Over the last few months, there have been several requests for the
creation of wikipedias. There are good arguments on both sides why you
want more projects and why you do not want new projects. Several
"solutions" to this problem have been proposed.
Arguments for:
*It stimulates a language when a project is active in the language.
*People can develop their talent to write in this language that is often
not native to them.
Arguments against:
*Many dormant project have been used to enter content that had nothing
to do with the purpose of that project; the it:wiktionary and the
Nauruan wikipedia come to mind (the word Nauruose is still used because
of this faulty content :( )
*It requires time to set up a project, time from a developper, and as
they are volunteers too, nobody can make them create projects they think
has little merit.
In the past several "solutions" have been proposed:
*If it has a ISO 639 code, it can have a project .. This does not solve
the problem of squatters when there is little intrest. It still takes
developper time to set up
*A certain number of contributors have to be found up front .. History
proves that many of our greatest projects would not have existed it they
had to suffer under this same rule.
*If a certain amount of words have been created for that language in a
Wiktionary, it shows that there is an interest for that language.
*No activity for an extended period means that a project is saved/locked
to prevent squatters and vandals.
*Having a project for each language that has a ISO 639 code is NPOV,
there are many "dead" languages in there like Ancient Greek and many
languages that are so fractured that there is not even a standard
spelling for that language like li Limburgian for instance.
*Having all these contributors up front would be a big block, history
has proven that many thriving projects started from small beginnings. We
are, and should be really happy with all active projects that grow and
maintain their integrity.
*If a list is compiled of words and phrases that are needed for a
localised interface in that language, there would be an objective
criterium; when these words are created in a wiktionary, it would be
usefull for the setup of a project in that language. Even if the list is
not finished, it has merit as it adds content to the wiktionaries.
*Locking a project to prevent vandalism when there is no activity for a
set period of time is really helpfull. When a project attrackts new
contributors and it has been extensively vandalised or abused, it drives
them away as the new contributors do not have the necessary admin rights
to remedy things. No activity means to me that one admin/moderator is
not checking the project for a week. A script CAN be created to check
for this. The project can be reactivated when an admin signs on to the
project, this can be done with a script as well.
My proposal:
Stop having these discussions about what language is worthwhile create a
defendable procedure and have it on META. A language is a language is a
language. When someone wants to de "Elfish" or Klingon, no skin of our
nose. As long as there is continued development. Having a hurdle before
a project can be started is fine; but having a hurdle that is positive
and has an objective merit makes it less debatable. I am partial to
Wiktionary, but I do not mind helping with the creation of a list of
required words in a language before a new project is started. I am also
willing to help the new contributor(s) filling this content. The benefit
of hosting it on the nl: fr: it: wiktionary is that it is possible to
share content among multiple wiktionaries without too much trouble.
Thanks,
GerardM