Re: [Wikipedia-l] How to deal with new projects

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.