The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka, codified in the 1960s.
However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet, called Latsinka.
Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in it too.
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
You can see the entire debate here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Present_Belarusian...
Now, obviously the answer to such questions is generally "resolve within the community". However, in this case some people are claiming that the community leaders are acting improperly by deleting new articles in Narkamauka and then a few minutes later posting the same articles written in Tarashkievitsa. People also allege that policy on be.wp favours the alternative spelling over official spelling, and that it is not possible to change it without outside help because the admins at be.wp are a dictatorship.
In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
Mark
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
My fivepence worth. I live in Kiev, so I have a bit of a closer POV on what's going on therem, hopefully it can help.
A number of wikis have problems connected with the existence of alternative scripts. I suppose a common official policy for such cases would help. As per experience with non-govt backed european minority languages, often the most suitable way out of the fight is: 1) have the interface in the most spread variant (which would be cyrillic, in this case) 2) have the articles that come in "other" flavours translated in the main script-space and the original page saved and referred to from the translated page. 3) allow all variants to exist simoultaneously on any discussion pages
This may help into giving space to everyone without compressing freedom of expression and local variants of the culture/script/grammar.
The problem with Belarus' is in that their wonderful language is in a pretty much decaying state, so it's a very small number of people taking care of it. These people often are politically radicalised, and may clash with each other. In this dynamic, a wiki may become "just another battlefield", which is something we should really avoid. I agree with Mark here. Maybe it could make sense to have three indipendent editions, yet the number of possible contributors is so small that I do wonder whether it makes any sense to do it (and it's something the three communities should decide themselves, in anyway).
In any case I urge you not to find an "ad hoc" solution for Belarus, but to address the problem of concurrent scripts as such in instead. I believe this is going to be a recurrent problem in many an endangered culture, and often it is going to be associated with local political tension. A neutrally "general" policy would be much easier to implement, than a direct involvment in the practical life of one single wiki.
As per making belorussian popular... sadly, it takes much more than this. Decaying languages do need to become "trendy" in order to be used by youth and be saved. Usually a clash in script policy is a very bad marker, as per the health of a language. And if belorussian was really used as much as statistics claim, nobody in his mind would have used a script that is not understood by anyone to make a nationalistically oriented political campaign...
As a matter of fact you can hear it mostly in the countryside, where it's hard to imagine that internet will get soon... No way for it to exist on TV, apart from some episodes a minor govt channel, and the youth in Minsk rates trendy to be "russian". That is, to use as many english words as they can, while speaking russian.
IMHO belarusian definitely is an endangered language, and should be helped out of its unpleasant situation as much as possible. In doing this a wiki has mostly one big function: it's a meeting place for native speakers to use the language, exchange and "save" information, and at least virtually live in a 100% belarusian environment, which is already impossible in reality. This is what a wiki can do for a language, any language. In exchange, wikimedia gets an indepth level of knowledge on local life/traditions/everyday problems that no foreign speakers will ever be able to put in. It's actually a fair deal, since this information can later be translated into other wiki editions and make its way to a mainstream public after having been collected and organized in its own original cultural environment.
Yet I would not expect a quick rise in the number of BY contributors just because we solve the script problem. These are very slow processes. Pretty much will depend on the marketing, but this is going to be a hard thing to do, if they wish to remain as politically neutral as needed by the general wiki policies. It really depends on their capability to involve the "normal" population, outside the radically oriented clubs. And, obviously, it heavily depends on the access to internet that can be granted to native speakers in the countryside, those who really still use the language in everyday's life.
My best wishes to them. It's a grand culture in a great land, and I personally do love the place. It's great canals there for a guy in love with boating on inland waters, and I really wish to get as much information as I can on the canal system connecting the EU to the Dnepr and the Black Sea :) Especially since I can personally read basic bielorussian (only in the cyrillic variant, though).
Bèrto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:15 AM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP
The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka, codified in the 1960s.
However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet, called Latsinka.
Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in it too.
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
You can see the entire debate here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Present_Belarusian...
Now, obviously the answer to such questions is generally "resolve within the community". However, in this case some people are claiming that the community leaders are acting improperly by deleting new articles in Narkamauka and then a few minutes later posting the same articles written in Tarashkievitsa. People also allege that policy on be.wp favours the alternative spelling over official spelling, and that it is not possible to change it without outside help because the admins at be.wp are a dictatorship.
In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
Mark
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi everyone,
ok Mark, you asked for it. Here is my opinion. (Meinung, nicht Deinung, Wirung oder Unserung, if you understand this German pun.)
The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
9 Mio is quite a lot.
In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka, codified in the 1960s.
Ah, this means that there is an official standard. That is fine. That makes things a lot easier.
However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet, called Latsinka.
Wikipedia should use an official standard, if there is one. Here we do have one, so use it.
Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in it too.
That is unfortunate.
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
The main question is whether or not these two Belorussian groups can get along with each other. If the differences are so big that they cannot cooperate, then they should get two wikipedias. (This seems to be the case) BUT the main wikipedia (the one with the official ISO-code) should be the one using the official language that is taught in the schools.
So the real question is: should the alternative people get their alternative wikipedia. My answer is: yes. Development of underdeveloped languages is an important task and if the Wikipedia can help, that is fine. If they really think that they can give an important cultural input into the further development of the Belorussion language, then I see no reason to put stumbling blocks on their road. Time will show, whether or not they make progress. Give both teams a chance, leave them alone, let them do their work. Revisit in a year and see what happens.
In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
It is always better to provide opportunities instead of taking opportunities away.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
ok Mark, you asked for it. Here is my opinion. (Meinung, nicht Deinung, Wirung oder Unserung, if you understand this German pun.)
Well, I know what Meinung means, so yes, I get it.
The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
9 Mio is quite a lot.
Yes, it is.
In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka, codified in the 1960s.
Ah, this means that there is an official standard. That is fine. That makes things a lot easier.
Sort of -- people will accuse us of being pro-government and/or pro-Soviet if we support Narkamauka over Tarashkievitsa.
About half of Belarusan bloggers use Tarashkievitsa; svaboda.org and a couple of newspapers are written in it... it's not quite so clear-cut as in most countries, where there is an official spelling system, and all of the alternatives are small and enjoy little or no regular use.
However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet, called Latsinka.
Wikipedia should use an official standard, if there is one. Here we do have one, so use it.
I agree with you, but undoubtedly the nationalists won't.
Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in it too.
That is unfortunate.
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left instead of shouting louder.
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais, Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are writing.
The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in the Breton Wikipedia.
The main question is whether or not these two Belorussian groups can get along with each other. If the differences are so big that they cannot cooperate, then they should get two wikipedias. (This seems to be the case) BUT the main wikipedia (the one with the official ISO-code) should be the one using the official language that is taught in the schools.
I agree with that.
So the real question is: should the alternative people get their alternative wikipedia. My answer is: yes. Development of underdeveloped languages is an important task and if the Wikipedia can help, that is fine. If they really think that they can give an important cultural input into the further development of the Belorussion language, then I see no reason to put stumbling blocks on their road. Time will show, whether or not they make progress. Give both teams a chance, leave them alone, let them do their work. Revisit in a year and see what happens.
The two systems are different, but not so different that it would really make sense to have two separate Belarusan Wikipedias. However, I do agree that if they really want it, we should give them a chance.
In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
It is always better to provide opportunities instead of taking opportunities
Mark
Hi!
Sort of -- people will accuse us of being pro-government and/or pro-Soviet if we support Narkamauka over Tarashkievitsa.
And they will accuse us of being pro-western if we do the opposite. It's a conflict, whatever you do, someone will cry you help the opposite party.
About half of Belarusan bloggers use Tarashkievitsa; svaboda.org and a couple of newspapers are written in it...
And... how many people is this? I quite doubt you get even close to the 9 million mark :) It's very difficult to judge a distribution from this, since most bielorussian speakers have no access to the internet whatsoever...
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it.
@ pms we do it, too, even if there IS a recognized standard since the end of the 18th century, which is used for the interface. Anyway, it's normal for endangered languages to have a numer of "experimental" ortographies, which are supposed to make the use of the language easier. I never noticed a positive result from any of them, so I simply stick to the standard, but that's not a reason for us to ban someone else's creativity.
It's different when (as it in lumbaart), you actually speak of different dialects of the same language. Here I suppose the only criteria is to ensure mutual intelligibility. As long as everyone can use the wiki, then it's okay, when differences among the dialects are too big, it makes little sense to speak of dialects. They actually are separated languages and should be treated as such. It does not seem to be the case in bielorussian, though. Here it's mostly a political game, that mostly mirrors what is happening in the country.
I do agree that if they really want it, we should give them a chance.
It makes little sense to start an internal conflict or to override the admins. Yes, there should be two wikis, and the official code should be assigned to those who use an official standard, no matter what is their political position. Other scripts may simply use their own names, since they have definite names. Then it will be the people to choose what version is more suitable for them to use.
Bèrto
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left instead of shouting louder.
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais, Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are writing.
The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in the Breton Wikipedia. Mark
Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.
/Andreas
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
On 13/05/06, Andreas Vilén andreas.vilen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left instead of shouting louder.
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais, Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are writing.
The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in the Breton Wikipedia. Mark
Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.
/Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I thought wikipedia was organised by languages, not by countries. The fact that only one is official does not mean that the other is not spoken. So, if the community wants 2 wikis, let them have 2; if they want to try to build a single one, let's support them on this. Personally, I don't speak either of the two, so I feel I'm not in a position to judge.
Cruccone
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
The thing is, they're only different when you write them. You can't "speak" in Narkamauka or Tarashkievitsa.
Mark
On 13/05/06, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
I thought wikipedia was organised by languages, not by countries. The fact that only one is official does not mean that the other is not spoken. So, if the community wants 2 wikis, let them have 2; if they want to try to build a single one, let's support them on this. Personally, I don't speak either of the two, so I feel I'm not in a position to judge.
Cruccone
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
And how easy would it be to make an automatic transcripter (such as the one for traditional/simplified Chinese or some southern Slavonic languages)?
Cruccone
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is, they're only different when you write them. You can't "speak" in Narkamauka or Tarashkievitsa.
Mark
On 13/05/06, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
I thought wikipedia was organised by languages, not by countries. The
fact
that only one is official does not mean that the other is not spoken.
So, if
the community wants 2 wikis, let them have 2; if they want to try to
build a
single one, let's support them on this. Personally, I don't speak either
of
the two, so I feel I'm not in a position to judge.
Cruccone
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Would it work for the interface, too? I guess this is the main issue, and it might be of interest for a number of other languages.
Bèrto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Chiesa" chiesa.marco@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP
And how easy would it be to make an automatic transcripter (such as the one for traditional/simplified Chinese or some southern Slavonic languages)?
Cruccone
Hoi, It will only work if the difference is one of orthography or script. When the differences are more pronounced and semantic drift between the two has set in, it will be a kludge and a bad one at that. It will not really help a language / a dialect whatever you want to call it .. :) Thanks, GerardM
Berto wrote:
Would it work for the interface, too? I guess this is the main issue, and it might be of interest for a number of other languages.
Bèrto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Chiesa" chiesa.marco@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP
And how easy would it be to make an automatic transcripter (such as the one for traditional/simplified Chinese or some southern Slavonic languages)?
Cruccone
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I'm not sure. Some people are saying it is, and that a conversion script would be easy to write, but others are saying they are too different. I'm not familiar enough with the situation on the ground.
Mark
On 14/05/06, Paweł Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
Mark Williamson napisał(a):
The thing is, they're only different when you write them. You can't "speak" in Narkamauka or Tarashkievitsa.
Mark
Is automated conversion possible?
-- Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
As Marco Chiesa, I don't see how that argument is relevant... Let them have two wikis, no harm done, right? Let's make information free for more people!
/Andreas On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
On 13/05/06, Andreas Vilén andreas.vilen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety, however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left instead of shouting louder.
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais, Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are writing.
The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in the Breton Wikipedia. Mark
Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.
/Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The problem is not only with them. AFAIK there is a similar problem in the Occitan wiki (just to name one). There the situation is closer to Low-Saxon, though. There is a number of different "flavours" of the language, and only one is represented in the sysop structure. When there is a small number of people being able to read and write in the language (or a small number of them has internet access), this may really end up in being a damage to the edition's capability to collect and organize content.
Bèrto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Vilén" andreas.vilen@gmail.com To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP
As Marco Chiesa, I don't see how that argument is relevant... Let them have two wikis, no harm done, right? Let's make information free for more people!
/Andreas On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both official in Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
Mark
On 13/05/06, Andreas Vilén andreas.vilen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either
variety,
however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the alternative style. According to proponents of the official orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they
give
that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with
mixed
dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a
lot of
struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to
have
nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks
are happy
and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left instead of shouting louder.
You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais, Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are writing.
The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in the Breton Wikipedia. Mark
Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.
/Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org