Is the only reason you edit Wikipedia so that in the future you will be able to claim to have contributed to those articles, or do you do it because you love Wikipedia? The explanation for my requests for new Wikipedias is simple: 1. I love languages and am a strong supporter of linguistic diversity, and 2. I love Wikipedia, especially because of its fairly lax policies regarding sites in other languages. As of yet I have not claimed to being the "founder" of scn:, and I never plan on doing so. Sure, I requested its creation, but the real founder is Giuseppe d'Angelo because he did all the work (adding new content, translating the interface, etc etc) Even for nv:, a Wikipedia that I have so far done all of the work on (actually including the logo), I do not and will not go around saying that I was the founder, because to me this is about building Wikipedias in languages that don't have them, not about fame and glory. As you can see if you go to any one of a number of different small Wikipedias that already exist, or if you could read my email outbox, you would see that many of my contributions are virtually invisible to such a degree that even if I wanted to, I couldn't reasonably lay claim to having founded those Wikipedias. For example, on the Tibetan Wikipedia (bo), I added a few articles about plants and animals with very small amounts of text (small enough that I could be sure the Tibetan I used was correct) and with interwiki links to en:. On the Romansh Wikipedia (rm), I translated the topics on the mainpage as best I could to Romansh. On the Haitian Creole Wikipedia (ht), I changed the mainpage from just saying that it was there for someone to expand, to having a welcome and a list of topics (similar to the one on fr:) in Haitian Creole; I also did this for the Hawai'ian Wikipedia (haw). I have also made similar minor contributions to many other Wikipedias, for example the Yiddish Wikipedia (yi) where there are 19 articles, I changed the mainpage from a simple welcome and description of Wikipedia to something similar to what ht: and haw: have, with the exception that the welcome text itself is in Yiddish (I have spent any time I'm not on the computer in the last few days scouring a Yiddish dictionary for words from the topic index, such as "Christianity", which is fairly difficult because it's a one-way dictionary so I have to 1. guess the first sound of the Yiddish word 2. use my poor knowledge of the Yiddish alphabet to find the appropriate place which is usually the most time-consuming part, and 3. sometimes search up and down individual pages over and over again until I actually notice the word, if it's there). However none of the contributions I have just given as examples were really very big in comparison to the contributions I hope will come from others in the future. Let it also be known that I am not just sitting here after I do that saying "OK, now all I have to do is sit back and wait for somebody to come", instead I take a more active approach and search for people who might be interested and send them e-mails. I have also reached out a little through people I actually know to try to get contributors. However as I said before, by the time these Wikipedias have even 100 articles, my contribution will be nothing. The only reason I do any of this for these Wikipedias is that I want to watch them grow, and I want people to have fun working on them, and I want the people who speak that language to have a Wikipedia in that language, and I don't want that language to die in the digital age because of low presence on the web (in some cases). If I wanted to do it for other reasons, I think it's more probable that I would've requested adminship at all these Wikipedias. So far, I am only an admin at nv: which is a language I can claim to speak at least decently enough to write some good content in and translate the interface, but I plan to ask to be desysopped when the Wikipedia takes off. Other people who have worse intentions have requested adminship at Wikipedias they make only minor contributions to near the beginning and they don't speak the language at all, and even other people who don't have worse intentions have done so. For me, seeing a new Wikipedia sprout and begin to grow feels like it feels when you get a letter you have been waiting for and are excited to recieve, except it never stops after that Wikipedia starts growing. These are the reasons I am so upset about these proposed changes in policy I feel would limit the ability of Wikipedia-seeds to be sown and to sprout and to grow. Even if I am not the one who starts every single Wikipedia from here on out (which I certainly hope not to be, for I hope others continue to request new Wikipedias), I am concerned that one person who is very excited and determined to start a Wikipedia and is the kind of person who ends up writing 200 articles for the new Wikipedia in a month or two and 1000 by year's end, will not be able to start a Wikipedia unless they find four other people who speak the language that will commit to working on it and they will presumably have to get the other four people to commit to it on this ML or on meta or something instead of just by asking them and getting verbal commitments. I would add to that that WikiTravel currently has 5 different languages using their policy, 4 of them from rich first-world Western European countries, and the fifth from an Eastern European country which is quickly advancing economically (Romania and Moldova), whereas Wikipedia currently has Wikipedias with more than 10000 articles in languages from Europe and Asia, 1000 articles in languages from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and 100 articles in languages from Europe, Asia (including the highly-populated South Asia), Africa, and hopefully in the near future North America (when nv: or nah: reaches 100 articles). This ranges from languages with very few or no native speakers, to languages with over 1 billion speakers. Most notably, WikiTravel does not have Chinese. As far as comparisons to Wikipedia, WikiTravel does not have Japanese (though there is a Japanese "expedition", it was created only last month and so far AFAIK none of the volunteers are native speakers, on top of that there are only 2 volunteers), which is the 3rd largest Wikipedia in terms of the number of "legitimate" articles. I am afraid that that will happen to us, and unlike most of us here, that is my main concern on Wikipedia. Many of you may worry mostly about the foundation, or about an individual Wikipedia, or a couple or a few Wikipedias, with only a bit of concern for the other languages, but this is something I care deeply about. The same way that an ant colony has different ants assigned to different jobs, I see myself as one of only a few "language ants" (as opposed to "ants of all trades") whose 1RY concern is the multilingual nature of Wikipedia, especially new Wikipedias. As you might imagine, a "language ant" would be much more worried if the colony is about to make a major change in the handling of policy regarding languages that might restrict the free growth of new languages than would an "en.rc-patrol ant" or an "ant of all trades". mark On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 00:01:57 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers(a)ropersonline.com> wrote:

Why is everybody SO CONCERNED about Wikisquatting? What happened at na: is still a mystery. As it turns out, the situation is currently being remedied and it is being converted to real Nauruan (I have no idea whether it's real Nauruan for sure, but it sure as hell looks Nauruan to me). I'm not sure what on earth took place there to start all this, but I'm still thinking perhaps it wasn't a bad-faith contribution but rather a simple misunderstanding. Perhaps somebody should try to contact User:Nauru to find out what went on? What happened at dz: is tantamount to simple vandalism. It is marginally possible that the page was in Hmong or Yi or another language that uses Roman consonantal letters for the transcription of tones, and it might need looking into. So far, all cases of Wikisquatting have been caught. All of them have been caught - by me. And they have all been remedied smoothly (although in the case of dz:, not replaced with real content) Gerard, do you have any contacts who might be able to write some real content in Dzongkha? And at least a passing familiarity with using Unicode for Tibetan would be preferable. So it has only happened at two Wikipedias so far, and we don't know exactly what was going on with it anyways. And both cases were caught, by ME. I find it upsetting that had I not done anything about the squatting I found, there would be no mass hysteria climaxing in almost unanimously approved suggestions to execute all inactive Wikipedias by firing squad. And as of yet nobody has replied to the following basic but important concepts: What is wrong with the current (not closing or locking small Wikipedias) system? All cases of squatting were caught and remedied. How will the new (executing the poor inactive Wikipedias just for being inactive) policy help? Anybody wanting to squat on a Wikipedia is just as able to "show interest" for its re-opening and to translate the user interface to Squatterish, then create heaps of high-quality articles fraudulently (ie, not in the language they are supposedly in). If we need for some reason to be paranoid and filter out all the WikiSquatters, I can only see the following solutions: 1. Ask an areal linguist if the content is legit (hey wait a sec, if we have access to this linguist why aren't they actually adding content???) * According to Mr Meijssen, this is not feasible (for whatever reason) 2. Permanently delete all inactive Wikipedias and never create a new Wikipedia again. * Not a very good idea, but it works better than the current proposal 3. Abandon the project entirely and call the whole thing off as a failure. * There's no real reason to do this, right now things are going well. This would be like cutting the nose off to spite the face. So in conclusion, I will put forth another proposal: Monthly logs are kept publicly of the checks of inactive Wikis for vandalism, squatting, and the like, and what actions were taken. In addition, a list of inactive Wikis is maintained. Thus, if I am doing a routine check and find that a previously inactive Wikipedia now has hundreds of non-fraudulent articles and a couple of users and nothing strange is happening, I can remove it from the list. Also, maintainers of small Wikipedias who will be away from the computer for a few weeks or longer could add their Wikipedia so that nothing happens to it while they're gone. * Who: Me, others (some guesses at who might be interested include A-giau/H. Tan Tenn, David Cannon, Pablo Sartxaga, Mustafaa, . . .) Perhaps those who volunteer to do this and do it for a while without any problems (ie, aiding spammers or spamming themselves) could be given a sort of "temporary sysop status" at all inactive Wikipedias which could be revoked once the Wikipedia became active (non-fraudulently). Another possibility that could improve such a proposal is coordination. That way, no more than 2 people end up checking the same Wikipedia in a set interval, but no inactive Wikipedia gets past without being checked. A lot of time and effort could be saved, and chances are more people would be willing to do it if it didn't amount to each person checking ALL inactive Wikipedias. Thoughts? Mark "183812 2898, 988 4888580 887 8940152 926, 887 82 982? 408847 387 87 982 8 @189782897? 408847 88 17 8@608 8@289 '887208198@08' 48@7 5 889?" --980@ 1808979, a.k.a. "912" On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:17:55 +0100, Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski <fallout(a)lexx.eu.org> wrote:

Hi Steve, You may be correct with a small exception: I don't recall being involved in an ancient greek Wikipedia request except perhaps someone saying "it'd be a good idea" and me saying "I would support it". For Syriac, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion (partially because ATM I have directed potential Syriac-speaking Wikipedians to build the Syriac Wikipedia at arc: (Aramaic), and if they add content, it can be moved later; and partially because I have found nobody who even replied to my e-mails regarding Syriac). For Simplified Chinese, it was a discussion of whether or not one existing Wikipedia should be split in two, although that's not really a good excuse and it can in a way be considered a request for a new Wikipedia (however, it was more because it already existed, somebody requested it be deleted, it was closed, I was the one doing most of the work on it, I found all of a sudden I couldn't edit it, so I was fairly angry because I couldn't find who to talk to about it until eventually somebody referred me here, and there was already a brand-new discussion regarding the issue that wasn't started by me, though admittedly I sent the most e-mails in that conflict I believe) mark On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:23:32 -0500, Stephen Forrest <stephen.forrest(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The thing is though, it's not like I sent 20 messages in a row asking for a Friulian Wikipedia, I wrote one, and responded to peoples questions and objections. To not do that might seem like I no longer want it created. --node On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:01:01 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mark: Isn't it simply a question of being able to recognize when your proposal is getting it nowhere, or at least that the time isn't right for it? I agree that you were responding to questions and objections, but there are also times when silence is the best response. That response may even help in selling your point when you raise it again six months or a year later. A mosquito who takes her fill of blood and flies away has a better chance of survival than one who persists in buzzing around your head. Ec Mark Williamson wrote: