know that you don't get uploads from people speaking only Tibetan? Do you ask every uploader?
What about the unwritten ones?
It would be a bit hard to have a wiki in an unwritten language.
If you're clever and innovative, there is a way to do pretty much anything.
Mark
On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages?
Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is available in 14 languages.
If someone can read enough English to upload media using a completely untranslated interface, I would hope they also know enough to understand the copyright notice. If everything else were translated, that would be another matter entirely.
And how do you know that you don't get uploads from people speaking only Tibetan? Do you ask every uploader?
Because they would have then provided aditional info in Tibetan or the image would have been deleted.
If you're clever and innovative, there is a way to do pretty much anything.
I'll deal with it when it happens.
It's a wiki, go ahead and fix it.
On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages? What about the unwritten ones?
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Why?
Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read. -- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If only I were a panglot.
Mark
On 29/03/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
It's a wiki, go ahead and fix it.
On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world languages? What about the unwritten ones?
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Why?
Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read. -- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:54:49PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Oh heck, maybe they should put me on the committee, shouldn't be a big deal. Then they have svn access. Problem solved. [1]
read you soon, Kim
[1] Partially. I'd still need to make sure Brion doesn't yell at me... or Rob Church... brrr! ;-)
2007/3/27, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Andre, now that reaction is a bit silly, don't you think? We are not fighting here - we are trying to make sure projects really have a good chance.
By not letting them start?!?
People can work on the contents on incubator without problems,
but it is also relevant to make sure the UI is there.
If they can work on the incubator without problems, surely they can also work on a separate wiki without problems?
Then again: when we started nap.wikipedia people wanted to create
contents, I was the only admin that could edit the UI, but I had my problems with that since I had to edit everything more than once not being native, but the only techie that was around for that langauge. Still we have some localization problems since not anybody can work on it and who does has limited time - just not even a handful of people can edit the UI ... so Incubator (and for now Betawiki) is a great place to make sure things work out fine.
Well, nobody stops you from doing the same thing on your own wiki, do they?
As for Neapolitan now it is too late to
get people to work there. They simply don't see the reason why they should do things there and so we are still with a half-way (in the mean time probably 3/4) localized UI - and that does not help the language.
So it is the fault of the neapolitans to not see that they should do it? If they don't see the need, might that not mean that there is less need than you consider it to be?
Small wikipedias do work and function in a different way than big ones
do. There are often language issues related as well: what if there is programming needed to get the chars right? Even one and half a year after having started the nap.wikipedia we still don't have a solution for the '' (double quote that causes italic script) that we find within a word - we have to write ' instead of the single quote ... that is plain annoying. And: I am the only one who could hurry after the
programmers to do that stuff and I don't have time to do so ... so we go
along with that. By requiring certain stuff to be done first you avoid that kind of mess and you avoid people to have that really bad experience that new editors get annoyed since they cannot write like they should/would. By doing the localization + some creation of contents first: well we can make sure newbies do not have to deal with such issues. (how would I love to see English with such an issue ... and how would I like to see how long it takes to have it solved).
Well, if the Neapolitan Wikipedia asks to be put on hold until the double quote problem is solved, surely people will listen? Because basically, that's what's happening to the wanted new Wikipedias - they are being put on hold until their problems are solved. So if that's best for them, won't it be best for nap: too?
It is not just a "we play the hard way" thigie - it is a "let's make
sure that potential editors that are not wikiphile find their way through the wiki" and let the communities build up easier. Of course in the beginning all seems to be somewhat more difficult, but all that is done before the project is acutally an own wiki will help it afterwards to have a nicer way to go, an easier job to build communities etc.
If they start now, they have more time to do that. Instead we are keeping them third-class citizens 'for their own good'. Well, I don't see any good in it. If people are having problems getting their way around the wiki and building a community if there is no localization, they will have even more problems doing so when they have only the incubator to go with.
I repeat: we are not sacrificing any language, we are trying to make
sure they can survive and grow more easily.
Well, helping them to survive and grow is NOT done best by keeping them small until we think they are ready to grow, in my opinion. Why not give them the little opportunities we can give them now now, and the greater opportunities we can give them later later? Won't 6 months of slow growth followed by a bloom work better than 6 months of doing nothing followed by a bloom?
Who knows me should know
that I am all for new languages, but it does not make sense if the communities afterwards have to hassle with thousands of issues they were not aware of and they don't even know with who to talk.
And how is forcing them to wait helping one iota with that?
These people
most of the time are simply left alone and that has nothing to do with "our own little fights".
So in other words, now to start you have to have finished already? Is that what you're saying?
If you need an example for a wikipedia that instead of localising in
their language localises into another one ... just to have something similar since there seems to be nobody able to create their UI, please let me know ... I will happily show you the project. I did not bring up that issue up to now, but probably it is time to do so in order to show why certain requests are legitimate.
What does that show? To me, what it shows is that people want the best they can get, and prefer to work in a non-ideal interface rather than working in nothing at all. If you know such a wikipedia, why not offer them to close down their Wikipedia and reopen it once there's a good localisation? That's what you are doing with the new Wikipedias, basically.
Thank you for your understanding
No, I still don't understand a iota. Yes, I do understand that having a localized interface is a good thing, and that it's a good thing to have people work on that. But I do not understand that it is so important that it's better to tell people to wait for it than to have them happily work with something subobtimal.
Andre, I hope by now you can guess the response.
"Hoi,
The policy was created to help the new Wikis so we do not have similar problems as before. We only require this of them and then they can have their new Wikis." or somesuch, basically as you said before, "Our policy is policy because it is policy". At this point, I don't expect anything else from these people.
The langcom seems to think they know better than the community and they seem unwilling to hear our input at all.
Mark
On 29/03/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Andre, now that reaction is a bit silly, don't you think? We are not fighting here - we are trying to make sure projects really have a good chance.
By not letting them start?!?
People can work on the contents on incubator without problems,
but it is also relevant to make sure the UI is there.
If they can work on the incubator without problems, surely they can also work on a separate wiki without problems?
Then again: when we started nap.wikipedia people wanted to create
contents, I was the only admin that could edit the UI, but I had my problems with that since I had to edit everything more than once not being native, but the only techie that was around for that langauge. Still we have some localization problems since not anybody can work on it and who does has limited time - just not even a handful of people can edit the UI ... so Incubator (and for now Betawiki) is a great place to make sure things work out fine.
Well, nobody stops you from doing the same thing on your own wiki, do they?
As for Neapolitan now it is too late to
get people to work there. They simply don't see the reason why they should do things there and so we are still with a half-way (in the mean time probably 3/4) localized UI - and that does not help the language.
So it is the fault of the neapolitans to not see that they should do it? If they don't see the need, might that not mean that there is less need than you consider it to be?
Small wikipedias do work and function in a different way than big ones
do. There are often language issues related as well: what if there is programming needed to get the chars right? Even one and half a year after having started the nap.wikipedia we still don't have a solution for the '' (double quote that causes italic script) that we find within a word - we have to write ' instead of the single quote ... that is plain annoying. And: I am the only one who could hurry after the
programmers to do that stuff and I don't have time to do so ... so we go
along with that. By requiring certain stuff to be done first you avoid that kind of mess and you avoid people to have that really bad experience that new editors get annoyed since they cannot write like they should/would. By doing the localization + some creation of contents first: well we can make sure newbies do not have to deal with such issues. (how would I love to see English with such an issue ... and how would I like to see how long it takes to have it solved).
Well, if the Neapolitan Wikipedia asks to be put on hold until the double quote problem is solved, surely people will listen? Because basically, that's what's happening to the wanted new Wikipedias - they are being put on hold until their problems are solved. So if that's best for them, won't it be best for nap: too?
It is not just a "we play the hard way" thigie - it is a "let's make
sure that potential editors that are not wikiphile find their way through the wiki" and let the communities build up easier. Of course in the beginning all seems to be somewhat more difficult, but all that is done before the project is acutally an own wiki will help it afterwards to have a nicer way to go, an easier job to build communities etc.
If they start now, they have more time to do that. Instead we are keeping them third-class citizens 'for their own good'. Well, I don't see any good in it. If people are having problems getting their way around the wiki and building a community if there is no localization, they will have even more problems doing so when they have only the incubator to go with.
I repeat: we are not sacrificing any language, we are trying to make
sure they can survive and grow more easily.
Well, helping them to survive and grow is NOT done best by keeping them small until we think they are ready to grow, in my opinion. Why not give them the little opportunities we can give them now now, and the greater opportunities we can give them later later? Won't 6 months of slow growth followed by a bloom work better than 6 months of doing nothing followed by a bloom?
Who knows me should know
that I am all for new languages, but it does not make sense if the communities afterwards have to hassle with thousands of issues they were not aware of and they don't even know with who to talk.
And how is forcing them to wait helping one iota with that?
These people
most of the time are simply left alone and that has nothing to do with "our own little fights".
So in other words, now to start you have to have finished already? Is that what you're saying?
If you need an example for a wikipedia that instead of localising in
their language localises into another one ... just to have something similar since there seems to be nobody able to create their UI, please let me know ... I will happily show you the project. I did not bring up that issue up to now, but probably it is time to do so in order to show why certain requests are legitimate.
What does that show? To me, what it shows is that people want the best they can get, and prefer to work in a non-ideal interface rather than working in nothing at all. If you know such a wikipedia, why not offer them to close down their Wikipedia and reopen it once there's a good localisation? That's what you are doing with the new Wikipedias, basically.
Thank you for your understanding
No, I still don't understand a iota. Yes, I do understand that having a localized interface is a good thing, and that it's a good thing to have people work on that. But I do not understand that it is so important that it's better to tell people to wait for it than to have them happily work with something subobtimal.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
No, I still don't understand a iota. Yes, I do understand that having a localized interface is a good thing, and that it's a good thing to have people work on that. But I do not understand that it is so important that it's better to tell people to wait for it than to have them happily work with something subobtimal.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
I am a little unclear here on the significance of this issue. Since the languages in question are able to create content on Incubator, what is the great disavantage of them remaining there a bit longer? Everything will be able to be imported with full history. Wikisource has always run it's own "incubator" since the the language split, and languages have sometimes had a long wait before the new subdomain is created. But they didn't stop adding content, designing the main page, or building catagories just because they did not yet have their own subdomain. Of course everyone would prefer to be in their own subdomain, just like everyone would prefer to have localized interface. But I am not sure why it is such a disadvantage to be creating content on incubator vs. a suboptimal seperate wiki?
It might help if those who are on the commitee, who have spent much more time thinking about this than I have, could list the pros and cons of each option, showing some examples if possible. Then others will be able to better understand why you decided on your position, and better clarify exactly what they disagree with. This may something better suited to Meta than a mailing list.
I also think it may be helpful if there were a set of benchmarks on Incubator for each language on it's way to a seprate wiki. That way various languages can clearly see their progress is being recognized and have some idea how far they still have to go to reach their goal.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
On 3/27/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The result would be like it was before that an increasing number of projects are not supported with a language message file. There are two parts to this problem; MediaWiki is not only used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki is not only used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Creating a message file for a language is a job that does not take long. It needs doing.
I agree on that it would be nice to have those localized files. But the proposed Wikipedia community will be the community for building an encyclopedia powered by MediaWiki primarily, not for serving possible future non-Wikimedia Foundation projected powered by MediaWiki ... as for other possible Wikimedia project, I would point out that a new language community is occupied with tasks to launch one project generally, and launching Wikipedia successfully is the most powerful and surest accelerator for other projects in many cases. I am afraid the current LangCom policy is going to the opposite way.
Also I noted every LangCom member doesn't seem to support the idea "first localization, next project". I respect your evangelism, GeraldM, but your current attitude doesn't seem to encourage people to be involved into the project.
As for "seek friendly devs", it would be nice for the launching project to have such friends, but if the more experienced editors on LangCom have difficulties to introduce them, how can those supporters of the new project, I assume potential project-newcomers, find such a help? I failed to find the sense of this argument.
Once a new project IS started, a message file HAS to be created.
I was involved into two project launching, and every time I need to localize a huge of messages. But anyway message files are respectively added in every MediaWiki versions ... we have no idea the launching project community to keep the energy to follow such massive new message additions. And I know even on major projects like Japanese Wikipedia (there I am no sysop for your information) and occasionally meet not localized messages. Some are left, some are fixed, some are left until someone urges sysops to localize. But the project itself is running every day. That's the life, isn't it? And I have no good reason to take a severe attitude for small communities around five or luckily more, while we allow such somehow lazy attitude for existing projects with over 100,000 accounts.
Every language is to be treated equal; at this moment some languages are more equal then others.
Yes, I agree with you at this point, and therefore expect you consider your approach again for pursue of equality.
Cheers,
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a substandard service.
I'm sure if we'd ask those who've had to wait far too long already, most of them would happily prefer "substandard service" over what they're getting at the moment (i. e. no service at all), wouldn't they?
--A.
Hoi, At issue is that by creating new languages now without getting them localisation, we provide them with a substandard service in the first place. It has been proven hard to rectify this.
So we are choosing out of two evils. I am quite unhappy with the result but it is one where multiple parties can effect a change. In the end, the amount of effort needed by the developers is the same. It is just that creating a language file should be part of allowing a new project in the Incubator, failing that it has to be done and some localisation has to be seen done prior to a project getting the royal treatment.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a substandard service.
I'm sure if we'd ask those who've had to wait far too long already, most of them would happily prefer "substandard service" over what they're getting at the moment (i. e. no service at all), wouldn't they?
--A. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/29, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, At issue is that by creating new languages now without getting them localisation, we provide them with a substandard service in the first place. It has been proven hard to rectify this.
Truly, how much harder is it to take material from an existing wiki and put it under a new language file compared as to take it from the incubator wiki and put it under a new language file. If worst comes to worst, when they go to the new language file they might go read-only or off-line for a few hours.
So we are choosing out of two evils. I am quite unhappy with the result but
it is one where multiple parties can effect a change. In the end, the amount of effort needed by the developers is the same. It is just that creating a language file should be part of allowing a new project in the Incubator, failing that it has to be done and some localisation has to be seen done prior to a project getting the royal treatment.
In short, it's our policy because it's our policy, and we're not going to change that.
dear Gerard,
you defend this policy as a requirement for the existence of a wikipedia. The fact that wikis left the incubator without them, show sthe argument is false.
Though this has been pinted out, you keep repeating "it is a mess" and such statements without providing any examples which support your statements.
Please try to understand that people are questioning the validity of the rule, instead of just repeating with other words what you have already said thrice or mroe.
i wish you health and happiness, teun spaans
On 3/27/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does not say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in the first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a current stumbling block is silly.
Get a friendly developer to create some message files. Be part of the solution.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, yes, but the policy is written partly by you.
You speak about the policy as if it's written in stone and as if criticism of it is illogical because it cannot or will not ever be changed.
Please read the last 10 messages on this thread. The consensus so far _in this thread_ seems to be that it is illogical to require full translation of MediaWiki messages before allowing a new Wikipedia to be created.
Then please read the title of this thread, and note that it was posted by Arbeo, who is a very respectable person.
Mark
On 27/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a
consequence
of
not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things
that
happened before the policy came into effect.
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have
been
two
languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work.
For
one
of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has
rolled
out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because
this is
an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from
within
the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo
with
many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would
like
to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because
nobody
bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the
language
committee requires them.
What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik
stated
that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message
files,
it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either.
Mark
now answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one
argument.
Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee
has
decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization
as
the Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does not say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in the first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a current stumbling block is silly.
The subcommittee's efforts to develop a framework that leads to less "mess" than we've had in the past are praiseworthy. That's why I'm not speaking out against the subcommittee in general. But bearing in mind the fact that we don't live in a perfect world, I believe large parts of the Community would expect the subcommittee's members to opt for the lesser of two "evils" if necessary, i. e.
either 1) having a number of flourishing new wikis providing real benefit to people who don't happen to speak Dutch, German or the like - without a localized interface right from the start
or 2) not having _any_ progress in terms of multilingualism at all
I never denied that having the interface translated beforehand is the preferable option but we must not lose sight of the primary objective - which is content not software. Besides that, IMHO a reasonable degree of accessibility has always been a vital factor to Wikipedia's success. Let's keep on improving the technical side but let's watch out not to choke off all positive new input, too.
--Arbeo
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence of not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that happened before the policy came into effect.
And how are these things 'a mess'? That's what I want to know from you. Why does this policy exist? What problem does it solve? Apparently before this policy was in effect, some Wikipedias were created that would not have been created in that form had this policy been in effect. What has gone so terribly wrong in there that you'd rather put the languages on hold than have that happen again?
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two
languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because this is an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
And what are those issues you have to work on? Why are they blocking the creation and implementation of new message files when existing languages happily live on with their existing message files and MediaWiki namespaces?
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with
many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would like to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority.
Should not YOU be the one to have a priority with new languages instead of with putting pressure on other parts of the WMF to do what you want (and is useful, I certainly agree)?
Hoi, There is nothing holding people back from creating new content for their language. The only thing that is not happening is that this content is being created in a new Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/3/27, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence
of
not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that happened before the policy came into effect.
And how are these things 'a mess'? That's what I want to know from you. Why does this policy exist? What problem does it solve? Apparently before this policy was in effect, some Wikipedias were created that would not have been created in that form had this policy been in effect. What has gone so terribly wrong in there that you'd rather put the languages on hold than have that happen again?
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two
languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because
this
is an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
And what are those issues you have to work on? Why are they blocking the creation and implementation of new message files when existing languages happily live on with their existing message files and MediaWiki namespaces?
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with
many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would
like
to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority.
Should not YOU be the one to have a priority with new languages instead of with putting pressure on other parts of the WMF to do what you want (and is useful, I certainly agree)?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
[...]
Hoi, The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence of not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that happened before the policy came into effect.
Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because this is an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would like to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority.
So you are implying that the Kabyle wiki, the Sakha and the Lower Sorbian Wikipedias will have to wait until single login is there, (which may take years)? You are seriously suggesting to put the process of creation of new wikis on halt indefinitely? By all due respect, but please take a moment thinking of how this is going to come down for the editing communities of these wikis. It will be a smack in the face to them. It will effectively prevent the creation of new encyclopedias by daunting all prospective contributors. Please stop this madness.
Thanks,
Johannes
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If you can find a friendly developer to create these message files in Incubator, when the basic messages have been translated, we LOVE to have more projects.
I could actually start doing this, but Gerard won't let me until I finish some other stuff. :-P
<dodges the whip>
Maybe in a week or two?
read you soon, Kim Bruning
Hoi, It only takes you an hour.. And yes you are programming some stuff for me. You are however free to do whatever in your free time.
PS You will need database access.. You have SVN access for what is required.
Thanks, GerardM
On 4/2/07, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If you can find a friendly developer to create these message files in Incubator, when the basic messages have been translated, we LOVE to have more projects.
I could actually start doing this, but Gerard won't let me until I finish some other stuff. :-P
<dodges the whip>
Maybe in a week or two?
read you soon, Kim Bruning
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Perhaps you would get further with our developers if you were a bit more polite and understanding? "It only takes you an hour" does not seem very considerate to me. I know that if I were a developer, I would not want to cooperate with someone with an attitude like that.
Mark
On 02/04/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It only takes you an hour.. And yes you are programming some stuff for me. You are however free to do whatever in your free time.
PS You will need database access.. You have SVN access for what is required.
Thanks, GerardM
On 4/2/07, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If you can find a friendly developer to create these message files in Incubator, when the basic messages have been translated, we LOVE to have more projects.
I could actually start doing this, but Gerard won't let me until I finish some other stuff. :-P
<dodges the whip>
Maybe in a week or two?
read you soon, Kim Bruning
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org