You are utterly barking up the wrong tree. Complying
with standards does
not mean that you cannot have things outside of the standards. It means
that you comply with the standards as far as they go. There is no reason
at all not to have new projects when these projects comply with what the
Wikimedia Foundation accepts as it's policy for that type of project.
And from what I have seen so far, it's not impressive.
Your assumptions are blinding you. It is also rich
that you use "the
community" as an argument. This same community has asked for the closure
of wikipedias that you fought tooth and nail to preserve. In a previous
Yes, the difference is that I am not a member of the language subcommittee.
If I were, I would obviously have to put aside my personal feelings on
issues and come to more objective conclusions based solely on evidence
rather than emotion and instinct.
And remind me of these "Wikipedias"... I was troubled by the sudden
deletion of the Klingon Wikipedia, but I did not fight "tooth and nail to
preserve" it. I have fought for the preservation of mo.wp, but then, the
history of that is not as one-sided as you perceive; see the Meta page
Proposals for closing projects, the vote is currently at 90-50 (rather than
90-0). Although, perhaps a total of 10 individuals who participated in that
vote (at maximum) were Moldovans. Majority were Romanians and Russians.
post you were talking about political reasons to do
certain things.
Political arguments are the ultimate POINT OF VIEW. When we are to come
Apparently your understanding of what I said is lacking. I said that YOUR
solution shows a political statement, while the solution currently endorsed
by the majority
to a reasonable policy for new projects, flash crowds
and political
arguments will have to be considered of little importance because they
either deny or ask for things that have little linguistic merit.
Remember, what we aim to achieve; bringing knowledge to all people in
their own language.
Well, last time it was proposed such draconian measures as seem to be
favoured by the Subcommittee as regards the approval of new languages, no
consensus was reached by the community. Wikis created since that time,
though, have had a reasonably high rate of success. Now, your subcommittee
wants to kill what we have going by imposing requirements and restrictions
which are going to be difficult for most languages to meet. Consider that
most of the most recently-created Wikis, including the most successful among
them (Zazaki, Siberian) had, at the beginning, only 1 or 2 contributors,
contrary to the new Incubator policy requiring 5 users _before a test may
even be started_!
Originally, such measures were in fact favoured by the community, during the
extensive arguments following my request for a Sicilian WP (which, btw, is
now a smashing success), but it appears based on votes at Proposals for
closing projects that the general idea regarding inactive Wikis is to let
them be the way they are, and a more liberal policy regarding creation of
Wikis is widely accepted (only require two native speakers, sometimes
Test-WP).
I do not have a problem with a Subcommittee deciding controversial issues
such as Belarusan or Moldovan. However, I do have a problem with a committee
(rather than the community) regulating new language creation.
Yes, the current procedure is subject to flashmobs, but these have only
occurred in a handful of cases (Padonki, Siberian, Zazaki, Murcian,
Andalus). I think that, besides that, it works very well -- most of the
voters are intelligent people capable of checking to see if a language
really exists, what reasons it might deserve a Wiki or not, etc.
I know that I was not even considered for the subcommittee due to my
history, my style and personality, and my controversiality. However, this
does not mean that my words are worthless.
Nearly all of the people who are most active in the process of new language
requests were, in fact, excluded altogether. These are a crowd of people
with experience, a good level of expertise in languages (Steinbach, Arbeo,
Jade Night...), and ability to decide objectively.
To repeat and conclude; compliance with standards does
not prevent the
creation of new version of WMF projects.
Yes, but it does affect neutrality.
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.