Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much disregarding all the people involved in the project.
Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to close the wiki!?
This poll is here: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86...
Dejan Cabrilo wrote:
Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much disregarding all the people involved in the project.
Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to close the wiki!?
I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent changes does show that the project is active. Assuming that the vote succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass the criteria for starting a new wiki. Under those circumstances wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same language.
Ec
Here is my comment (also on sh village pump):
;Neutral #My opinion is between closing and neutral. As I think that I am closer to neutral, I am writing here my opinnion. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET) #*This Wikipedia is used for expression of one political faction from former Yugoslavia. I would like that this Wikipedia makes more connection between people from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, but it is clear that it did only in the way that people from Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia are together in demand to close this Wikipedia. Also, I am not so optimistic that it would do this better. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET) #*But, some people are working here and I can't say "destroy their work". --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET) #**But, those people would be more helpful on three other Neo-Shtokavian based Wikipedias (sr, hr and bs). People who are not extremists are very welcome on those three Wikipedias. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET) #***But, I am not sure would they want to come there after closing this Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET) #*Also, it should be noted that Pokrajac would be desysoped on Serbian Wikipedia for blocking users who made a joke (not Milica, but Elephantus, Jovan etc.) Behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. And this incident started the process of closing this Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much disregarding all the people involved in the project.
Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to close the wiki!?
This poll is here: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86... _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent changes does show that the project is active. Assuming that the vote succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass the criteria for starting a new wiki. Under those circumstances wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same language.
Having an active community is NOT the most important reason to have a separate wiki. FAR more important, given our goal to having encyclopedias that everybody on the planet can read, is to make sure we consider how closely the proposed wiki's language is to other languages we already have wikis for.
It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).
In fact, our article on this confirms my suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_in_standard_Serbian%2C_Croatian_and...
So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?
Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE, violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.
We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
-- mav
The most horrid mistake would be a merger of wikipedias implement fromthe top down. If the communities do not want it. Do not force them. You would only chase away people, or create pedia's that are in a constant editwar.
Waerth/Walter
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent changes does show that the project is active. Assuming that the vote succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass the criteria for starting a new wiki. Under those circumstances wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same language.
Having an active community is NOT the most important reason to have a separate wiki. FAR more important, given our goal to having encyclopedias that everybody on the planet can read, is to make sure we consider how closely the proposed wiki's language is to other languages we already have wikis for.
It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).
In fact, our article on this confirms my suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_in_standard_Serbian%2C_Croatian_and...
So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?
Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE, violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.
We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in front of us. It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them suffer from a lack of interest and activity. Nobody would benefit by trying to undo the past.
There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis was a grave violation of NPOV, but adopting retroactive policies for anything is never good without an overwhelmingly strong reason. There is no such overwhelming reason. So unluss one of those communities collapses form a total lack of interest, or there is a merger agreement by any two or more of these communities we will probably have to live with the fact of four communities for the forseeable future. My crystal ball cannot see farther than that.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in front of us. It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them suffer from a lack of interest and activity. Nobody would benefit by trying to undo the past.
There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis was a grave violation of NPOV,
There's no support for that whatsoever, actually.
These wikis were all in existence in the 2001-2002 era, apparently part of the first batch of bulk-created wikis made from a list of ISO 639 standard language codes: * http://sh.wikipedia.com/ (Serbo-Croatian) * http://sr.wikipedia.com/ (Serbian) * http://hr.wikipedia.com/ (Croatian)
I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present. Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.
Later, bs.wikipedia.org was added by request, on the basis that 1) our policy was to create wikis for any language with an ISO 639 language code, on the assumption that an international standards body had a better handle on what's out there than us 2) it wasn't very fair or neutral to have Serbian and Croatian but *not* a Bosnian wiki.
At some point the Serbo-Croatian one was shut down and articles copied to the others, on the basis that: 1) ISO 639 had rescinded the 'sh' code several years ago (in fact prior to the creation of that wiki, so an out of date list must have been used), so that wiki in fact was inconsistent with our language creation policy and probably would not have been created if anyone were looking at it explicitly 2) a number of people were strongly requesting that
Later, at some point, someone reopened the Serbo-Croatian one, I'm not sure why.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present. Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.
I don't think anybody here is blaming the developer who created the wikis or allowed them to be created. The violation is much more esoteric than that; that we have separate wikis for political instead of real linguistic reasons. That, not the act of creating if the developer did not know, is the violation.
-- mav
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
On 1/8/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).
No. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian AND Serbo-Croatian are four (political) standards based on Neo-Shtokavian dialect. The first three have political support now, the last one doesn't have any political support except Yugoslav nationalist like Cabrilo.
So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?
For sure, we would not have "one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia" because "Serbo-Croatian language" is very offensive term here. We can have something similar, but, no one of people who advocates for Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia wants to work on such project.
Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE, violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.
Speaking strictly, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian have different standards (something like differences between Norwege Bokmal and Danish). Almost all of that is possible to solve using software and we are working on it.
In other hand, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is unlocked because of clear political reasons: Some people couldn't wait for Latin version of Serbian Wikipedia and they made a Latin fork of Serbian Wikipedia.
We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
Yes.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present. Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.
I don't think anybody here is blaming the developer who created the wikis or allowed them to be created. The violation is much more esoteric than that; that we have separate wikis for political instead of real linguistic reasons. That, not the act of creating if the developer did not know, is the violation.
In picking up on your statement I didn't see any blame attached, and no ascribing of motives was involved. To me it was nothing more than an historical observation. Our current situation is what it is irrespective of the historical path that got us there.
Ec
There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis was a grave violation of NPOV, but adopting retroactive policies for anything is never good without an overwhelmingly strong reason. There is no such overwhelming reason. So unluss one of those communities collapses form a total lack of interest, or there is a merger agreement by any two or more of these communities we will probably have to live with the fact of four communities for the forseeable future. My crystal ball cannot see farther than that. Ec
Speaking of sh:, why do we have separate Wikipedias for Malay and Indonesian languages? From the English Wikipedia article, it seems that Indonesian is just a standardised version of one of the Malay dialects and the two are mutually intelligible.
Ausir
No. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian AND Serbo-Croatian are four (political) standards based on Neo-Shtokavian dialect. The first three have political support now, the last one doesn't have any political support except Yugoslav nationalist like Cabrilo.
Maybe having a "Neo-Shtokavian" instead of "Serbo-Croatian" Wikipedia would help if the name "Serbo-Croatian" is perceived as too "Yugoslavian" (not to mention it excludes Bosnians, montenegrans etc.)?
Ausir
On 1/8/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in front of us. It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them suffer from a lack of interest and activity. Nobody would benefit by trying to undo the past.
There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis was a grave violation of NPOV,
There's no support for that whatsoever, actually.
These wikis were all in existence in the 2001-2002 era, apparently part of the first batch of bulk-created wikis made from a list of ISO 639 standard language codes:
- http://sh.wikipedia.com/ (Serbo-Croatian)
- http://sr.wikipedia.com/ (Serbian)
- http://hr.wikipedia.com/ (Croatian)
I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present. Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.
Later, bs.wikipedia.org was added by request, on the basis that
- our policy was to create wikis for any language with an ISO 639
language code, on the assumption that an international standards body had a better handle on what's out there than us 2) it wasn't very fair or neutral to have Serbian and Croatian but *not* a Bosnian wiki.
At some point the Serbo-Croatian one was shut down and articles copied to the others, on the basis that:
- ISO 639 had rescinded the 'sh' code several years ago (in fact prior to
the creation of that wiki, so an out of date list must have been used), so that wiki in fact was inconsistent with our language creation policy and probably would not have been created if anyone were looking at it explicitly 2) a number of people were strongly requesting that
Later, at some point, someone reopened the Serbo-Croatian one, I'm not sure why.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
here is the page in question: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&old...
grtz, oscar
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 1/8/06, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
#*Also, it should be noted that Pokrajac would be desysoped on Serbian Wikipedia for blocking users who made a joke (not Milica, but Elephantus, Jovan etc.) Behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. And this incident started the process of closing this Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
My English is very bad... I wanted to say "If Pokrajac did it on Serbian Wikipedia, he would be desysoped on Serbian Wikipedia". In general, I am against his desysoping on sr: because he didn't do the same on sr:. However, unlike my strong support to his adminship on sr: (I blocked previous attempts for his desysoping), I would not do that again.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org