That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language people have to speak ? Or what ?
Traroth
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a écrit :
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely
wasn't a
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
quite a
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
heaps
of requests that have been discussed very
thoroughly
by the community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
supported
by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
up
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
hard
for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I
made a
separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages).
Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 %
unequivocal
(at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native
speakers,
ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
[...] Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know
that
our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK
unpaid,
too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if
somebody
has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we
don't
lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com