Kurt Jansson wrote:
> But what guarantee do you have that e.g. the German Wikipedia is "doing
> things the wikipedia way"? And what would you do if you knew we aren't?
> I think it's very important that the people (often just one or two)
> working on a new international Wikipedia are already indoctrinated with
> our ideals (or have a social Wp-habitus, if that sounds nicer ;-).

Hum Kurt, I have no idea what "Wp-habitus" means. But I would strongly suggest not to use the word indoctrination.

First because, it smells Stalinism, Goulag and little red book (but maybe it doesnot smell that way in english ?)

Second because it is slightly disrespectful of people freedom of mind; I know we are influenced. But I am equally sure that we wouldnot be there in the first place if we didnot basically agree beforehand with these ideals.

Third because, even if it sadly sounds like talking "politically correct" not to use that word, I think there are some truths that don't necessarily benefit to be said so bluntly.

>Lars Aronsson wrote:
>I think this is an important question, and my best suggestion is to
>appoint one or two ambassadors for each language, who can act as
>site owners towards the other users and as translators/reporters to
>Bomis and developers. Therefore I welcome the newly set up embassies.

Ah, and who do you think would appoint a "site owner" ???

Jimbo ? I think it will be perceived the wrong way by most...
People on this list ? most internat wikipedians would probably consider it an anglosaxon decision
Internat wikipedians themselves ? They could appoint anybody with a good reputation, rather than somebody caring about these "ideals".
Self-appointement ? Reporting and translating is one thing. "Owning" is another.

>Maintaining the neutral point of view and avoiding copyright
>violations should be the easiest part of the job.

Nope, I, unfortunately, do not think so. People are not naturally neutral. That is not so bad when many people can work at the same time on an article (though...). But just *defining* neutrality is an issue on the french wiki. If you are sure it is easy, and if you speak french, come and help me please. Right now, it is on hold till courage, time and opportunity come back :-)

>But how strict are
>the non-English Wikipedias on issues such as "Wikipedia is not a
>dictionary" (not a gazetteer, not a product catalog, not a consumer
>report, etc.)?

Some of us support it is also a dictionary... :-)

>Is it or will there be a problem to assert authority
>to weed out poor contributions in the small and slow-growing
>non-English Wikipedias?

I rather support keeping poor contributions, they might grow better in time.

I agree with you all your comments are important points, but some are much more than others.

The fact is I think most contributors basically agree with the main issues (such as encyclopedia, collaboration, neutrality, consensus) but they are not necessarily the ones that speak up. When you are a small number, the effect of somebody speaking loudly to challenge these "ideals" gets a lot of power, far too much power on others. I don't think a central power "asserting authority" will solve that point : some contributors just don't want to hear anything about what an english might have said on that subject (like Jimbo's opinion on what neutrality is), they just consider that, being on an international wikipedia, their opinion has more weight.

I don't know what to answer to that type of comment, so nationality/langage oriented, and so soapy...

So either we find a way to mix more the different wikis, so that ultimately other langages people will durably influence matters on a given wiki, or we need more of these "indoctrinated" people in each langage :-)