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.
Liviu Andronic schreef:
On 2/18/07, Berto 'd Sera
Unless you do THIS, it's no point for the
both of you to come back here
Wait a second, Bèrto.
What you tell me is that you, as a Language
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
Now, let us go back to context <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context>.
The circumstances surrounding the Moldovan
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
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
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
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
when - at the latter date - all of a sudden the entire population of the
re-annexed Bessarabia started to speak Moldovan (please consider
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and especially the
Matt Brown). Ronline - on behalf of the Romanian Wikipedia - wasn't
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.
1) 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
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
"good patriots" in your perception
Please explain me what does this mean in my perception, and maybe I'll
2) You do not have the time to ask the Romanians
whether they want you in
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.
3) 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
YOU have all those online forms and international
I don't give a damn about them. I care that Wikipedia represent correctly
let us know how many Romanian F* OFFs you get as
Is this an official statement issued on behalf of the Language Committee?
I am serious and deadly upset, take my word on
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)."
Wikipedia-l mailing list