That you don't want to make the work to create
wikipedias is something I can understand, but why
destroy existing one ? 'Beats me !
What I cannot understand is : except the workload
problem, where is exactly the problem with new
languages ? Do you want to say which language people
have to speak ? Or what ?
--- Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> a
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some
language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that
language was created right away. This surely
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
of requests that have been discussed very
by the community (cf.
them are pretty well-qualified and
by numerous native speakers willing to
However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
for our developers to recognize which new
proposals can be considered as accepeted by the
community (and therefore created). That's why I
separate page intended to list languages that
unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
can be a controversial question I only
placed those cases there that are 100 %
(at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native
ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and
we've been through
all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer
arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose
votes, doesn't mean
I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I
received a request from a
Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such
specific request, I'll
carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not
because I think it
contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is
a vote to expand the
community. It should come as no surprise that those
people who are on
the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've
previously said, we
should judge the value of a wiki by the number of
readers, and by the
information it brings to those readers, not by the
number of editors. A
Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of
how many articles or
editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme
case, but I'm not
prepared to argue about every point in between,
especially not when a
certain annoying person dominates every discussion.
I tired of the
repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider
the current set of
languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any
languages that we've missed, a Board member will let
Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know
our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK
too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if
has an idea how we could remedy this situation
maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we
lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to
write articles in some
little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur