Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical" orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the existing bewiki (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ). To me it seems that the closure of a large, active wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but | both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant | was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't | have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors | in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested bel.wikipedia.org rather than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi... I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on | recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/ decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing conflict open.
Forth,
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes and did not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really vibrant incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a different code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that. Might was right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was a need for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact that we allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate than with the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical" orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the existing bewiki (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ). To me it seems that the closure of a large, active wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but | both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant | was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't | have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors | in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested bel.wikipedia.org rather than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi... I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on | recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/ decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing conflict open.
Forth,
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the projects would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction. And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes and did not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really vibrant incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a different code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that. Might was right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was a need for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact that we allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate than with the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a large, active wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute; administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary. The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision. The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
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
____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Hoi, The notion of something like a global arbitration committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of so much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing you want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and that it goes completely against how things are done in all other projects. When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed. For such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because some of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider that their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more one of having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the projects would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction. And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes and did not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really vibrant incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a different code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that. Might was right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was a need for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact that we allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate than with the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a large, active wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute; administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary. The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision. The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
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
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in general is often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see what abitration has to do with final appeals either. Or when WMF started making rulings on the content of its projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any problem, and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion of something like a global arbitration committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of so much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing you want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and that it goes completely against how things are done in all other projects. When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed. For such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because some of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider that their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more one of having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the
projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's
juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur
the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or
not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as
a
more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do
with
languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A
language
has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and
bel
are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes and
did
not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really
vibrant
incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a
different
code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus
and
this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that is
dead
locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that. Might
was
right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was a
need
for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact that
we
allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate than
with
the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has
happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a large,
active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior
proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new
languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki
an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken
would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants,
just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was
used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which
preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute;
administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure
of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary.
The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but
the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the
board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a
drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision.
The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement
at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
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
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com writes:
[...]
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any problem, and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
Whatever solution is taken in the end, in my view it would be crucial to have such issues resolved in a transparent and public process with clear-cut rules. I don't have too much insight into the Belarusan crisis. However, the suddenness of the decision after months of complete silence is what strikes me.
To the average mortal Wikipedian, the langcom and the board are black boxes. You can spend months or years discussing the pros and cons of a certain proposal, and then, at some random moment,- Wham! - like divine intervention, there will be a decision. This decision with be final, without any possibility of appeal.
I know that Wikipedia-is-no-a-democracy. But still, in the Wikisphere, most decisions are taken in a transparent manner and /can/ be appealed and, if justified, reversed. The same should be true for the language creation/closure process.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final appeal" that would work for me too.
What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not represent; what be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project did not represent the Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it is proven to have content that is systematically incompatible with for instance the NPOV notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage. It should be abundantly clear that what the core values are of, for instance Wikipedia, are not things that can be disregarded by a community. When they want to have a Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it on their own servers without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to it.
It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here too the board has laid down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room is finite. As a consequence this is not a departure from how things were done, a committee as I suggested would only take on issues that have a gravitas where without such a procedure a project would be deleted or where a large part or all of the content gets removed because of whatever the reasons are that make it deemed to be necessary.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in general is often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see what abitration has to do with final appeals either. Or when WMF started making rulings on the content of its projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any problem, and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion of something like a global arbitration committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of so much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing you want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and that it goes completely against how things are done in all other projects. When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed. For such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because some of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider that their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more one of having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the
projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's
juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur
the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or
not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as
a
more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do
with
languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A
language
has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be and
bel
are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes and
did
not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really
vibrant
incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a
different
code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus
and
this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that is
dead
locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that. Might
was
right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was a
need
for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact that
we
allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate than
with
the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has
happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a large,
active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior
proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new
languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki
an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken
would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants,
just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was
used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which
preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute;
administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure
of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary.
The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but
the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the
board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee. `----
I would say, that those who take such a
drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision.
The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement
at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
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
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
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
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.
Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name. My main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki type "Arbitration Committee". I don't think the WMF can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings without crossing the line of controling the content.
I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions. A community is either supported by WMF servers or not. Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings outside of "Yes" or "No". As long this route of appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final appeal" that would work for me too.
What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not represent; what be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project did not represent the Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it is proven to have content that is systematically incompatible with for instance the NPOV notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage. It should be abundantly clear that what the core values are of, for instance Wikipedia, are not things that can be disregarded by a community. When they want to have a Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it on their own servers without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to it.
It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here too the board has laid down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room is finite. As a consequence this is not a departure from how things were done, a committee as I suggested would only take on issues that have a gravitas where without such a procedure a project would be deleted or where a large part or all of the content gets removed because of whatever the reasons are that make it deemed to be necessary.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in
general is
often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see what abitration has to do with final appeals either.
Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of
its
projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any
problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion of something like a global
arbitration
committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of
so
much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing
you
want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
known
for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and
that
it goes completely against how things are done in all other
projects.
When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed.
For
such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because
some
of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider
that
their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about
agreeing
voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more
one of
having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
once
made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration
committe
disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the
projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's
juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
blur
the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or
not.
Can we not work on a global mediation
committee as
a
more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation.
The
language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to
do
with
languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A
language
has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be
and
bel
are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes
and
did
not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really
vibrant
incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written
in
Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a
different
code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in
the
creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for
Belarus
and
this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in
the
Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is
a
message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per
language.
Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has
gone in
localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that
is
dead
locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable
that
people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that.
Might
was
right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
inconsistent
with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was
a
need
for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
this
way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact
that
we
allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate
than
with
the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place
for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has
happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no
formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a
large,
active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior
proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new
languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new
bewiki
an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken
would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants,
just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there
been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision?
A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was
used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used,
and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which
preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute;
administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the
closure
of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be
reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was
necessary.
The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had
requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
but
the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
the
board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language
subcommittee.
`----
I would say, that those who take such a
drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed
authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their
decision.
The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the
announcement
at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
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
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Hoi, If anything, we assume good faith and we want to be inclusive. However, when the warnings are given and not heeded, then at some stage there will be a moment where it is a final yes or no. By providing such a mechanism it should be clear that it will be a do or die. In the final analysis it is the board where the buck stops.
The idea is to prevent, if at all possible, to get to that stage.
When it comes to what the existing arbitration committees do, I have not followed any of them. What I do understand is that when people do not accept the involvement of an arbitration committee, a decision is still reached.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.
Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name. My main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki type "Arbitration Committee". I don't think the WMF can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings without crossing the line of controling the content.
I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions. A community is either supported by WMF servers or not. Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings outside of "Yes" or "No". As long this route of appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final appeal" that would work for me too.
What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not represent; what be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project did not represent the Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it is proven to have content that is systematically incompatible with for instance the NPOV notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage. It should be abundantly clear that what the core values are of, for instance Wikipedia, are not things that can be disregarded by a community. When they want to have a Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it on their own servers without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to it.
It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here too the board has laid down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room is finite. As a consequence this is not a departure from how things were done, a committee as I suggested would only take on issues that have a gravitas where without such a procedure a project would be deleted or where a large part or all of the content gets removed because of whatever the reasons are that make it deemed to be necessary.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in
general is
often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see what abitration has to do with final appeals either.
Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of
its
projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any
problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion of something like a global
arbitration
committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of
so
much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing
you
want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
known
for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and
that
it goes completely against how things are done in all other
projects.
When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed.
For
such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because
some
of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider
that
their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about
agreeing
voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more
one of
having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
once
made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration
committe
disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the
projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's
juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
blur
the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or
not.
Can we not work on a global mediation
committee as
a
more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation.
The
language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to
do
with
languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A
language
has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be
and
bel
are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes
and
did
not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really
vibrant
incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written
in
Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a
different
code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in
the
creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for
Belarus
and
this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in
the
Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is
a
message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per
language.
Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has
gone in
localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that
is
dead
locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable
that
people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that.
Might
was
right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
inconsistent
with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was
a
need
for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
this
way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact
that
we
allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate
than
with
the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Hi, > > I don't know if this is the right place
for my
complaint, but I was > taken by complete surprise by what has
happened to
the Belarusan > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
existing
bewiki (in "classical" > orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography). > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no
formal
request to close the > existing bewiki > (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
). > To me it seems that the closure of a
large,
active
> wiki must not go ahead without a prior
proposal
and debate. > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
languages
creation process, I am > more than surprised, that for the new
bewiki
an
exception was > possible. > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
would
have been to have a > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
just as
enwiki accepts both > British and American English. Have there
been
serious efforts in this > direction, prior to the current decision?
A
Belarusan user says at > > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
> > ,---- > | That was the only cause, by which it was
used
mostly in be.wiki; but > | both systems were allowed to be used,
and
so-called "current" variant > | was also used there by minority which
preferred
it, and they didn't > | have any obstacles to contribute;
administration
welcomed contributors > | in all grammar versions. > `---- > > If this is true, I don't see, why the
closure
of
the old bewiki was > inevitable. > > Even if the two camps cannot be
reconciled, I
don't believe that the > closure of the existing project was
necessary.
The
proponents of the > Belarusan normative wikipedia had
requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
have
existed in > parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
but
the
current one is even > uglier. > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
of
transparency. At > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
> I read: > > ,---- > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
been
created at > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
the
board
of trustees on > | recommendation by the language
subcommittee.
> `---- > > I would say, that those who take such a
drastic
decision, that risks > to deter a large number of committed
authors,
should be required to > deliver a full explanation of their
decision.
The
above brief > announcement is clearly insufficient. > > And lastly, if I understand the
announcement
at
> http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
bewiki
has been frozen, but > no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
This is just totally > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
of trustees make a > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
make a /full/ > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
leaves the existing > conflict open. > > Forth, > > -- > http://www.infoe.de/ > > >
> 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
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
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
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
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
Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
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, First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
It is really difficuilt to evaluate if the decission was right or wrong, as we don't know the arguments pro or against this decission. Anyway I think there is big mistake no to inform general public about such the deccission.
My questions are: *Did anybody checked how large is population using old and new Bielarussian spelling? *What is a history of the change of spelling? When and how it was implemented? *What are the common differences between them? *Which one is more valid from scientific point of view? *Who and how did make an expertise on which spelling is more valid? *Was the Bielarus Goverment officials contacted? *Did they push to make this decission?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org