Hello
I won't read the second part of your email since it's conditional and your
first condition is not acceptable. Also, FMI, is your position in anyway an official position from Ro.wiki?
You might have.. The two are more or less complementary.
Also, FMI, is your position in anyway an official position from Ro.wiki?
In no way. I am speaking on behalf of the Moldovan Community on Wikimedia (sort of: I've never been delegated or anything). The same community that twice voted for the deletion of the Moldovan Wikipedia.
Right the opposite. ANY encyclopedic content in an ISO recognized entity
(thus including the Moldovan Linguistic Entity) is desirable.
I don't know what were ISOs criteria to decide on this (and I don't have time to write complaints to them). But the content present on mo.wikipedia.org is *not* a separate linguistic entity. It is a transliteration of Romanian, standard Romanian, exactly as present on ro.wikipedia.org.
Before answering this, I hope that the Language Committee agrees on the
following two points.
First of all, the WMF does *not* want to have any content in the Moldovan dialect (Romanian as *spoken* in the historic region of Moldavia, which would currently comprise Eastern part of Romania and Moldova with Transnistria included). This would be completely stupid and trolls would be the only serious contributors.
Secondly, the "Moldovan language" in its standard form is standard Romanian. You might look herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Controversy, herehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_reliable_sources_say_about_Moldovan_Languageand herehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_decision_makers_need_to_knowfor more information. "Even the loudest defender of the Moldovan language concept, Vasile Stati, has agreedhttp://www.vremea.net/news/2005-01-13/18:45:35.htmlthat Moldovan and Romanian are identical in their literary forms".
Now, I'll try to reformulate this. And in doing this, I am obliged to stick to my old-fashioned terminology; otherwise, this is a dead-end (I still trimed this message off of this terminology). And please read to the end: I'll try to elaborate as clear as possible my ideas.
I still hope that he language committee agrees that Wikipedia deals with standard forms of linguistic entities. Not spoken varieties of standard forms. In my previous email, the idea was as follows: there is a Romanian linguistic entity, spoken in at least 6 different wayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_dialects(the Moldovan way included). I sincerely doubt that the WMF intends to support 6 different Wikipedias next to the Romanian one. This would be more than similar to the situation of the English linguistic entity used all around the world. It is spoken in at least 14 different countries, with differences far greater than those of Romanian and its spoken varieties (not to consider grammar and so on differences in written forms). My opinion is that there is no way that the Board will start opening different Wikipedia sections for all these varieties (consider the post of Delirium < delirium@hackish.org>). And as said previously, if the WMF opens another section of Wikipedia dealing with this spoken variety of Romanian, not only would it be absurd, this would be not serious. On a side note: current content on mo.wikipedia.org is not spoken Romanian in the historic region of Moldavia.
So, we get to my second idea : the Moldovan linguistic entity in its standard form is standard Romanian. More information is available herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Controversy, herehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_reliable_sources_say_about_Moldovan_Languageand herehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_decision_makers_need_to_know .
Now, still hoping that the Language Committee agrees that it is standard form that Wikipedia deals with, we have the following situation: the Romanian linguistic entity, spoken in six different varieties and - historically - written with three different scripts.
I really don't know how does ISO decide that Moldovan is a distinct linguistic entity. This is a Soviet time POV. And I stress again the following: the content present on mo.wikipedia.org is a mere transliteration of standard Romanian. And I don't know how are you going to get content in this linguistic entity, as deemed by ISO, when even a native doesn't understand what exactly is ISO talking about.
So, WHERE are you warranties about democracy and NPOV if and when
Moldavian/Transdnistrian content comes in?
Berto, I'd also want a serious answer. How can I possibly offer ANY *warranties* on this? I do not have any administrative power inside the Wikimedia structure. All that I'm offering you is arguments. That are reasonable enough - IMO, of course - and that I am doing my best to keep in line with objectiveness. More, I'm doing my best in keeping them free of politics.
Wikimedia already has a longstanding preference not to split Wikipedias
into separate ones for each dialect, as much as possible.
As you say. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. That is, we will try our best to have a self translating system, if that is not possible because of local political extremism we will be left with two chances:
- impose our will over ro.wiki with pure strength
2) have 2 separate wikies
1. Brute force is not necessary. Arguments can replace it. 2. In this situation it is *possible* to have one single wiki with both writing systems. There should simply be a "political" will from the WMF and/or Language Committee to solve the situation
As much as it starts to bore me too, this is not why I will probably not answer the rest of the emails (present and future, if they come in). I am out for a weak so I cannot keep up with this discussion.
Regards, Liviu