Direct contribution is indeed very important, but I think supporting endangered languages is something we can do without too much pain and is something that should be done.
As to the 250 Wikipedias are better than 40 argument, what I was referring to is the fact that what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias - one of the things that sets is apart - is that it is available in so many languages, many of which don't normally receive Internet exposure. I find it amazing that there's a Wikipedia in Voro, or that there's a Wikipedia in so many Filipino languages, or in Breton, or in Cornish!
Of course, having a Wikipedia in dialects or accents shouldn't be done at all. The things that's worrying me is that people are now starting to say that as long as we reach all people with the languages we've got, that's OK. In Europe, if you have a Wikipedia in every national language, you've reached 99.99% of people. But is that the climate we want at Wikipedia?
That's why I say that for every new proposal, we need concensus on whether that proposal is a language, but nothing else - none of this "is it necessary?" business, which I think sets a dangerous precent. The Low Saxon Wikipedia is useful, the Frisian Wikipedia is useful, the Voro Wikipedia is useful. All of these Wikipedias should stay and similar cases should be approved in the future.
As I said before, there's a difference with proposals such as Zlatiborian, "Bostonian", etc. In fact, I am also against languages being renamed for political reasons, like Moldovan, Montenegrin, etc. I'm also not particularly favourable to projects like Bavarian, etc. *However*, as long as we force speakers of legitimate regional languages like Samogitian, Vlax Romany, Megleno-Romanian, Sorbian, etc, that haven't yet got a Wikipedia, to go through an over-rigorous proposal phase, we're going too far.
I think most of us here are smart enough to distinguish before languages which are never mentioned on the internet and have no written standard - and are therefore "invented" by the person who proposes them - and legitimate minority languages that need all the help we can get (if for every paragraph typed arguing about the Zlatiborian hoax someone wrote one template-based article at the Voro Wikipedia, we would have had about 40 articles extra and helped save a wonderful part of Europe's lingustic heritage...)
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
On 11/8/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com wrote
I find it amazing that there's a Wikipedia in Voro, or that there's a Wikipedia in so many Filipino languages, or in Breton, or in Cornish!
Yep :)
*However*, as long as we force speakers of legitimate regional languages like Samogitian, Vlax Romany, Megleno-Romanian, Sorbian, etc, that haven't yet got a Wikipedia, to go through an over-rigorous proposal phase, we're going too far.
Don't "force" them -- just give them a place where they can create all the content they want, whether or not they have met key milestones. This is compatible with requiring certain levels of activity and content before creating a new language domain. I don't see any contributors saying "I really want to start a Sorbian project, but I will ONLY DO SO on a new domain..."
Similarly, I think one can distinguish between, say, Armenian and Tokipona projects -- even in a very visible and obvious way -- without too much elitism, 'isolation', or hard feelings.
SJ
Only native speakers could say they don't want real wikipedia. If were would be wikipedia in someplace (without domain) I don't think there will be so enthusiastic people. (I speak about my nation - Samogitians). Sure, it will be better then nothing, but again we will feel disadvantage - we are small and others don't care... :( Arns Udovičė
2005/11/8, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com:
Don't "force" them -- just give them a place where they can create all the content they want, whether or not they have met key milestones. This is compatible with requiring certain levels of activity and content before creating a new language domain. I don't see any contributors saying "I really want to start a Sorbian project, but I will ONLY DO SO on a new domain..."
Similarly, I think one can distinguish between, say, Armenian and Tokipona projects -- even in a very visible and obvious way -- without too much elitism, 'isolation', or hard feelings.
SJ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk :)
2005/11/8, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com:
As to the 250 Wikipedias are better than 40 argument, what I was referring to is the fact that what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias - one of the things that sets is apart - is that it is available in so many languages, many of which don't normally receive Internet exposure. I find it amazing that there's a Wikipedia in Voro, or that there's a Wikipedia in so many Filipino languages, or in Breton, or in Cornish!
I don't disagree with you at that point. I'm certainly happy that those exist (although the Bretons have given me some headaches in the interwikis...). I do however think that that is not an argument to just open the door to anyone who thinks he knows some nice language to add. But it seems we're much closer on this than appears from our correspondence to now.
To go into more constructive writing: I think that the major problem at the moment is not that we are accepting too much (although I do think it's a good thing that we got rid of Tokipona, I also think it would not get through at the current time), nor that we are accepting too little (although there are a few proposals that I think would better have been accepted), but that the procedure as such is too long and unclear. I think there should be a person or group of people who have the power to make the decisions, and that when a request has come in, there will be a certain small amount of time (let's say 2 weeks) after which either a Wikipedia has been created, the proposal rejected or the submitter been asked told what is lacking to get it accepted.
That's why I say that for every new proposal, we need concensus on whether that proposal is a language, but nothing else - none of this "is it necessary?" business, which I think sets a dangerous precent. The Low Saxon Wikipedia is useful, the Frisian Wikipedia is useful, the Voro Wikipedia is useful. All of these Wikipedias should stay and similar cases should be approved in the future.
I agree that these Wikipedias should be accepted, but I don't agree that being a language should be the only point of decision. I have in the past made exceptions for conlangs (in my opinion a Wikipedia should be set up in a language to provide information to people using that language, not the mere fun of writing or reading in that language) and dead languages (same reason). Here we see languages that can be considered dialects of another language as an exception. There have also been worries about languages that are so small that they are unlikely to get a real userbase. Finally, minority languages also often suffer from not having a defined orthography.
I guess that none of these would be a no-no for all languages in the category, but I do guess that one could raise the bar for some of these - not allowing them to start at the insistence of a single person, but going ahead if there is a group of prospective contributors.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 08/11/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com wrote:
As I said before, there's a difference with proposals such as Zlatiborian, "Bostonian", etc. In fact, I am also against languages being renamed for political reasons, like Moldovan, Montenegrin, etc. I'm also not particularly favourable to projects like Bavarian, etc. *However*, as long as we force speakers of legitimate regional languages like Samogitian, Vlax Romany, Megleno-Romanian, Sorbian, etc, that haven't yet got a Wikipedia, to go through an over-rigorous proposal phase, we're going too far.
Now, obviously you knew I'd respond to this paragraph.
First of all, in all seriousness, Zlatiborian is different from standard Serbian, but definitely not so much that it should really have its own Wikipedia. I do think that in all seriousness it probably deserves one more than Bosnian and possibly more than Croatian due to its uniqueness in some key areas, but I think it's unlikely that a Zlatiborian WP would ever exist, and it seems largely unnessecary.
Now, I have thought for a long time about the Moldovan Wikipedia. I think that it would be a positive thing to eventually have a Wikipedia in real Moldovan, as real Moldovans speak it in the suburbs of Chisinau, because such a Wikipedia would be uniquely Moldovan and not understandable to Russians or Romanians either. It would use Moldovan popular orthography used informally by young people, not Romanian alphabet or Cyrillic alphabet.
But so far this language has been almost never used in literature. It is still confined to conversation, e-mail, SMS. So I think that it's not really feasible or nessecary now. But perhaps in the future, there will be a Wikipedia that can be uniquely Moldovan without being the black sheep of the Wikipedia family for political reasons.
Also, Montenegrin has real differences to Serbian. It's not like Moldovan -- it's actually different to Serbian, instead of calling the same language by a different name.
Bavarian is actually a legitimate minority language of Bavaria, in Germany and Austria.
I think most of us here are smart enough to distinguish before languages which are never mentioned on the internet and have no written standard - and are therefore "invented" by the person who proposes them - and legitimate minority languages that need all the help we can get (if for every paragraph typed arguing about the Zlatiborian hoax someone wrote one template-based article at the Voro Wikipedia, we would have had about 40 articles extra and helped save a wonderful part of Europe's lingustic heritage...)
You can actually write a bot to do that.
Cheers Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org