Hi,
As a bystander here I am really, really confused about Zlatiborian!
Now, could someone please translate what Djordje wrote on the sr.wiki. An honest translation. There are reasonable grounds to believe this is a hoax, for a few reasons:
*Djordje's backtracking over this project with statements like "I'm sorry, it was a hoax" *Node's expression of "noble" language, etc, which makes it seem very much like a joke (honestly...) *The most important point - there are NO internet sources on this language. None at all! Surely if this was an actual language, there would be at least one source calling it Zlatiborian.
Node - you said that you have some books on this language, and you seem to know quite a lot about it (vocabulary differences, etc). Are there any sources on the Internet about this? And proof?
In conclusion - I'm not against the Zlatiborian Wikipedia, but I'm really in doubt over whether it actually exists.
I am from Romania, so I know Southeastern Europe quite well, and I can tell you that while I've heard of Zlatibor, I've never heard of a Zlatiborian language before. Languages like Livonian which have 10 speakers get more coverage on the Internet than Zlatiborian - that's what worries me.
And Milos - just because there is a proposal on Zlatiborian doesn't mean it's board-endorsed or anything. I don't think you have reasonable grounds to say that because five users have supported a certain initiative, you will quit Wikipedia or stop the foundation of Wikimedia SCG.
Thanks,
Ronline
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
Hi,
As a bystander here I am really, really confused about Zlatiborian!
Now, could someone please translate what Djordje wrote on the sr.wiki. An honest translation. There are reasonable grounds to believe this is a hoax, for a few reasons:
*Djordje's backtracking over this project with statements like "I'm sorry, it was a hoax" *Node's expression of "noble" language, etc, which makes it seem very much like a joke (honestly...) *The most important point - there are NO internet sources on this language. None at all! Surely if this was an actual language, there would be at least one source calling it Zlatiborian.
Node - you said that you have some books on this language, and you seem to know quite a lot about it (vocabulary differences, etc). Are there any sources on the Internet about this? And proof?
In conclusion - I'm not against the Zlatiborian Wikipedia, but I'm really in doubt over whether it actually exists.
I could share with you some very interesting channel logs from #wikipedia... assuming that the "node_ue" I was talking to was indeed Mark Williamson, and they were being serious, then yes, Zlatiborian is indeed a hoax. That, or... well, I'm almost beyond words.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 11/7/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com wrote:
As a bystander here I am really, really confused about Zlatiborian!
I can explain a little bit of situation here.
For example, relation Moldovan-Romanian is almost the same as relation Montenegrin-Serbian. Except Montenegrins don't have well described standard such Moldovans have. Political situation is almost the same: Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts says that it is the same language as Serbia, but parliament and alternative academy (Duklanian Academy) say that this is different language. Only 22% of Montenegrin inhabitants say that their native language is Montenegrin (around 60% say that their native language is Serbian; others are minorities). So, this is a political question and I am supporting now the article "Montenegrin language" on English Wikipedia (against one Serbian nationalist) as well as I would support existance of Montenegrin Wikipedia (if demand comes before we complete our software).
Linguistic area in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia is divided into four dialects: Torlakian, Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kaykavian. ALL standard languages (including "Zlatiborian", too) are based on the part of Shtokavian dialect called Neo-Shtokavian.
The problem is that there is no Zlatiborian ethnicity/nation. All of that people feel as Serbs, not as anything else. Zlatiborian is only regional attribute.
Now, could someone please translate what Djordje wrote on the sr.wiki. An honest translation. There are reasonable grounds to believe this is a hoax, for a few reasons:
*Djordje's backtracking over this project with statements like "I'm sorry, it was a hoax" *Node's expression of "noble" language, etc, which makes it seem very much like a joke (honestly...) *The most important point - there are NO internet sources on this language. None at all! Surely if this was an actual language, there would be at least one source calling it Zlatiborian.
I said once before that Djordje said that he is "Serbian nationalist and Zlatiborian local-patriot". After the first incident some time ago, he told to us "I wrote [on Serbian Wikipedia] that Zlatiborian is the part of Serbian and I think so". Note that no one asked him to tell so. Also, his relation according to Montenegrin language is hard Serbian nationalist relation.
In conclusion - I'm not against the Zlatiborian Wikipedia, but I'm really in doubt over whether it actually exists.
There are three more language systems on BCS area: Kaykavian, Chakavian and Torlakian. All of them should have Wikipedias in the future because the difference between those language systems are something like differences between Dutch language systems.
And no one from Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have anything against the creation of those Wikipedias.
And Milos - just because there is a proposal on Zlatiborian doesn't mean it's board-endorsed or anything. I don't think you have reasonable grounds to say that because five users have supported a certain initiative, you will quit Wikipedia or stop the foundation of Wikimedia SCG.
This is very serious problem. While even Zlatiborian Wikipedia pass, all of us (from Serbia) know that it is a hoax. But, what about, as I said, Nigerian and Indian villages? We don't know anything about that, but we would have Mark who would believe in one hoax and who is very loud in advocating for that hoax. Scientists, who are our important target in spreading idea of free knowledge would lough and would say that Wikimedia is not relevant project. (i.e. "How many Zlatiborian Wikipedias do you have?")
I see only two solutions: (1) To find enough linguists/anthropologists/sociologists who would check all exotic requests and articles or (2) not to be the formal part of the organization (this means as it is written "not formal part", this doesn't mean that we would stop to work on Wikimedian projects or that we don't want to have any relation with other local chapters and WMF).
In other words: If Wikimedian community can't defend herself from people such as Mark, we don't want to be the formal part of it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Milos Rancic wrote:
On 11/7/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com wrote:
As a bystander here I am really, really confused about Zlatiborian!
I can explain a little bit of situation here.
For example, relation Moldovan-Romanian is almost the same as relation Montenegrin-Serbian. Except Montenegrins don't have well described standard such Moldovans have. Political situation is almost the same: Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts says that it is the same language as Serbia, but parliament and alternative academy (Duklanian Academy) say that this is different language. Only 22% of Montenegrin inhabitants say that their native language is Montenegrin (around 60% say that their native language is Serbian; others are minorities). So, this is a political question and I am supporting now the article "Montenegrin language" on English Wikipedia (against one Serbian nationalist) as well as I would support existance of Montenegrin Wikipedia (if demand comes before we complete our software).
Linguistic area in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia is divided into four dialects: Torlakian, Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kaykavian. ALL standard languages (including "Zlatiborian", too) are based on the part of Shtokavian dialect called Neo-Shtokavian.
The problem is that there is no Zlatiborian ethnicity/nation. All of that people feel as Serbs, not as anything else. Zlatiborian is only regional attribute.
<snip>
So "Zlatiborian" is equivalent to "Londoner", "New Yorker", or "Parisian"?
AND THEY WANT THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA?????!?!!?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 11/7/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So "Zlatiborian" is equivalent to "Londoner", "New Yorker", or "Parisian"?
In general, yes. But a little bit different: (1) I think that there are around 100.000 of inhabitants of Zlatibor area, not 10-20 millions. (2) Also, the difference is also the same as the difference between standard American English and Bosnonian.
Milos Rancic wrote:
For example, relation Moldovan-Romanian is almost the same as relation Montenegrin-Serbian. Except Montenegrins don't have well described standard such Moldovans have. Political situation is almost the same: Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts says that it is the same language as Serbia, but parliament and alternative academy (Duklanian Academy) say that this is different language. Only 22% of Montenegrin inhabitants say that their native language is Montenegrin (around 60% say that their native language is Serbian; others are minorities). So, this is a political question and I am supporting now the article "Montenegrin language" on English Wikipedia (against one Serbian nationalist) as well as I would support existance of Montenegrin Wikipedia (if demand comes before we complete our software).
Well, you can have an article about a language that is not really a language, if a lot of people say that it's a language. One can discuss the cultural implications, the political situation and so.
Gerrit.
Milos Rancic wrote:
I see only two solutions: (1) To find enough linguists/anthropologists/sociologists who would check all exotic requests and articles or (2) not to be the formal part of the organization (this means as it is written "not formal part", this doesn't mean that we would stop to work on Wikimedian projects or that we don't want to have any relation with other local chapters and WMF).
On 1 september I sent the following email to the board: [...] | In the last open board meeting there was a discussion about having a | seed wiki and a committee deciding policies for it. | So, here a proposal how to deal with new language requests (not new | projects) | * community elects a committee of seven people on meta-wiki (one-year term) | * requests for new languages will be submitted to the committee on meta-wiki | * committee will create a catalogue of criterias over time | * they examine the case (check if language or dialect, spread of | language, number of the people willing to work on it, consult | experts) | * they decide, three sorts of decisions are possible: accept, reject in general (because no real language etc.), reject in | this case (not enough support) but can be later again proposed if | conditions have changed | * have a developer create the wiki if approved | | This way, we can maybe get rid of these pending requests: | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages [...] | If the committee does its job well, it could later also get the | competence to filter new project proposals. | Add your suggestions and criticisms and say yes or no. | | I'd be willing to help with the election but I don't have the time | for an extensive community debate and slow process on the | mailinglists and wikis with no decision at all after months.
In the three answers I got, I was refered back to the community and told that the problem will eventuall sort out by creation of the seed wiki.
Now I see that the situation hasn't become better but even worse.
In other words: If Wikimedian community can't defend herself from people such as Mark, we don't want to be the formal part of it.
As officer of the Wikimedia Foundation I can't welcome your decision and would question your competence to speak for the whole of the not yet existing serbian Wikimedia chapter.
As wikipedian who dedicated myself to the creation of a high quality free encyclopedia in as many languages as are _needed_ to make human knowledge accessible to everybody, I can very well understand your feelings.
What shall I tell a journalist who asks the press officer about the zlatiborian language wikipedia? "Eh yes, it's ridiculous, but you see, a few people who don't even speak this city dialect pressured the community into it. Cantonese? Oh yes, the same thing happened. Wikiversity? Ah well, sorry, we're still looking for a concept. There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"? See, people are working on the encyclopedia, there are not enough people to look into the other projects and control them for quality. You found a copyvio on suaheli wikiquote? Sorry, I don't speak suaheli - and the three suaheli speakers in Wikimedia are busy with the encyclopedia. Why are there so many corn field related news on german Wikinews while XY isn't treated? Oh well, now this is a funny story...
Wikimedia has accomplished great things: An encyclopedia, written by common people and volunteers, slowly getting better and better, to the point of being a serious alternative to classical encyclopedias. There are its established sister projects, slowly evolving and becoming useful (btw, the category:philosophy on commons is a mess).
But to maintain and improve this standard of quality requires constant work and attention. New contributors have to be welcomed and taught the "way of the wiki", policy proposals which would result in deteriorating the quality have to be turned down, conflicts between good authors have to be mediated and last but not least over 3 million articles in over 150 languages need to be checked for vandalism and are waiting to be improved and still a lot more are waiting to be written.
I came here in August 2002 to help creating a free encyclopedia. Later I became involved in "meta" affairs - organizing wikipedia booths at conferences, designing promotion material, joining global policy discussions, coordinating cooperations with organisations and companies, dealing with press requests, organizing Wikimania.
If someone wondered lately why there's almost no elian anymore around in Wikimedia affairs, that's why.
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
good bye, elian
Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
Wikimedia has accomplished great things: An encyclopedia, written by common people and volunteers, slowly getting better and better, to the point of being a serious alternative to classical encyclopedias. There are its established sister projects, slowly evolving and becoming useful (btw, the category:philosophy on commons is a mess).
But to maintain and improve this standard of quality requires constant work and attention. New contributors have to be welcomed and taught the "way of the wiki", policy proposals which would result in deteriorating the quality have to be turned down, conflicts between good authors have to be mediated and last but not least over 3 million articles in over 150 languages need to be checked for vandalism and are waiting to be improved and still a lot more are waiting to be written.
Bravo!
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
I'm very sympathetic to all these points. I don't have an easy answer to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't exactly our normal style. I do think we need some serious reform of our language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify every dialect in the world into a standalone language. I do think we need to be much more severe about closing down unwatched spam traps.
And so on...
Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and new-language speculation.
--Jimbo
On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
I respect your opinion, but to me it seemed more like whinging (for lack of a better word) than something very powerful and important.
Bravo!
On that point I will agree with both of you.
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
I'm very sympathetic to all these points. I don't have an easy answer to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't exactly our normal style. I do think we need some serious reform of our language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify every dialect in the world into a standalone language. I do think we need to be much more severe about closing down unwatched spam traps.
It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:
1) Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are: Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these (except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not. Based solely on the standard of mutual intelligibility, it almost makes more sense to merge the Spanish and Portuguese WPs than to say that Riparian is nothing more than a dialect of German and should be shoved into the same Wikipedia. Besides this, there is already a huge test wiki in Riparian. Other so-called "dialects" like Bavarian or Zeelandic are considered by many of their own speakers, as well as a significant number of experts, as independent languages, and they are certainly not easily mutually intelligible (in written form) with the parent language. 2) Language policy. This is already being worked on [[m:Proposed policy for wikis in new languages]] 3) "unwatched spam traps". Would you be kind enough to point me to even one unwatched spam trap? I'm quite offended that the work of myself, Angela, Chamdarae, Mxn, Mustafaa, and others has gone largely unnoticed by you. Thanks to us, the majority of spam and vandalism on so-called "unwatched spam traps" _is_ watched, and is reverted quickly.
Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and new-language speculation.
I think things are working just fine the way they are. Well, not entirely, I agree that some things are dysfunctional, but I think they're only very minor problems and people are already working on them. So, while you see a big fissure across the face of Wikimedia, I see a tiny crack which is already being patched.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
<snip>
It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:
- Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the
Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are: Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these (except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not.
<snip>
So you admit that no expert sources claim that Zlatiborian exists?
HELLO! NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so they have to write out copies manually!
Mark
On 07/11/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
<snip> > > It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things: > > 1) Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the > Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are: > Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these > (except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate > languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not. <snip>
So you admit that no expert sources claim that Zlatiborian exists?
HELLO! NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ2/r1bMAAH8MeUlWAQgPrQf/VC23NOelTh7vX/7P6+565oJRxz2rNtmz EUkc0tOhsfMM+HWX7p8Ygd0toL/EX7i1saLBw6rrFzR735XF8OJ//gikZGU7N9Sq 7lraJ+MYxUUZ1KALcyy2u/loth+ztQI3EawzKNfsRyHulznaTW08hoYZI+ahVvfR bWZjYtk0kS4owTKnkJv7I0VtjagrFkVBL3qANMbbi4XWJzCuNm4cwG8iQH6YK2we VW+Qk9RL1eAulVIJV1zySV0/V4z2YoMVANqnN7TpFRqeCOmY607QuVNa8ZwnZomS 0Ry6HVOSezsS438+45q2objIgWoJtU4u06AO7vpzWtN6oT9kZ6BUXw== =7Nzd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so they have to write out copies manually!
So if there's no printing presses, let alone computers, exactly *who* is going to read this glorious Zlatiborian Wikipedia?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so they have to write out copies manually!
So if there's no printing presses, let alone computers, exactly *who* is going to read this glorious Zlatiborian Wikipedia?
Someone will read printed articles out of that wikipedia I suppose - just like I do for Neapolitan here in the town - I print some pages and pass them to people that know Neapolitan, that love their language and that sooner or later will contribute also passing me hand written stuff to be integrated into wikipedia from which I then give back the printed articles that can be copied etc.
Well: for Neapolitan we have a bunch of online contributors, but for many languages this is not possibile, so why not choose this very particular way of distributing knowledge?
Imagine how it was 35 years ago - I then was 5 years old - and every week I went with my grandpa to the public library to get some new books to read. Well in many countries (today) they don't even have these public libraries, but just a place where someone has material at disposal other people can read (and learn to read with). Imagine even a handmade booklet of wikipedia articles that pass from one person to the other to be read and that there are people out there that are really keen on having information on learning on wanting this. Who are we to say: well if they don't have a computer and internet access "they may not have" their material. Sooner or later they will have internet access - so why not help them to get things earlier? Why not have even only one person as "mediator" to put things online? I know, these wikipedias will grow slowly, but that does not matter at all - it is a start and where there is a start sooner or later there will be people who do work on that and o really great work since it is easy to have an encyclopedia in a language millions speak, but veeeery hard to have one in a language only a few thousand speak - it requires much more work and much more being constantly involved of those few who "can do".
Hmmm ....
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
Alphax wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so they have to write out copies manually!
So if there's no printing presses, let alone computers, exactly *who* is going to read this glorious Zlatiborian Wikipedia?
Why, he of course. :)
Unforunately I'm still learning the glorious language of the beautiful enchanted lands of Zlatibor, so I'd probably not be able to read it. The Zlatiborians who have moved to cities, such as SellackAlex or Djordje, however, will surely read it. ;p
Mark
On 08/11/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so they have to write out copies manually!
So if there's no printing presses, let alone computers, exactly *who* is going to read this glorious Zlatiborian Wikipedia?
Why, he of course. :)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
Unforunately I'm still learning the glorious language of the beautiful enchanted lands of Zlatibor, so I'd probably not be able to read it. The Zlatiborians who have moved to cities, such as SellackAlex or Djordje, however, will surely read it. ;p
I am most curious as to why the lands of Zlatibor are enchanted. Do they have some particularly fine drugs that are not available elsewhere?
- -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Alphax wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Unforunately I'm still learning the glorious language of the beautiful enchanted lands of Zlatibor, so I'd probably not be able to read it. The Zlatiborians who have moved to cities, such as SellackAlex or Djordje, however, will surely read it. ;p
I am most curious as to why the lands of Zlatibor are enchanted. Do they have some particularly fine drugs that are not available elsewhere?
No, but they can magically spring a new, as-yet-unheard-of language into existence (a glorious one, no less), so the lands must be enchanted.
(or they're playing too much Magic: The Gathering) Timwi
Mark Williamson wrote:
It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:
- Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the
The situation we have had on this list over the last year is that (1) there is a constant fighting over new languages and (2) Mark Williamson is constantly involved in these fights, one way or the other. Further, I think that (3) most people find these fights tiresome and should be avoided, (4) except, apparently, for Mark.
I don't know if this is a contributing reason behind Elian's posting, but I personally would want a language policy that helped us never having to hear a single word on new languages ever again. In fact, I'm developing a personal aversion against Mark and anybody who mentions language issues. They are fueling a fire that we ought to put out.
One radical approach could be to completely block new languages, which would make further discussion pointless. Another approach could be to create a new mailing list for language issues, where Mark can have lengthy discussions with himself.
There are a thousand different issues that are crucial to the success of Wikipedia, but that don't have to be debated daily on this mailing list. Why not put language issues among those?
One radical approach could be to completely block new languages, which would make further discussion pointless. Another approach could be to create a new mailing list for language issues, where Mark can have lengthy discussions with himself.
It's quite daft of you to assume that I'm the only person who would subscribe to such a mailing list.
Mind you, such a mailinglist used to exist -- intlwiki-l -- but it was merged into this list. Thus, this list is the proper venue for discussion of internationalisation, localisation, languages, and Wikipedia.
If you don't like discussion of languages here, you're welcome to attempt to get intlwiki-l re-opened.
I suggested it a while back, but dropped the effort when Anthere asked me to.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
2005/11/9, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Mind you, such a mailinglist used to exist -- intlwiki-l -- but it was merged into this list. Thus, this list is the proper venue for discussion of internationalisation, localisation, languages, and Wikipedia.
intlwiki-l was not meant for the discussion of new languages, but for things having to do with several Wikipedia languages, in particular interwiki links. It was split off from this list because people from other wikis did not want to discuss internal issues of en: that much, and merged back into this list because wikien-l had split off.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
I don't know if this is a contributing reason behind Elian's posting, but I personally would want a language policy that helped us never having to hear a single word on new languages ever again. In fact, I'm developing a personal aversion against Mark and anybody who mentions language issues. They are fueling a fire that we ought to put out.
I'm afraid that just because you don't like the topic, is very far from a reason to remove it from this mailing list (whether by radically disallowing it or by creating a new list). You should ideally use a software that allows you to ignore threads you don't like (I do that by simply pressing K - you gotta love Thunderbird).
That said, I agree with you that the "we want a new language Wikipedia" discussions can get tiresome, but I'm quite enjoying the current (Zlatiborian) one because it's a nice source of amusement. I never knew that Mark Williamson had such a sense of humour :)
Timwi
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
I'm very sympathetic to all these points. I don't have an easy answer to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't exactly our normal style. I do think we need some serious reform of our language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify every dialect in the world into a standalone language.
<
Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and new-language speculation.
The current policies strike me as more undefined than open.
It is not easy to start new projects, certainly not those with their own domains; it's not even easy to figure out where and how within the English Wikipedia to nurture an English-language, encyclopedia-focused project.
It is much easier (perhaps too easy, considering how many wikis have zero active users) to start new languages. However it is surprisingly hard to find a list of [other] ways to integrate new language/dialect content into the projects*.
The current bar for starting new domains/languages is low; but the alternative isn't necessarily to turn people away or kick them out of discussions; we can at least start by providing enthusiastic (fanatic?) proposers with better information, clearer guidelines, and one or two wikis that focus on incubation.
One of the prime advantages of both free licensing and wikis is that they allow people to act on impulses, contributing two hours of content while they are passionate about something, before it fades from mind, rather than waiting for days or weeks for others to grant permission. I hope we find ways to encourage this -- perhaps by more clearly distinguishing alpha/beta/reviewed content/projects/languages** -- while also improving quality and consistency at the highest and most public levels.
-- SJ
* e.g., "Just a minor dialect? use this auto-conversion patch to let users choose which dialect they see. A language with little written content, few speakers, or controversial status? Here's a collection of Swadesh lists; starty by adding yours to it... Here's an incubator wiki where you can develop other content in that language... Here's how you can set up your own wiki and raise the issue again once you have 500 articles. A language with millions of literate speakers but no wiki community? Here's where to develop that content at first, where to announce it, and the milestones you need to reach before getting your own domain."
** even users. cf. last week's discussion of anonymity.
It is much easier (perhaps too easy, considering how many wikis have zero active users) to start new languages. However it is surprisingly hard to find a list of [other] ways to integrate new language/dialect content into the projects*.
Actually, it's very difficult nowadays. Yes, some of the recently-created WPs look as if they might be dead for a while, but most look healthy.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Well, I'd initially discarded this reply because I thought it was too long winded to be useful. I see now that the thread is just becoming a language debate, and I don't think that was the intention of Jimbo's post at all.
Perhaps I can scare away the language debate with my excessive volumolonous response.
On 11/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and new-language speculation.
Jimbo, I too have felt some of these feelings: I've encountered some new users, monthlings often, so eager to readdress things I though were finally settled months ago... who stumble in bright faced and excited with proposals about permitting MP3 files or abandoning NPOV, unburdened by the hard-earned knowledge of the depth and complexity of the issue at hand. I've felt the fear that the misguided idea, if left unanswered, will find fertile ground in the minds our newest editors, so great in number, and the resulting frustration with the tired rehashing of the same discussion we had before, knowing full well that in six more months we will do it once again.
...and I've only been watching wikipedia for two years, editing actively only one... I can only imagine what it must be like for long-timers, perhaps frustrated with me for some of the same reasons I have been frustrated by others.
We are not, however, the first community to experience growing pains. What might be somewhat more interesting in our case is that unlike the [[Endless September]] of Usenet is that or difficulty with growth right now stems as much from finding a number of systems which work well for us, and the desire to preserve the value they bring, as it comes from a difficulty in scaling our new user acclimation process to meet the increased influx.
I've seen some good work done to improve the situation; For example, some users have taken on the task of refactoring discussion pages to convert them into material suitable for new users. I believe this work is important and certainly laudable, but I do not think it has had much impact. I fear that the easy and instant gratification of jumping in with 'new' ideas is simply more attractive to most people compared to the alternative of reading up on their subject of interest.
As concerning as the difficulties brought by community growth are, I think we need to consider remedies for these problems with great caution and skepticism. Our user churn rate is fairly high, and I think that this is natural because our needs change from time to time and users adjust their involvement because of personal factors as well as the needs of the project. I fear that if we adjust things so that slowing change becomes an important goal we risk ending up with a community which is primarily concerned with preventing change and enforcing rules, over and above the true goals of the project. It is my firm belief that our strong focus on the goals of the project over all other concerns is the only factor preventing us from being mired in social hierarchies and politics. Just as NPOV allows people of many views to work together on an article, the focus on our goals allows people of many skills sets and modes of interaction to collaborate on the project.
As you pointed out above, everyone's list will be different, and as you allude, we need to address the cause, not the symptoms. However, I think in our look inward we must ask ourselves if we've really done all we can do short of decreasing openness before we take that step, and with every change we make we must ask ourselves: is the frustration we now suffer worth the risk of decreasing our adaptability and the risk of excluding excellent new ideas an contributors.
In the interest of preventing this message from being not terribly useful, here are some points which I am willing to help further, where I think could help with this matter...
*For ideas which don't involve an active conflict with established activities, we should make a greater effort to encourage users to "show us the code". Don't ask everyone to respond to speculation of every "great new idea", just implement it and see what happens.
*As mentioned above, we should continue refactoring old discussions into digested versions, make an effort to direct uninformed users to the pages. When a issue reemerges, leverage the frustration positively by taking the effort to unearth the old discussions rather than allowing yourself to be trapped in another rehashing.
Now, I'm going to go start digging up material on permitted file formats on Wikipedia. :)
Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and new-language speculation.
--Jimbo
I would really support such a move. It will create clarity and will let people move on. Currently it is a big swamp out there.
Walter/Waerth
2.5 hoeren befarre t'genoo maz Elisabeth Bauer haat harr gashriepet inde hier:
On 1 september I sent the following email to the board: [...] | In the last open board meeting there was a discussion about having a | seed wiki and a committee deciding policies for it. | So, here a proposal how to deal with new language requests (not new | projects)
<snip>
| This way, we can maybe get rid of these pending requests: | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
<snip>
Perhaps you should've looked over [[m:Proposed policy for wikis in new languages]]? It's not yet a policy, but hopefully it will be soon.
In the three answers I got, I was refered back to the community and told that the problem will eventuall sort out by creation of the seed wiki.
...
Also, you seem to have not realised the existence of Test-Wikipedias, which so far have proven themselves to be a great way for people to prove the viability of a new Wikipedia.
Now I see that the situation hasn't become better but even worse.
...
As officer of the Wikimedia Foundation I can't welcome your decision and would question your competence to speak for the whole of the not yet existing serbian Wikimedia chapter.
That's actually something I personally didn't mention yet, but I really agree. I wonder how Milos can so quickly articulate the feelings of all Serbian WM'ans.
What shall I tell a journalist who asks the press officer about the zlatiborian language wikipedia? "Eh yes, it's ridiculous, but you see, a few people who don't even speak this city dialect pressured the community into it. Cantonese? Oh yes, the same thing happened.
What is it with you and the word "dialect"? Cantonese is spoken over millions of square kilometres, encompassing multiple provinces, not just a single city. Perhaps Koelsch, or Hamburgisch, or whatever, is the dialect of a city, but Cantonese isn't. And Zlatiborian is a very rural language -- there are no cities located in Zlatibor, just villages and small towns.
Wikiversity? Ah well, sorry, we're still looking for a concept. There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"? See, people are working on the encyclopedia, there are not enough people to look into the other projects and control them for quality. You found a
Actually, Wikibooks does have its own process for deletion, and I believe somebody nominated that very manual. It was not deleted, I do not believe, but at least there is a process that it went through.
copyvio on suaheli wikiquote? Sorry, I don't speak suaheli - and the three suaheli speakers in Wikimedia are busy with the encyclopedia. Why
Uhh... wtf? That's what SWMT is for. Yes, admittedly a copyvio may be difficult to catch if it's written in a language we don't understand, but we catch most of the vandalism, spam, etc. that rolls through.
are there so many corn field related news on german Wikinews while XY isn't treated? Oh well, now this is a funny story...
I've not heard that story... sounds amusing though.
Wikimedia has accomplished great things: An encyclopedia, written by common people and volunteers, slowly getting better and better, to the point of being a serious alternative to classical encyclopedias. There are its established sister projects, slowly evolving and becoming useful (btw, the category:philosophy on commons is a mess).
<snip>
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
So, you think that we should close down the Alemannisch and Platt WPs because all of those people speak Hochdeutsch? What about the Catalan, Basque, Galician, Asturian, and Aragonese WPs? Don't those people speak Spanish, French, or Portuguese as well? What about Occitan, Breton, Corsican, Walloon? Can't they speak French? Or Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Manx, Welsh, and Cornish? Can't they speak English?
These Wikipedias have all been around for a very long time. Their existence set a precedent of sorts -- now people don't think twice about minority languages.
You had the chance to oppose those when they were created, and you didn't, or if you did, not enough other people did to keep them from creation. For you to run around complaining about it now is a little bit late.
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've
And where are these unwatched spam traps???
settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
...
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Mark Williamson schrieb:
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
So, you think that we should close down the Alemannisch and Platt WPs because all of those people speak Hochdeutsch? What about the Catalan, Basque, Galician, Asturian, and Aragonese WPs? Don't those people speak Spanish, French, or Portuguese as well? What about Occitan, Breton, Corsican, Walloon? Can't they speak French? Or Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Manx, Welsh, and Cornish? Can't they speak English?
Just this point: I think what Elian wanted to say is that we should have a real clear policy for the creation of new language WPs - NOW. But this policy would not collide with language/dialect WPs already existing: those editions of WP will not be closed down. The idea is to prevent WP becoming a project to keep endangered languages "alive". We are (or better we want to be) a project trying to set up an encyclopedia everyone can access and understand and nothing else. We have to stop stupid creating of new Wikipedias which will surely never be filled enough to be accepted as encyclopedias. Acting like this only comsumes power of many people which would better be concentrated on more important things in our all day Wikipedia life...
This is how I understood Elian's message and - as well - my own opinion.
rdb
those editions of WP will not be closed down. The idea is to prevent WP becoming a project to keep endangered languages "alive". We are (or
I don't see what's wrong with that. I mean, it should never be our primary goal, but it's always been something that we've been a part of. Well, not *always*, but we have so many WPs in endangered languages already. As I said, that set a precedent.
better we want to be) a project trying to set up an encyclopedia everyone can access and understand and nothing else. We have to stop stupid creating of new Wikipedias which will surely never be filled enough to be accepted as encyclopedias. Acting like this only comsumes
That's the point of eventualism. Somebody might say that the Sicilian WP will "never be filled enough to be accepted as [an] encyclopedia[...]". But it's still growing. Why not worry about it when such Wikipedias explode, or stop growing, or whatever?
power of many people which would better be concentrated on more important things in our all day Wikipedia life...
Uhh... shouldn't people have a choice? I, for one, work much less on en.wiki than other languages Wikipedias. And this is by my choice. If those other Wikipedias didn't exist, I wouldn't use that time on en.wiki, but non-Wiki-related things.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Raphael Wiegand wrote:
Just this point: I think what Elian wanted to say is that we should have a real clear policy for the creation of new language WPs - NOW. But this policy would not collide with language/dialect WPs already existing: those editions of WP will not be closed down.
That's right. One trap we don't need to fall into is the assumption that because we've made mistakes in the past, we have to either keep making mistakes in the future *or* delete our past mistakes, all in the name of consistency. We don't actually have to be consistent to the last decimal place, although a certain degree of consistency is of course desirable.
The idea is to prevent WP becoming a project to keep endangered languages "alive".
Yes, and there's more than that. My concern is that we are getting to the point where it isn't just about keeping endangered languages alive (I don't have a particular problem with that) but where we are risking dividing up perfectly sensible communities with bogus distinctions between "languages" that actually do not differ more than American and British English.
I want to use a hypothetical example so as to avoid the risk of speaking ignorantly on any particular case. There is no need for a Wikipedia to save the "Bostonian" language, because there is no such language. There is, most likely, a Bostonian _accent_, or perhaps (if we are generous) a Bostonian _dialect_, but there is no Bostonian _language_.
This is particularly true if we are speaking of formal written Bostonian, the written language of the people of Boston. It might be hard for me to understand the slang of some cabdrivers and bartenders in Boston, but I can read their newspapers just fine.
The nice thing about this example, of course, is that no one is clamoring for political reasons that Bostonian is a separate language. But in some parts of the world, there are deep political divisions which, for reasons that are very hard for the rest of the world to fully comprehend, lead people to champion what are absolutely not separate spoken or written languages as being separate languages.
That's bad.
--Jimbo
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
If someone wondered lately why there's almost no elian anymore around in Wikimedia affairs, that's why.
I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which is nor Bavarian, neither Münchnerisch although I am from this region and city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic). There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us already as better than brockhaus.
Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are serious about this human knowledge thing.
good bye, elia n
Hmmmmm. Well, while I echo your sentiments up to a certain point, I also think you are amongst those who put her feet in the sand and stay anchored in the real very much. You are of unvaluable help for all these press things, the documentation and presence at conferences and so on. So, certainly, you going away is not helping and rather giving more power to those who are more "dispersed" than you are.
This said, we need all types of people, the dreamers and irrealistic ones as well, as they also have strikes of wisdom sometimes :-)
(pretty tired) Anthere
PS : a comment about the checkuser policy. Afaik, it is done. I asked comments a week ago, and though Taw has not removed the fact he thought it "terribly dangerous", I read no real opposition to it and several supports.
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"?
What's wrong with it? Do you mean that the book is not mature yet or is there something (?) inheritently wrong with having a book on the subject? The only thing I can see is 'no original research', but then I wonder if this would be called research at all. It survived a deletion vote. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_survival_guide_for_people_on_the_autistic_spe... is similar but just not yet started. What's the problem?
Gerrit.
Gerrit Holl wrote:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"?
What's wrong with it? Do you mean that the book is not mature yet or is there something (?) inheritently wrong with having a book on the subject? The only thing I can see is 'no original research', but then I wonder if this would be called research at all. It survived a deletion vote.
It did? Good grief. I'm going to delete it myself, then.
It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks and takes the project in a completely wrong direction. Wikibooks is not the place for any random concept of a book that people may have. It is a place for _textbooks_, and the defining rule needs to be the ability to point to a specific course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, high school, or university level in which such a _textbook_ is _currently_ used.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_survival_guide_for_people_on_the_autistic_spe... is similar but just not yet started. What's the problem?
It is not a textbook.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It did? Good grief. I'm going to delete it myself, then.
It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks
Who decides that charter? Would you delete it even if the majority of the Wikibooks community disagreed with you?
I don't understand the point in limiting the scope of Wikibooks this artificially. As if anything that is a book but not a textbook is somehow less useful.
Timwi
I don't have much experience on WikiBooks, but wasn't this what Wikibooks was founded for?
Besides, how would you cite anything for something like the books mentioned?
On 11/13/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It did? Good grief. I'm going to delete it myself, then.
It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks
Who decides that charter? Would you delete it even if the majority of the Wikibooks community disagreed with you?
I don't understand the point in limiting the scope of Wikibooks this artificially. As if anything that is a book but not a textbook is somehow less useful.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
Ilya N. wrote:
I don't have much experience on WikiBooks, but wasn't this what Wikibooks was founded for?
I don't agree that the original planned purpose of Wikibooks must necessarily limit its scope forever. Besides, the very name "Wikibooks" is far too suggestive to stop people in the long-run from using it for the creation of books-that-aren't-textbooks (non-text books?).
Besides, what is a textbook, anyway? If the "guidelines for people on the autistic spectrum" book is not allowed, why is the "Lucid Dreaming" book allowed? What does 'allowed' mean, anyway, given that it survived a community discussion on deletion?
Besides, how would you cite anything for something like the books mentioned?
There are plenty of potential citations available for books on autism. As for the "how to get a girl", there's always psychological studies you can cite -- but then again, do you even need cites for such a book?
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Besides, how would you cite anything for something like the books mentioned?
There are plenty of potential citations available for books on autism. As for the "how to get a girl", there's always psychological studies you can cite -- but then again, do you even need cites for such a book?
And what about [1]? It has been very useful for me, but a "textbook"? Not really. A book on "how to get a girl" could cite http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html, a publication by the Social Issues Research Centre. I find it a strange decision to allow only 'textbooks', no other educational books.
[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bicycles/Maintenance_and_Repair/Wheels_and_Tire...
Gerrit.
--- Gerrit Holl gerrit@nl.linux.org wrote:
And what about [1]? It has been very useful for me, but a "textbook"? Not really. A book on "how to get a girl" could cite http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html, a publication by the Social Issues Research Centre. I find it a strange decision to allow only 'textbooks', no other educational books.
[1]
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bicycles/Maintenance_and_Repair/Wheels_and_Tire...
While not commenting on the merit of the "how to get a girl" Wikibook, I'd just like to say, as a co-founder of Wikibooks, that I never intended Wikibooks to only have what would classically be seen as textbooks (although that was the focus).
Manuals, self-help guides, and even longer format reference books that are so popular in bookstores (such as a 200+ page biography about Napoleon) should, IMO, also be welcome. I also don't see how having those type of works on Wikibooks is in any way inconsistent with the foundation's goals.
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
While not commenting on the merit of the "how to get a girl" Wikibook, I'd just like to say, as a co-founder of Wikibooks, that I never intended Wikibooks to only have what would classically be seen as textbooks (although that was the focus).
Manuals, self-help guides, and even longer format reference books that are so popular in bookstores (such as a 200+ page biography about Napoleon) should, IMO, also be welcome. I also don't see how having those type of works on Wikibooks is in any way inconsistent with the foundation's goals.
The problem is that among the Wikibooks community there seems to be a lot of consensus in keeping only the academic textbooks and moving everything else to Wikicities: a book on Star Trek would probably be deleted as someone will say it is better suited to Memory Alpha, or a game guide on Gameinfo. A lot of folks in the Wikibooks community also like to adopt a version of Google's AdSense policies in trying to make the 'books more like the 'cities. This is one of the reasons why I've left the Wikibooks community (the other is the lack of something that combines wiki-editability with a relational database paradigm).
Also to be noticed is how community consensus is very difficult on Wikibooks: after all, why are we discussing what is and what is not appropriate on Wikibooks. The Wikibooks community has tried many ways to keep everything in order: [[WB:NP]], [[WB:CCO]], among others - it's just that none of them are flying (then again, there was a time when WB had no active admins, either...).
On the subject of [[WB:NP]], not a lot are agreeing to it because of limitations in the MediaWiki software itself: NP uses a hierarchy to organize book structure, but that leads to long pages and long links, and in many cases links are only within a book. Furthermore, a lot of users currently object to template and category naming conventions, as well as "book shortcut" names (say, C for [[Cookbook]]). Also, how a book is defined has come into dispute: some call [[Programming]] a book and [[Programming:C plus plus]] a chapter in a book, while others say [[Programming:C plus plus]] is a book and [[Programming]] a bookshelf (the debacle in which I was involved led contributors to [[Programming:Ada]] move the entire book to [[Ada programming]].
Then there's the debacle on what goes where - the material in [[Biography of Nikola Tesla]] was moved to WB as WP editors feel it didn't belong there, while it was deleted and undeleted over whether a biography was considered to be instructional material (or at least, belonging to WP rather than WB).
In short, Wikibooks has a really big problem of being vaguely defined, or defined in such a way that there are many interpretations of what to include in Wikibooks.
On 11/12/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks and takes the project in a completely wrong direction. Wikibooks is not the place for any random concept of a book that people may have. It is a place for _textbooks_, and the defining rule needs to be the ability to point to a specific course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, high school, or university level in which such a _textbook_ is _currently_ used.
Are those truly the criteria? Then I suggest the whip should be cracked soon on Wikibooks and these criteria enforced, for a quick glance at the site (which I haven't paid much attention to before) suggests that there are many, many projects there now which do not fit them. I did a quick scan through "Random module" and "Recent changes", and could find only a few projects which fit the cited criteria.
== Clearly acceptable == [[A Neutral Look at Operating Systems]] [[Consciousness studies]] [[Radiation Oncology]] [[Set Theory]] [[Turkish]]
== Somewhat dubious == [[Bartending]] [[Cookbook]] [[Guide to X11]] [[Linux for Newbies]] [[Mac OS X Tiger]] [[Serial Programming:Modems and AT Commands]] [[Programming XML]]
I don't deny that these are useful, but I don't think you're going to find high-school or university courses in bartending, cooking, or in very specific technologies. A university computer science curriculum will have courses in operating systems, sure, but no one I've ever heard of has courses in MacOS or Linux specifically.
I think these pages are useful, but I don't agree that they fit the criteria of "textbook for a course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, high school, or university level". However, I'd guess that community colleges would offer courses in all of this stuff. Should "community college" be included in the list as well?
== Should be on Wikisource == [[SA NCS]] [[The Tragedy of Macbeth]]
== Almost certainly unacceptable == [[Conplanet]] [[Conworld]] As far as I can see, everything in [[Category:Games]] Everything in [[Category:Humor]] [[Self-harm]]
There seem to be an absolutely huge number of game manuals of various kinds (computer games, role-playing games, collectible card games), which go into incredible detail: [[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]] even includes a guide on dating strategies for the game's romantic subplot.
Steve
On 11/13/05, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
== Somewhat dubious == [[Bartending]] [[Cookbook]] [[Guide to X11]] [[Linux for Newbies]] [[Mac OS X Tiger]] [[Serial Programming:Modems and AT Commands]] [[Programming XML]]
I don't deny that these are useful, but I don't think you're going to find high-school or university courses in bartending, cooking, or in very specific technologies. A university computer science curriculum will have courses in operating systems, sure, but no one I've ever heard of has courses in MacOS or Linux specifically.
I think these pages are useful, but I don't agree that they fit the criteria of "textbook for a course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, high school, or university level". However, I'd guess that community colleges would offer courses in all of this stuff. Should "community college" be included in the list as well?
These all seem clearly appropriate to Wikibooks to me (although I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Wikibooks inclusion policy). All of these "somewhat dubious" books are useful handbooks, and would be used by many courses, if not high school/university ones. In fact, one of my ideas for wikiversity (in whatever form it takes) is to support these types of courses (including a MediaWiki developer course) which could easily interface with these books. Or, of course, if Wikiversity remains on Wikibooks, it could centre around *the writing of these books*.
Cormac
On 11/13/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks and takes the project in a completely wrong direction. Wikibooks is not the place for any random concept of a book that people may have. It is a place for _textbooks_, and the defining rule needs to be the ability to point to a specific course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, high school, or university level in which such a _textbook_ is _currently_ used.
I don't know how firmly this policy is followed; there have been ongoing debates on this point for a while, and the policy could be clearer. There are arguments to be made for having scholarly or practical texts which are not in standard 'textbook' format, including instruction-manuals for software and tools, biographies, other book-length treatments of specific subjects (there is no place for "Macropedia" style articles in WP at the moment), &c. There are also arguments against these inclusions, and we should have these arguments, and perhaps discuss projects that could supplement a textbook-only wikibooks.
The case you mention, however, is not a random idea for a book; the subject is repesented by courses in many continuing/community education programs, in courses on dating - sometimes specifically for a narrow audience (specific gender or age). There are a handful of such courses going on around Boston at any given moment.
Some random googlable examples : The whole "Skills with Dating" course set at (Fondation Course, Intro workshop, 'for Teens and their Parents') at Strathfield CC in Oz, semanticist Steve Stockdale's "lucid dating" classes at SMU, ... in Boston: http://www.bcae.org/SearchECat?Open&Query=dating http://www.ccae.org/catalog/courses/course_details.php?id=524452
Not to mention all of the self-help and life-improvement courses one can take outside of universities, complete with dozens of sessions and texts and audiotapes.
Is this a naming issue? Would you feel better if the "How to get a date" wikibooks were renamed to "Dating skills", or became a section of longer books with titles such as "Developing healthy relationships"?
I can't say what kinds of texts these courses should use if any; most courses use the teacher's class notes because they're cheaper. Of course having access to a good free textbook might change that...
SJ
On 11/7/05, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
As officer of the Wikimedia Foundation I can't welcome your decision and would question your competence to speak for the whole of the not yet existing serbian Wikimedia chapter.
I think that I made clear distinction between "we" and "I", even my words as "I" have also almost 100% support of the community / members of the chapter which would be created in the couple of weeks. (It can be checked, of course.)
On 1 september I sent the following email to the board: [...] | In the last open board meeting there was a discussion about having a | seed wiki and a committee deciding policies for it. | So, here a proposal how to deal with new language requests (not new | projects) | * community elects a committee of seven people on meta-wiki (one-year term) | * requests for new languages will be submitted to the committee on meta-wiki | * committee will create a catalogue of criterias over time | * they examine the case (check if language or dialect, spread of | language, number of the people willing to work on it, consult | experts) | * they decide, three sorts of decisions are possible: accept, reject in general (because no real language etc.), reject in | this case (not enough support) but can be later again proposed if | conditions have changed | * have a developer create the wiki if approved | | This way, we can maybe get rid of these pending requests: | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages [...] | If the committee does its job well, it could later also get the | competence to filter new project proposals. | Add your suggestions and criticisms and say yes or no. | | I'd be willing to help with the election but I don't have the time | for an extensive community debate and slow process on the | mailinglists and wikis with no decision at all after months.
I am completely for this proposal. And this is the way how to solve this kind of problems. We can talk about details (How the community would control this council? -- I think that members of council should have linguistic/anthropological/ethnological/sociological education or at least that they are introduced into linguistic/ethnological problems very well and that they are reliable persons. -- etc.).
And I would like to see that we started to implement this proposal. A lot of important proposals are dead only because of inactivity or a lack of will to finish it. (I have one which is on stand by, but it is not important as this one is [small letters at wikilinks].) So, I am ready to help.
Do we need Bord action or we can just start with it on Meta?
As wikipedian who dedicated myself to the creation of a high quality free encyclopedia in as many languages as are _needed_ to make human knowledge accessible to everybody, I can very well understand your feelings.
Thank you. Before your email I felt like to talk with a wall.
What shall I tell a journalist who asks the press officer about the zlatiborian language wikipedia? "Eh yes, it's ridiculous, but you see, a few people who don't even speak this city dialect pressured the community into it. Cantonese? Oh yes, the same thing happened. Wikiversity? Ah well, sorry, we're still looking for a concept. There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"? See, people are working on the encyclopedia, there are not enough people to look into the other projects and control them for quality. You found a copyvio on suaheli wikiquote? Sorry, I don't speak suaheli - and the three suaheli speakers in Wikimedia are busy with the encyclopedia. Why are there so many corn field related news on german Wikinews while XY isn't treated? Oh well, now this is a funny story...
There is big difference between new Wikipedias and articles. While articles can be POV without marking it (I know for a lot of examples on English Wikipedia) because it is the part of process of building knowledge using wiki -- completely different story are (new) languages and (new) language communities on Wikipedia.
I agree with Gerrit about "How to get a girl/boy manual". While I didn't read this wikibook, I can say that such kind of manuals can be very useful in emotional development of young persons and this is "knowledge about life" and it should be free, too. (Of course, I would like to see some psychologist to work on such manuals.
Completely other question are Wikipedias on new languages. And there are two different cases:
1. The first case is the most often: Some language is not welcomed by some community because of some political reason. And inside of this case there are two sub-cases:
1.a. Language/dialect is really different then standard (or majority) language is and there are enough people who want to work on this Wikipedia. I think that in such cases we should not look at any political reason which "rationally" tries to describe that it is "the same language" etc. (In the case that Mark is right about Cantonese -- it can be the example.)
1.b. Language/dialect has very small differences with standard (or majority) language and there are enough people who want to work on such Wikipedia. As the classic example of such situation is my language area, I can say that we should work very carefully on this kind of cases. A lot of irrational feelings are inside of the "language confrontation" and we should work carefully and slowly.
Potential ask for Montenegrin Wikipedia is the case.
If we don't have usable conversion software for such case (as we don't have in this moment) and that there are Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, I think that Montenegrins should have their own Wikipedia.
If we have usable conversion software (and I think that we would have it in the next couple of months), I think that Montenegrins should: (1) choose "a friendly Wikipedia" (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian or Serbo-Croatian), (2) to implement differences between the main language and Montenegrin standard in the software, (3) to get the code (for example, "cg" if it is not exist) and to have their own language Wikipedia as the option from "a friendly Wikipedia" and as default option from their own domain. (4) This means that Montenegrin and "a friendly Wikipedia" would be the same one with two skins.
2. Zlatiborian is the second case. The story about it is a clear hoax because Zlatiborian is not even a dialect, but sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-dialect (Shtokavian->Neo-Shtokavian->Eastern Herzegovian->Western Serbian->Zlatiborian) and there are no people who feel like Zlatiborians in ethnic/national sense. (... bla, bla, bla...)
Council should be the most important body in such cases. While there are a number of Serbian Wikipedians (as well as Croatian who are well introduced in the situation), there is reasonable possibility to find ethnicity with a couple of millions of speakers which is not so well known (as well as a thousands of smaller). In such cases council should elaborate (using expert knowledge, literature, maybe even to go to the area in the future) with the clear answer to the community is it a hoax or not.
... If someone wondered lately why there's almost no elian anymore around in Wikimedia affairs, that's why. ...
Social relations are not easy. Especially in the large community such Wikimedian is. I think that there are enough people who want to improve Wikimedian projects from the roots.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org