I think this is a big misunderstanding on your part.
The existance of
a Wikipedia in a linguistic entity does not indicate
any level of
difference from other Wikipedias' languages. It does
not claim that it
is a "language" or a "dialect".
I think there's no misunderstanding here.
You do have Wikipedia editors identifying their
linguistic identity as Bosniac, Croatian, Sebian, or
Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia editors
identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan.
That makes all the difference.
We have Wikipedias in Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian,
It's a bit of a paradox, if we have Wikipedias in
the first 3, we
shouldn't have one in the fourth logically.
But this problem is non-existant from a linguistic
precisely for the reason I stated above. All four
entities, despite the fact that Serbo-Croatian is an
that allows for the use of the other three. As long
as there is a
reason to have these Wikis separate (ie, unless BCS
people can agree
to a merger), they will be separate.
Now, I think everybody here knows by now that you
would be willing to
merge mo and ro Wikipedias with a script conversion
ro.wikipedia. That is fine. Nobody here objects to
such a system. What
we do object to is that at this very moment, the
proposal has very
little support from the Romanian Wikipedian
community. You have been
told many times that you are welcome to try to test
organize a poll at ro.wp, try to convince people of
the utility and
validity of such a system, but you keep complaining
to this list about
how it's not your responsibility and about how WE
need to do
How can you have not figured out by now that with
hundreds of e-mails
repeating the exact same thing in so many words, you
are not only
failing to change anything, you are actually making
people more and
more firmly against the position you represent?
On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc(a)gmail.com>
On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen
> > Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments
to be understood.
these are simply skipped.
.... Really ? ...
At times, this is the feeling that I have. At any
rate, verbosity is
necessary to make my arguments clear.
> 2. According to the recently adopted Language
that I suppose can be
> > applied to existing wikipedias to
> > "validity" - there are three
requisites that can be
> verified: a
> > valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a
viable community and
> > audience.
> You are plain wrong. You are also wrong in
applying the policy in this
> way. The policy determines how new languages
to be accepted. The
> Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it
have a valid ISO 639 code.
I have no intent to renew this
debate. This is simply to say that my view over
the entire issue has not radically changed. For
the following (same)
From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like the
Moldovan one) were created à
partir de a "list" with no formal
without following any specific
guidelines or policy. On this basis, I believe
that the newly adopted policy
could be used for determining the
of wikipedias that were
created in "obscure" ways. In any case,
it is not
up to me to decide such a
As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid indeed
in the eyes of the ISO,
but also according to the official POV of the
Party of Communists in RM (I
suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and
might have been in the eyes
of the Soviet Authorities. [On a side note: I do
not understand how you
expect my arguments to be completely apolitical
over an issue that is pure
politics: considering Moldovan as a linguistic
However, scholarly research - Western included -
disputes this. A lot
- if not most - do (with the notable exception of
Vasile Stati; notable,
because he is the one). The regulating body of
"Moldovan language" -
with regard to the Constitution - disputes this.
Less important in the eyes
of the WMF, natives dispute this (though still
waiting for someone from
Transnistria here). Please follow the links in
my previous messages if
you are not persuaded by this paragraph.
And, probably most important for the Board, the
mo.wiki domain does not
host content in a linguistic entity different
the Romanian one. It
simply hosts transliterated Romanian content. I
honestly believe that it
is wrong for the Foundation to blindly follow
ISO specifications over
this issue. It is also wrong for the Board to
adopt - from the NPOV
perspective, which should be respected even if
certain flexibility is
endorsed - a political POV over a
linguistic/historical fact: at a given
period, in a given region, Romanian was written
with a different script.
Wikipedia-l mailing list
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.