Hi folks,
Let me clarify things a bit. Please be patient, this is going to be somewhat longish text. And I'll keep words like "nationalists" and "radicals" in quotes to avoid negative connotation.
I've joined the discussion in Meta which Marc mentioned and tried to introduce bit of constructive approach. I didn't succeed to elicit any definite response from Be: admin participating there (on lines of yes/no and will be/won't be amended).
Then I went to Be: community discussion and proposed several corrections of Be: rules which would amend existing state of affairs and allow to keep one Belarusian community. Living where we, Belarusians, live, we've had pretty turbulent history and several cultural splits in it, and each was a disaster. Culturally we are extremely unwell now, indeed, and the last thing I'd want to see would be split of Be: into two separate communities.
However, there's a problem here. Since the end of 1980-s, we have a "radical" trend in our cultural revival movement, promoting not only revival of Belarusian language, but also restoration of some orthography rules cancelled by 1933 reform on reasons of their.
The post-1933 (1959, actually) standard orthography is what is taught in schools and what only "radicals" call "narkamauka" (BTW, this is pejorative term). What "radicals" (part of "nationalist" community) since the end of 1980-s have been voluntarily using and what they call affectionately "tarashkievitsa" or, since ca.1994, "classical", is different combinations of *standard* rules and *some* of the reverted rules, to the taste of each editor. In 2005, 4-person workgroup supervised by V.Viachorka published the book "normalising" those combinations (and diverting even further from standard orthography, e.g., introducing addditional letter into alphabet). "Latsinka" is a non-issue, as under this name "sits" one of the "ad hoc" methods of Latin rendering of Belarusian text, adopted by publishers of Belarusian texts in particular periods, and under certain political circumstances.
/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be verifiable */ Now, this alternative orthography (you actually CAN speak it -- it changes pronounciation rules for some words) has very strong "flavour" of "Polish-ness" and "obsoleteness" to most of people. Folks speaking altenative frequently tend to use more words and concepts freshly borrowed from Polish language. The community supporting alternative orthography isn't numerous. They like to point to their alleged numeral superiority in internet but I could contend that after seeing those "internet community", you've pretty much seen all of supporters of alternative orthography.
/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be verifiable */Folks promoting those alternative orthographies are, on average, rather aggressive and outspoken against alleged "communism" and "rusification" which in their opinion standard orthography somehow imposes on mind of its users. They tend to regard promotion of alternative ("clasic") orthography as kind of a mission, and frequently try to "substitute" alternative for standard and/or to put alter.o. in role of the only "really used", especially when "foreigners are watching" (as those may have no real insight). They tend to present existence of common mandatory minimum knowledge of standard Belarusian in school as "insubstantial" and existence of subculture preferring alter.o. as "decisive" argument.
/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be verifiable */ So, person which doesn't buy into "radical" way, finds him-/her-self under ideological fire from two directions, one from exponents of Russian-language culture claiming their superiority ("Belarusian is weak and uninteresting and has no future"), another from "radicals" who *also* claim superiority ("Belarusian written in standard orthography is weak and uninteresting and has no future").
Now where does that the average person wanting to contribute? Coming to Be: WP one is immediately confronted with rules written only in alter.o., categories presented only and exclusively in alter.o., clauses containing politically biased names for orthographies ("classical" and "narkamauka", that is, recognised only by one side) and stating prederrability of alter.o. over standard, lots of articles in alter.o. (which is NOT a problem per se) with clauses requiring ot obtain permission from author (! FDL?) if one wants to enter info in "different" orthography (which IS a problem).
So, in Be: talk I've proposed following amendments:
1. Remove politically biased names for orthographies, put standard on "preferred" position. I believe I've proposed the driest of possible defintions, in form of "standard ("school")" and "proposed by V.Viachorka (with reference to 2005 book of his workgroup)". I've even tried to appease "alternatives" with slightly diminutive "school" explanation. Admin refuses and insists on "official" (which, in post-Soviet culture, bears strong connotation of "not-common", "non-mandatory") and "classical".
2. Remove clause requiring obtaining permission if one wants to enter info in "different" orthography, allow free editing like in FDL, with safety catch *asking* for keeping *corrections* in same orthography. Admin refuses, supposedly because of some hypothetical vandals waiting only for removal of that clause. I believe the clause breaches the FDL rules.
3. Everything in framework (categories) must exist also in standard orthography. And if not technically possible, only in standard. Admin refuses, points to technical impossibility of having redirect of categories (bug 3311?). Categories remain exclusively in alter.o., admin rewrites all standard o. entries (example: A.Gouk). I understand this breaches the general WP rules.
4. Names of articles and contents of rules must exist also in standard orthography. This seems to be accepted with no noticeable objections on technical or other grounds.
Now, I'd like to keep ONE Be: community, and I believe aforementioned amendments would make participation acceptable for all interested (except of political hard-liners, possibly). I do NOT propose or encourage rewriting articles for the sake of "changing the orthography". Now, folks, as your attention was already drawn to the issue, I guess we could benefit from some third party mediation. Thanks!
-regards
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yury Tarasievich" yury.tarasievich@gmail.com
Now, folks, as your attention was already drawn to the issue, I guess we could benefit from some third party mediation.
I would support what you propose in BE: from inside the community, I am more doubtful as per an external intervention. Not meaning that I totally oppose an external intervention, I am just asking myself what will be impact of it on such a radicalised situation.
I agree with you that the best way to definitely kill a weak culture is to break it in pieces. Most people sart to find the language as "vulgar" and to attach a sort of moral judgment to it (like: those who speak it never will have a good social position, etc). At this point the community of people defending the language restricts to those who have a somewhat "political" vested interest in it, and obviously different sectarian "churches" are born, with the attached implication of even stronger moral-like judgments attached to this or that way to speak/write the language. And yes, this is a deadly grip. So I understand and support your concern to keep all the language flavours toghether. I guess this should be the goal for any intervention.
The problem is in that if we get directly involved in the BE: internal affairs this is going to be read as a political victory of one side on another. My proposition hence regards ONLY the formal side of the intervention. I propose not to start a judgement on BE itself, but to produce a general mandatory policy for a wider set of such cases. That is, the situation IMHO does require a third party intervention, but it must be made in the softer possible way. Policies should ensure that wikis are not used as a means of political propaganda from EITHER side. The aim of a wiki is to ensure an instrument for speakers of a language to work with it, and nothing else.
Bèrto
On 15/05/06, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net wrote: ...
The problem is in that if we get directly involved in the BE: internal affairs this is going to be read as a political victory of one side on another. My proposition hence regards ONLY the formal side of the intervention. I propose not to start a judgement on BE itself, but to produce a general mandatory policy for a wider set of such cases. That is, the situation IMHO does require a third party intervention, but it must be made in the softer possible way.
...
Right. And exactly the reason for my proposals in the first place -- I believe that the conflict could be resolved on basis of general WP rules/policy per se, which would resolve the situation "quietly", with no cheering and sneering.
But those folks somehow just can't make themselves believe that my requests are valid. :)
-regards
Hi!
But those folks somehow just can't make themselves believe that my requests are valid. :)
Well, some resistence is obviously going to come up, as long as you have this talk directly connected with ANY wiki. Partly because small wikis are born as a small team project, and some admins may regard "their" wiki as a personal possession, in which they are kings and zars... artly because when there is a clear vested political interest any change in policy is obviously going to mean a change in power distribution among the involved parties.
Me thinks that we should really stop to even mention BE:wiki as such, and confront ourselves with a strictly technical problem, regarding all editions. I also suppose it's time we think of the possibility of creating a technical comitee for small endangered languages, in order to deliver common policies, general purpose marketing tools and information.
There definitely are two classes of languages (although many of the editions may actually find themselves in a grey area between the two): strong and weak languages. And they do have different technical problems. So maybe what is good for english can be a killer for maori, and the opposite may also be true. But in the end we all need the very same thing: to produce a good edition and to be helpful to users, while developing a wide user community.
Bèrto
Berto schrieb:
Me thinks that we should really stop to even mention BE:wiki as such, and confront ourselves with a strictly technical problem, regarding all editions. I also suppose it's time we think of the possibility of creating a technical comitee for small endangered languages, in order to deliver common policies, general purpose marketing tools and information.
There definitely are two classes of languages (although many of the editions may actually find themselves in a grey area between the two): strong and weak languages. And they do have different technical problems. So maybe what is good for english can be a killer for maori, and the opposite may also be true. But in the end we all need the very same thing: to produce a good edition and to be helpful to users, while developing a wide user community.
Well ... maybe now I am risking to be killed ;-)
That is a blog about the problem with rare and minority languages: http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2006/05/languages-languages-languages-and...
Fact is, the problem persists ... and it will become more and more problematic the more people in regions that today are not well connected get access to the Internet.
When I started to write the text it was programmed ... then while writing thoughts just came along and istead of writing what was programmed a completely different concept came out ... and re-reading it: it makes sense ...
Curious about your thoughts ... :-)
Ciao, Sabine
***** Sabine Cretella Translations IT-DE, EN-DE Evangelist for WiktionaryZ s.cretella@wordsandmore.it skype: sabinecretella phone +39-340-1809828
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
On 15/05/06, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net wrote: ...
Me thinks that we should really stop to even mention BE:wiki as such, and confront ourselves with a strictly technical problem, regarding all
...
Okay, I guess... as long as this specific problem, too, gets addressed in foreseeable future... :)
-regards
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org