I'd like to request a new Wikipedia for the Norwegian language.
I realize that there already exist two Norwegian Wikipedias, but I think we need a third, and possibly a fourth. No, I am not joking. Please read on to see why I propose this.
Background -----------------
The Norwegian language has two official written forms: nynorsk and bokmål. (Note: The names of languages are never capitalized in Norwegian.)
One should be aware that neither bokmål nor nynorsk is a *spoken* language in itself (except in official news broadcasts, poetry and theatre plays), as they are two separate *written* forms (Norwegian: "målform") of the same spoken language, *norsk*.
Both nynorsk and bokmål have exactly the same status as official written languages of Norway. The grammars and vocabularies are distinct, but not completely different. They differ more than e.g. British English from American English, but are not more different from each other than e.g. Swedish and Danish, meaning that if you *master* one of them, you can also *understand* the other. (Furthermore, all Norwegians have studied both written forms in school.)
There is also a third way to write norsk, called *riksmål*, which, although abandoned as an official form in 1929 because it was considered too conservative, still has quite a few users.
The Current Wikipedia Situation ----------------------------------------------
There exists a Wikipedia in norsk: http://no.wikipedia.org/ but since Wikipedia is inherently written and not oral, that Wikipedia a mixture of all three written forms of Norwegian, which can sometimes be confusing.
The front page there states: MÅLFORM – Bidragsytere kan skrive på alle norske målformer (bokmål, riksmål og nynorsk). In English: LANGUAGE FORM – Contributors may write in all Norwegian written language forms (bokmål, riksmål, and nynorsk).
The articles (even the help and instruction pages) are randomly written in three different ways, sometimes even mixed, creating a somewhat chaotic impression. (What's more, this certainly makes that Wikipedia difficult to read for foreigners who have learned only one written form of the Norwegian language.)
In July this year a separate Wikipedia in pure nynorsk was started: http://nn.wikipedia.org/ It has already received more than a thousand articles.
But still there is no Wikipedia in bokmål, nor in riksmål, although both are used (together with nynorsk) in the norsk Wikipedia. This situation is not fair.
My request -----------------
I request a new Wikipedia in only bokmål, at the address http://nb.wikipedia.org/ (The ISO code for bokmål is "nb" [or "nb_no"]. For nynorsk it is "nn" [or "nn_no"].) Today, http://nb.wikipedia.org/ just points to http://no.wikipedia.org/
(I do not know if riksmål has its own ISO language code, and since I am not a user of riksmål, I will leave it to others to request a Wikipedia exclusively for riksmål.)
As I see it, it will not be necessary to translate all articles between nynorsk and bokmål; we can use #REDIRECT or similar means to bind them together, since all Norwegians are able to read both written language forms (as well as English, Swedish, and Danish). But at least the user interface will be pure bokmål in one Wikipedia, pure nynorsk in the other, giving users a real choice.
I see the creation of a bokmål Wikipedia as the logical next step to take, especially now that a separate nynorsk Wikipedia has been established and is thriving.
Why not just use the existing Wikipedia? ------------------------------------------------------------
One could propose to "clean up" the norsk Wikipedia by moving all nynorsk articles to the nynorsk Wikipedia, but I am sure that this would require a long and heated debate among the users. And what about the riksmål parts? I think it best to leave the norsk variant alone (allowing both nynorsk and riksmål there as well as bokmål), start separate bokmål and nynorsk Wikipedias, and use links and #REDIRECTs to make it navigation easier in the beginning.
Another reason to break out of the old Wikipedia for Norwegian, is that there have been complaints about certain administrators there abusing their power to block other users from introducing changes that contradict the personal views of those administrators. (I have not experienced this, but some indignant users have turned to me for help.) Rather than quarreling about this or start accusing people, I thought I'd offer to start a new encyclopedia where there will be no censorship (as long as the texts are in bokmål and not downright offensive), and where democratic guidelines regarding content are adhered to, as well as the principle of neutrality.
Who I am --------------
I am a Web programmer by profession, and I have created several wikis, both in my work and in my spare time, although never a Wikipedia before. I am also an active contributor to existing Wikipedias, especially the Esperanto variant: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
I am very familiar with CVS and other ways of collaboration on distributed software projects.
I am prepared to do the translation of the interface (should be easy, since I can base it on two existing Norwegian Wikipedias). I am also prepared to be an administrator of a bokmål Wikipedia, write guidelines, participate in discussions, and offer my assistance to new users. I will gladly accept anybody's help with the administration, if some of the norsk (or nynorsk) Wikipedia administrators would like to become bokmål Wikipedia administrators, too.
Sincerely, Ulf Lunde
Might it not be better to move the current Wikipedia to nb, and move the Nynorsk-articles in it to nn? It seems confusing to me to have both "multi-language" and "single language" Wikipedias for the same language group.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:53:52 +0100, Ulf Lunde ulf.lunde@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to request a new Wikipedia for the Norwegian language.
I realize that there already exist two Norwegian Wikipedias, but I think we need a third, and possibly a fourth. No, I am not joking. Please read on to see why I propose this.
[snip]
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:11:34 +0100, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
It seems confusing to me to have both "multi-language" and "single
language" Wikipedias
for the same language group.
I agree. I think that over time, either the "mixed norsk" variant or the "pure" variants will gradually go out of use. But I do not want to dictate which ones should live and which ones should die.
Both variants should contain an explanation of the situation and links to the alternative. In a year or two we can let usage statistics tell us what best fits the public's needs, and propose that remaining unique articles on the "unpopular" Wikipedia be moved to the prefered one.
Anyhow, the current situation is asymmetrical and therefore unfair. Something ought to be done about that.
Ulf Lunde
I have no very strong opinion right now on the linguistic reasons for this proposal. It's a very curious case, and it would take some time for me to understand it well.
But I think the most important part of this proposal was this part, which worries me a bit:
Another reason to break out of the old Wikipedia for Norwegian, is that there have been complaints about certain administrators there abusing their power to block other users from introducing changes that contradict the personal views of those administrators. (I have not experienced this, but some indignant users have turned to me for help.) Rather than quarreling about this or start accusing people, I thought I'd offer to start a new encyclopedia where there will be no censorship (as long as the texts are in bokmål and not downright offensive), and where democratic guidelines regarding content are adhered to, as well as the principle of neutrality.
If there's a social problem, then I would say that splitting is very much the wrong solution. I'm sure there are two sides (or more :-)) to this story, but if your version is correct, then the outcome will be that the existing wikipedia will continue to work under a bad set of policies that don't work properly to ensure due process.
I do appreciate the attitude, I should add, of "not quarreling or accusing people". Very valuable. But it need not be a quarrel or accusations to talk in general terms about how to improve things going forward.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org