Thank you for everyone who showed support in our
proposal to set up a Cebuano Wikipedia. We promise you
that to the best of our ability we will make the
Cebuano Wikipedia one of the most active Wikipedias.
Daghang salamat mga kahigalaan!
(Thank you so much friends!)
Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
WARNING: Some parts of the ff. msg might be outdated
because of the creation of the Cebuano Wikipedia
<http://ceb.wikipedia.org/> on June 22. Thank you.
I was not active yet with the Wikipedia when you
started voting whether to separate/merge the Tagalog
and Filipino Wikipedias.
As a Filipino though (a national of the Philippines,
not to be confused with 'one who speaks the Filipino
language'), I could tell you that the Filipino
language is ONE BIG, FAT LIE. There is, there has
never been, and (hopefully) there will never be a
Filipino language. What our national government is
calling "the Filipino 'language'" is actually the same
language the Tagalogs of Luzon are speaking. There was
never and there is no difference between "Tagalog" and
The term Filipino is used by the Tagalogs, who is the
second most numerous ethnic group in the Philippines
(Cebuanos are first by about a million) and who is in
control of our government to make it easier for other
ethnic groups (not only us the Cebuanos, but also the
Warays, Pampangos, Pangasinense, etc.) to accept their
imposition of their language in us. In other words,
"Filipino" was invented to deceive us and to force
their language down our throats.
And in fact, the current Tagalog Wikipedia is NOT
following the latest orthographic rules laid down by
the Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino (Commission on the
Filipino Language, the governmental agency tasked with
regulating the Tagalog language). Last Dec. 2003 (if I
remember correctly), the KWF released a new version of
their ever-changing orthographic conventions, which
(of course) was never followed by textbook publishers,
media companies, and other entities involved with
publication -- even those Tagalog-owned. (In short:
their imposition of the language is one big mess. They
can't even force their rules on their own
You can see that granting the Cebuano speakers a
Wikipedia in their own language is not only a matter
of extending the Wikipedia project to those who are
willing to extend it in their own languages but a
moral, ethical act on your part which could not only
save a language which is suffering from unjust
treatment from a misguided government but also give
its young speakers some semblance of hope and
something to be proud of of their own language.
So what do I suggest?
1. You give us our request -- which is to have a
Wikipedia in Cebuano.
2. You NEVER, NEVER allow a request for a Filipino
Wikipedia -- and instead tell the requesters to work
in the Tagalog Wikipedia.
3. You give the requests of the speakers of other
"minority" languages in the Philippines. (So far, only
Edwin -- for the Kapampangan language -- has
requested. We are hoping that the creation of Cebuano
and Kapampangan Wikipedias would inspire others.)
Matinahoron (Respectfully yours),
Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Hi to all,
This is Ronline from the Romanian Wikipedia. We have
currently (in the past week especially) had quite a
lot of controversy about the Moldovan Wikipedia at
The reason I'm raising the issue here is to gauge the
response of the wider community towards my proposal
and also what's happening over at mo:
Mo.wikipedia.org was founded a while ago, but until
about this year, it basically had no content and
simply contained a redirect link to the Romanian
Wikipedia, since Moldovan is identical to Romanian,
renamed for political reasons (I won't go into the
whole story now, you can see
Anyway, so a few months ago, a user called Vertaler
came and added some Cyrillic content to the Moldovan
Wikipedia. Cyrillic is a script used by a minority of
Moldovans. Node_ue (Mark Williamson) supported that
and said that he wishes to convert mo.wikipedia.org
into a Cyrillic-Moldovan Wikipedia, with all Latin
content being placed at ro.wikipedia.org in order to
After negotation with Node, I have come forward with a
proposal that he has agreed with, which seeks to
establish mo.wikipedia.org as a biscriptal
Latin/Cyrillic Wikipedia in interface, and a
biscriptal portal, but with Cyrillic content hosted on
mo.wikipedia in order to avoid duplication with
The entire proposal is at
in English and Romanian.
Now, the reason I've come here is because some users
from the Romanian Wikipedia do not agree with keeping
a Moldovan Wikipedia for Cyrillic content, because
they believe that a Moldovan language doesn't exist
(most linguists agree with this) and that since
Wikipedia is neutral, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia in
a language renamed for political reasons like
Moldovan. Also, since Cyrillic is no longer the
official script in Moldova (it used to be during
Communist times), there is no place for it as mo.wiki.
Other users agree to Cyrillic content, but not under
the "Moldovan language" name.
The controversy, which can be viewed at
has been exacerbated by the fact that there has been
mutual distrust between Node on one hand, and a series
of Romanian users, on the other. Node has blamed the
Romanian users for being "nationalist" and "radical"
and "anti-Moldovan", this being the reason why they
don't support a Moldovan Wikipedia. The Romanian users
have labelled Node a "Stalinist" and claim that he is
not listening to them even though they are in the
Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
sysop undemocratically (without any community
consensus - note, though, that at that time the
Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
place, especially since Node is saying that the
Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
Now, personally, I have taken a very neutral stance
and compelled both sides to argue more rationally and
stop the criticism. I also am entirely committed to
hearing both sides out and acting in a professional
We have made some headway recently, and I have struck
an agreement with Node over my proposal, which he
seems to support. Some of the Romanian users, however,
still do not agree with all parts of the proposal,
some of them asking for a separate subdomain for a
Moldovan-Cyrillic wiki. What do people say to that? I
would personally agree to that, meaning a mo.wiki
which is simply a portal, and a mo-cyr.wikipedia.org
which hosts only Cyrillic content.
I have presented my case here in order to gauge public
response. I have also opened a consultation period
with the community to allow for any complaints to the
I'd just like to hear some opinions of people which
aren't involved in this case so we can get more
neutral, unaffiliated viewpoints.
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
Gerard saw fit to send these comments privately. In the spirit if
wiki-openness I thought it best to reply publicly. There is nothing in
my views about his proposals that cannot be discussed in the open.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I would like to know what you hope to achieve with the rubbishing you
> are doing of the Ultimate Wiktionary.
Since when are honest comments "rubbishing"
> It has a huge potential and the only way I can categorise your
> "contributions" is as a FUD treatment. I would really like you to use
> arguments. I would really like to know what you hope to achieve this
> way. The way you make me feel is that I am some shady car dealer that
> is waiting for this 1000th carsale that will make him his bonus.
You said it. :-) I can't see how my comments could be anything but
arguments in the sense that you apparently mean.
> Lucky for me I know better. I do appreciate what Erik is doing, we
> both realise that our reputation will suffer when we do not come up
> with some goods. I am sure that the initial UW will not have all the
Nothing to debate there.
> That does not take away from the basic fact that the UW will have a
> better usability than any of the Wiktionaries ever will. It will,
> because the functionality is built with synergy and community in the
> forefront of what it is about and it will because it is meant to host
> lexicological content.
This is pure speculation. I leave myself open to that possibility, but
I'll keep on with what I'm doing until there's something to judge.
Certainly I'm not going to fall in line with your hyperbolic confidence
about the future of UW without seeing it. I can easily see the value of
a project that ties the different Wiktionaries together, but I cannot be
so credulous as to believe that it will be so great as to inspire
everyone to abandon what they are doing to work with your project.
> The argument about communities of Mark Williamson is silly, the
> wikimedia community does evolve and, the community that is growing
> around the Ultimate Wiktionary will be different from any of the
> Wikimedia communities.
Since you have mentioned Mark, it is only fitting that I should forward
a copy of these comments directly to him. I have in the past objected
to some of his points of view, but such comments have always been to him
rather than around him. If you think that he is being silly tell him
about it, not me.
> Many new people will make it their own, people who have no background
> in Wikipedia, people that do not think a Wiki is the best thing there is.
So there's more to your project than the Wiki community! You have in
the past made it clear that you would like the GFDL replaced. If, just
for example, someone were contemplating a fork compliance with that
licence could be an embarassment.
> People who are very much aware of what language technology is. People
> with a solid reputation outside the Wikimedia world.
Am I supposed to be impressed by these statements? Or is there a hidden
agenda? A company that funds educational research in the Netherlands
does so in a completely different environment than in most countries
given that Holland has by far the greatest proportion of privatization
of schools in the world.
> I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd. It is as always your
Of course it's my choice, and I will certainly be willing to look at UW
objectively ... when it is released to the public.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] WSJ on Wikipedia
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:55:21 +0800
From: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
FYI, this week Wall Street Journal (perhaps Asia only) had one of the
more useful stories on Wikipedia, which has some comments from
academics/expets on WP articles. In general, very good opinions of
Wikipedia. My comments are probably the harshest. :)
June 17, 2005
Your Life -- Loose Wire:
Trusting an Internet Encyclopedia
By Jeremy Wagstaff
The Asian Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones
I've found Wikipedia to be pretty good on the few subjects I know a little
about. But you aren't interested in what I think. So I polled some
might have something to say: random academics from diverse disciplines
America, Australia and the United Kingdom. I asked them to look up five
subjects in their field and offer their impressions. Here's what they said:
-- Claudia Eberlein, a theoretical physicist at the U.K.'s University of
Sussex, checked entries relating to quantum and laser science: "I must
say I am
impressed! Not everything was 100% accurate, but it was close enough for a
general knowledge encyclopedia, and in places it was much more detailed
would possibly have expected."
-- William J. Jackson, an expert in Hinduism at Indiana University-Purdue
University at Indianapolis, says he was "pleasantly surprised at how
the information is -- not because I assumed Wikipedia would get things
but because often sources from the West often seem put together by
haven't studied the other culture in depth."
-- Ray Trygstad, Director of Information Technology at the Illinois
of Technology, focused on several areas of interest: Internet & Web,
Security and Navy/Naval Aviation. He was impressed with accuracy and
but felt that some entries were thin or nonexistent: "The information
article was an outstanding introduction to the field and very well
balanced . .
. The helicopter article was very complete and very accurate although there
were some additional areas that could be discussed."
-- Komninos Zervos, a lecturer in CyberStudies at Australia's Griffith
University, looked up digital poetry (poetry that in some way uses the
and found it "a good starting point to a new and developing field of new
media/cyber/digital/web poetry" although he found it "still very patchy
mentioning types of digital poetry."
-- Charles Chapman, manager of digital marketing at Massachusetts' Babson
College and an occasional tweaker of entries covering emerging technologies
found entries on his subject matter 95% accurate. "I can't say 100% because
there was missing information, rather than incorrect information, on
some of the
topics I researched. I was happy to find most everything correct."
-- Chris Ewels, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Paris, was
lukewarm on entries on nanotechnology ("started well, then lumpy") and
transmission electron microscopy ("it's a good, very introductory
but is missing many of the important features of this type of
was impressed by density functional theory ("would give this 100% on all
-- very accurate, detailed, well written"). Overall, Mr. Ewels said he was
impressed by how far Wikipedia has come since he last checked: "(I) must
didn't realize to what depth information was available," he said.
I would take those responses as a general thumbs up. If the experts
big holes in Wikipedia, I'd say the rest of us can use it. This doesn't
course, that we should use the information in it without confirming it
elsewhere. As Andrew Lih, director of technology at Hong Kong University's
Journalism and Media Studies Centre and a long-time contributor to
puts it: "It's a good starting point for things; it isn't a good
Why is something so easy to tamper with so good? This is easily answered:
Guardians of the site constantly monitor the updated information by
real-time feed of changes and can quickly spot a vandal or heavily biased
contributor and undo the damage, or refer the case to others. Vandalism
stays there for only a few minutes, or even less.
Indeed, comparing it with an existing encyclopedia may be missing the
Wikipedia. It isn't written by individual contributors -- who, like everyone
else, may be fallible -- but by a vast network of people of varying
whose contributions are open to challenge and review by anyone else. In
words, it isn't about what qualifications you have. It's about what you
contribute. If your contribution is good enough, well-sourced enough and
balanced enough to survive the challenges of others, then it's probably
good stuff. There's always room for improvement, but then any print
has had to issue a correction would acknowledge that.
Wikipedia, for what it is, is an impressive monument to collective
Send comments to jeremy.wagstaff(a)awsj.com
Wiki-research-l mailing list
As a result of our exploring opportunities for Ultimate Wiktionary, I
was pointed to LISA the Localisation Industry Standards Association. I
downloaded some information and was asked afterwards for some
information. This in turn led to the question if I was willing to write
an article about Wikimedia and localisation. So I did. It can be found
I express my support for the Cebuano Wikipedia, representing a language that is one of the two most widely spoken indigenous in the Philippines (the other being Tagalog). As has been mentioned here, it is about time that the non-Tagalog Philippine languages be given their own Wikipedias. The leading Philippine languages are spoken by millions of speakers, and according to many experts, a population of one million entitles a language group to a university. Wikipedia can be the encyclopedia in these languages.
All Philippine languages have been declining relative to Tagalog for decades, and a Wikipedia in the major languages would help intellectualize them and raise their prestige among their speakers, especially the younger generation. This goes for Cebuano as well as for my native Kapampangan, for which I have also proposed a Wikipedia. The snowballing move to offer them in schools once again (their use in the educational system was abolished shortly after the declaration of martial law), and help ensure their revival, will gain momentum if they are given this recognition by the people behind Wikipedia (right now, Cebuano is being used as the medium of instruction in selected schools in the first two grades of primary school in Cebu; in Pampanga, the city government of the capital of San Fernando starts offering Kapampangan as a subject at all levels of elementary school this June). Wikipedia has the power to help revitalize languages, which may otherwise be in danger of declining and
eventually disappearing. People have been talking about preserving or reviving languages while there is still time, rather than waiting until it's too late. That is why the requests come with a special sense of urgency and passion in them. Here, with the Philippine languages, is a clear opportunity for Wiki to make a difference. Let's not waste it.
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:39:18 -0700
> From: Mark Williamson
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in Cebuano
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <849f98ed0506191339251cb18c(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> That is because the people who are responsible for the creation of new
> Wikipedias do not keep their eye on the appropriate channels. The last
> two Wikipedias that were created, I requested personally from Brion on
> IRC (os: and fur:).
> The last time a Wikipedia was created quickly was for tum.wikipedia.
> And tum.wikipedia didn't have very good chances.
> On 19/06/05, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
> I am not sure who is in fact responsible for this but I noticed no new
> Wikipedias have been set up for quite a few months now. The Cebuano
> editors are so committed. Their request should be given the highest priority. > They shouldn't be kept hanging on the line anymore!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
The message below was sent to the Board today. Would implementing some
sort of automatic copyvio checker be feasible?
The second part of the email suggests it is too difficult to contact
us about copyright violations. With the addition of the "contact us"
link in the sidebar, I thought this would stop being a problem. Is
there any other way of making it easier?
---- Forwarded message ----
> In regards to the continuing copyright issues because some members do
> respect copyrights, I might recommend implementing something like what
> http://copyscape.com uses. From what I can tell, they use a Google API
> to do a
> search of text found in one page to see what other pages have the same
> Using a similar methodology, you could flag new pages that are
> like pages that exist on the Internet for further review. While this
> tackle all of the copyright violations, it would go a long way towards
> it easier to weed out blatant violations like the one I reported.
> The issue of some individuals having absolutely no respect for
> copyrights and
> plagiarism is a serious problem that Wikipedia needs to address. Some
> seem to think that Wikipedia is their personal means of bringing down
> laws and "freeing" content. This is a shame because these individuals
> the long term possibilities for Wikipedia.
> On a related note, it should be easier to report copyright violations on
> Wikipedia website. The current set up is tremendously burdensome to
> figure how
> to report copyright violations. There needs to be a simple link from
> pages to a simple contact form that allows one to report a violation
> having any knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Doing this would put
> members on
> notice that Wikipedia isn't a rogue operation where anything goes and
> that it
> takes copyright issues seriously.
Jeremy Paxman, 5 minutes ago on BBC's University Challenge: "Which
encyclopedia was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, ..." Unfortunately noone
knew. Jeremy: "I recommend it if you do not use it". It is not much for a
sales pitch, but from Jeremy it counts.
We might set ourselves a goal for a year from now: Wikipedia will be the
answer on a starter warming up 100 pound giveaway question in 'Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire' :)