Hoi, In what the WMF aims to do it reserves no place on what wikipedia editors do and do not do. It says that we aim to provide information to people. For the language committee it is nor necessarily relevant what language people identify with as it has brought us an un-ending amount of people who do not want to communicate with others and create new "languages" for political reasons.
If you are so happy denying the use of Moldovan, be constructive and promote the use of the ro.wikipedia with the Cyrillic script. If all you can do is deny this option as well as deny the existence of a mo.wikipedia, please refrain from posting unless you have something positive to say.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/10/07, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a big misunderstanding on your part. The existance of a Wikipedia in a linguistic entity does not indicate any level of difference from other Wikipedias' languages. It does not claim that it is a "language" or a "dialect".
I think there's no misunderstanding here. You do have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Bosniac, Croatian, Sebian, or Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan. That makes all the difference.
:en:Dpotop
We have Wikipedias in Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Serbo-Croatian. It's a bit of a paradox, if we have Wikipedias in the first 3, we shouldn't have one in the fourth logically.
But this problem is non-existant from a linguistic standpoint precisely for the reason I stated above. All four are linguistic entities, despite the fact that Serbo-Croatian is an "umbrella" entity that allows for the use of the other three. As long as there is a reason to have these Wikis separate (ie, unless BCS people can agree to a merger), they will be separate.
Now, I think everybody here knows by now that you would be willing to merge mo and ro Wikipedias with a script conversion system on ro.wikipedia. That is fine. Nobody here objects to such a system. What we do object to is that at this very moment, the proposal has very little support from the Romanian Wikipedian community. You have been told many times that you are welcome to try to test the waters, organize a poll at ro.wp, try to convince people of the utility and validity of such a system, but you keep complaining to this list about how it's not your responsibility and about how WE need to do something.
How can you have not figured out by now that with hundreds of e-mails repeating the exact same thing in so many words, you are not only failing to change anything, you are actually making people more and more firmly against the position you represent?
Mark
On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments
to be understood. Otherwise
these are simply skipped.
.... Really ? ...
At times, this is the feeling that I have. At any
rate, verbosity is
necessary to make my arguments clear.
- According to the recently adopted Language
proposal
that I suppose can be
applied to existing wikipedias to determine
their
"validity" - there are three "essential"
requisites that can be
verified: a
valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a
viable community and
audience.
Hoi, You are plain wrong. You are also wrong in
applying the policy in this
way. The policy determines how new languages are
to be accepted. The
Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it does
have a valid ISO 639 code.
Thanks, GerardM
Hello,
I have no intent to renew this debate. This is simply to say that my view over the entire issue has not radically changed. For
the following (same)
reasons:
From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like the
Moldovan one) were created à
partir de a "list" with no formal voting and
without following any specific
guidelines or policy. On this basis, I believe
that the newly adopted policy
could be used for determining the "correctness"
of wikipedias that were
created in "obscure" ways. In any case, it is not
up to me to decide such a
usage.
As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid indeed
in the eyes of the ISO,
but also according to the official POV of the
Party of Communists in RM (I
suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and
might have been in the eyes
of the Soviet Authorities. [On a side note: I do
not understand how you
expect my arguments to be completely apolitical
over an issue that is pure
politics: considering Moldovan as a linguistic
entity.]
However, scholarly research - Western included -
disputes this. A lot
of linguists
- if not most - do (with the notable exception of
Vasile Stati; notable,
because he is the one). The regulating body of the
"Moldovan language" -
with regard to the Constitution - disputes this.
Less important in the eyes
of the WMF, natives dispute this (though still
waiting for someone from
Transnistria here). Please follow the links in
my previous messages if
you are not persuaded by this paragraph.
And, probably most important for the Board, the
mo.wiki domain does not
host content in a linguistic entity different from
the Romanian one. It
simply hosts transliterated Romanian content. I
honestly believe that it
is wrong for the Foundation to blindly follow the
ISO specifications over
this issue. It is also wrong for the Board to
adopt - from the NPOV
perspective, which should be respected even if
certain flexibility is
endorsed - a political POV over a
linguistic/historical fact: at a given
period, in a given region, Romanian was written
with a different script.
Regards, Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l