Hoi, According to what Erik wrote the other day, the pillars are, at this moment, not part of a "must have" doctrine for Wikipedia projects. Given that the WMF it self is not on firm grounds, how can you expect that the language committee is more firm. Having said that, you will fully misunderstand Bèrto's position. Your verbiage is just to cover that you do not want to address what is in front of you.
Your whole argument is yet another political inspired tirade why things are as you see them. Again, political arguments do not wash.
Thanks, GerardM
Liviu Andronic schreef:
On 2/18/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Unless you do THIS, it's no point for the both of you to come back here with this issue.
Wait a second, Bèrto.
What you tell me is that you, as a Language Committeehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Langcommember and on its behalf, waive the Committee's competence in initiating a solution to a problem concerning one of the Wikimedia Foundation fundamental principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars, Neutral Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view? Basically, what you want is that a certain wikipedian X sensitise an entire admin structure (ro.wiki ) so that they ask you (the LC) to allow them to regulate themselves in a way that the LC might deem correct. And all this over a domain that falls directly under the competence of the Board of Trustees - Wikipedia's pillar, Neutral Point of View. That's an interesting stance.
Now, let us go back to context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context.
The circumstances surrounding the Moldovan Wikipediahttp://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D3%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8Dare more interesting than they look like: again, mo.wiki does *not* contain a distinct linguistic entity (no matter what ISO says). Instead it has content that represents a transliteration of the Romanian http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal%C4%83 linguistic entity.
At this point, by the mere hosting of *this content* on *this domain* the Wikimedia Foundation makes a political statement, and specifically (the following is a quotation): "the Moldovian people were somehow a distinctly different people from Romanians before WWII and were liberated from Romania by the USSR."
The Foundation also states that Moldovan is a linguistic entity distinct from the Romanian linguistic entity. This is equivalent to stating that Moldovans and Romanians represent two distinct nations. In this specific case, the confusion between language and nationality is inevitable: all this Moldovan language/linguistic entity stuff is pure politics taken directly from the Central Committee'shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_the_CPSUoffice. But that's nothing.
By hosting mo.wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation keeps perfectly in line with the ideology promoted by the Soviet authorities of the MASSRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republicbeginning with 1924. At that moment a script http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet - not even a language as such - was invented and a new name was conferred to the Romanian language. The Foundation also holds for linguistic reality (if it might be called so and as opposed to a political reality) what happened in 1938 in MASSR and beginning with 1944 in MSSRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_SSR, when - at the latter date - all of a sudden the entire population of the re-annexed Bessarabia started to speak Moldovan (please consider thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Moldovan_language#Beginnings_of_the_Moldovan_languagearticle). But that's history.
More interesting is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation towards nowadays politics. Actually, the Foundation keeps perfectly in line with the ideology promoted by the Party of Communistshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Communists_of_the_Republic_of_Moldovagoverning Moldova and the Transnistrian authorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Transnistria, and - specifically - with their efforts to affirm and prove the existence of a Moldovan language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language and of a Moldovan nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovenism (no linguistic entity notion exists at that level). However, the funniest thing about all this is the Moldovan Wiktionary http://mo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page: in case the project un-freezes, the Foundation will de facto support the linguist and politician Vasile Stati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Stati in his efforts to create/develop a Moldovan-Romanian dictionaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan-Romanian_dictionary. The circumstances are as follows: both dictionaries - Wikimedia's and Stati's - have appeared after a ten-fifteen years of vacuum in the field - Moldovan--any-other-language dictionaries. And this is to stress one point: it is absurd to translate Moldovan; you can do this only with the help of a Romanian--any-other-language dictionary.
If this is what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to promote.. Well, this is a choice of the Board. However, know that this is exactly what the Foundation is promoting at the moment.
If this clear case of biased Point Of View of an entire Wikipedia is not enough an incentive for the LC/WMF to do something about the situation, I don't know what else could be. And here I am not talking about the feelings of the Romanians or Moldovans, nor about the position of the Moldovan Community, nor about the feelings of the Moldovan community, nor about _my_ reasons for wanting a change. I am talking about something supposed to be sacred for the Foundation: Neutral Point of Viewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
At this moment - even though frozen - the Board of Trustees tolerates a Wikipedia that is openly against one of its fundamental pillars. You "want to deliver a service [..] in all possible linguistic entities". I am most definitely for this. Still, taking into consideration the context, you can readily stop promoting a Neutral Point of View on the Moldovan Wikipedia. If the Board, now through its Language Committee, decides to continue to ignore the existence of a politically biased Wikipedia, again, it's a choice. But then, the NPOV principle is of no use around there.
[On a side note: considering a Romanian linguistic entity with three different writing systems may be my point of view, but it has one advantage: it is apolitical. And it considers the situation from a linguistic/historical perspective, and not a political one].
.... Now I'll pass to petty arguments that don't deserve much of your or my attention, but just for their sake..
tired of bogus voting made by calling up on meta everyone's cousins, sisters and pet dogs.
For the pet dogs I most definitely agree. But then, why didn't you, on meta, impose conditions for voting (like 400 edits somewhere)? I recall that it was on meta simply because you asked for legitimacy.
It's all people that NEVER ever edited a single line on a wiki and simply enjoy wasting our time.
Have you personally verified the "never" part? Even the lines that I've never contributed? And the books that Roberth has not contributed? And many other's non-existent contributions? Again, what makes you think that I _enjoy_ doing all this?
and never even cared to tell the Romanians about your will to turn their edition upside down, right??????
Wrong. On two points: this ain't the first time this is discussed and I do not want to turn the Romanian Wikipedia upside down.
First of all, I am not suggesting anything radically new. This ain't the first time this alternative is proposed. It was under discussion on this list back in 2005 (please consider the Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipediahttp://www.nabble.com/Re%253A-Moldovan-Wikipedia-tf1266140.htmlthread and especially the contributionhttp://www.nabble.com/Re%253A-Moldovan-Wikipedia-tf1266140.html#a3362441of Matt Brown). Ronline - on behalf of the Romanian Wikipedia - wasn't too enthusiastic about this (consider the above thread for his arguments). It would be up to the LC to decide whether the WMF wants a politically biased Wikipedia or a compromise solution (that, by definition, should not please entirely each and every one).
Secondly, I do not want to turn the Romanian Wikipedia upside down. I want the issue around the Moldovan Wikipedia to be solved. You refuse deletion. I suggested, better said repeated an alternative solution. I see not one reason why I should have contacted the Romanian structure before repeating to the LC an already existing alternative solution proposal.
- You don't have time to ask ISO why there's a MO code
I don't. You are not the only one having important issues to attend to in real life. Mine are getting less time than they deserve. And I have no intent what-so-ever to get into a parallel most-of-the-time fruitless debate over the same tiring issue. If ISO cares about the position of Moldovans and Romanians - natives - on this issue, they can simply browse the wikipedia-l archives.
"good patriots" in your perception
Please explain me what does this mean in my perception, and maybe I'll get the point.
- You do not have the time to ask the Romanians whether they want you in
or not, It's useless to ask the Romanian structure anything on this matter unless there is a decision from the Board. They'd be an infinite times more reticent than you are. And such a change is made at a Board of Trustees level, not at an Admin structure one.
- You gracefully DO have the time to flood this list in order to impose
your will over the Romanian community.
Romanian admins have not stepped down into this current discussion. I am not imposing anything over them. You may call this flooding. I would call this having a *discussion*, a normal and *somewhat constructive* discussion.
your open arrogance about it.
Where do you find "aggressively assertive" my _reasoning_ and arguments?
YOU have all those online forms and international campaigns.
I don't give a damn about them. I care that Wikipedia represent correctly my country.
let us know how many Romanian F* OFFs you get as an answer.
Is this an official statement issued on behalf of the Language Committee?
I am serious and deadly upset, take my word on it.
Now, Bèrto. I ain't sure who should be upset. You over my presenting the LC/Board with an alternative solution to a problem. Me over your hardly-constructive attitude and arrogance (this ain't no attack; simply take a look at the number of aggressive assertions - Oxford American dictionary - you have made during this last discussion). Or the Moldovan and Romanian communities over the open rigidity from the part of the Board and over a decent period on an issue concerning Wikipedia's principles.
And to finish, a citation: "Support - Mainly on the basis that Wikimedia projects should always have NPOV standards, and merely having a language that by itself is expressing a POV should not be allowed to exist. I get the arguments about the Russian occupation of Romania, together with the Russian occupation of East Prussia (still under Russian control). It surprises me that anybody takes seriously political disinformation arguments from a government that no longer exists. Keeping this project expresses support for a clear POV for what scholarly research suggests is merely a variant of an established language. My support for this is similar to opposition of the pt-br.wikipedia --Roberth 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)."
Regards, Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l