... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely wasn't a very intelligent approach, for it left us with quite a number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are heaps of requests that have been discussed very thoroughly by the community (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages). Some of them are pretty well-qualified and supported by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set up for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was hard for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I made a separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages). Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 % unequivocal (at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native speakers, ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I then also mailed to wikitech-I asking for the creation of the Neapolitan WP (in which I have no personal interest whatsoever), just to start with the one that seems to have the highest number of editors waiting to get started. I got only one reply and that one was not really helpful.
A few days ago, user ILVI filed his request for the installation of the Ladino Wikipedia (another one that qualifies without any doubt) at wikitech-l. He got no reply at all.
Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know that our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK unpaid, too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if somebody has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't lose too many potential new contributors)?
Regards,
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hi Arbeo,
I then also mailed to wikitech-I asking for the creation of the Neapolitan WP (in which I have no personal interest whatsoever), just to start with the one that seems to have the highest number of editors waiting to get started. I got only one reply and that one was not really helpful.
Thank you for having done this - I was so down under with work these days that I really was not able to care about this. Anyway: just today on the Napulitano mailing list, where we talk about Neapolitan, the wikipedia etc. I received the question by a list member that is not even among the supporters (at least as much as I know - if he hides behind one of the names I don't know well, that's another thingie).
So yes, we very much want it - I have the first part of terms in Neapolitan for the UI.
So I hope that is is going to be created soon, since all of us can then start to contribute - and even if everyone of us makes just one edit a day we will reach our goal :-) normally people get addicted and so one edit a day is really just an example :-)
A few days ago, user ILVI filed his request for the installation of the Ladino Wikipedia (another one that qualifies without any doubt) at wikitech-l. He got no reply at all.
Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know that our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK unpaid, too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if somebody has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't lose too many potential new contributors)?
Well, installing a wiki is not soooo difficult - and I would say that it makes more sense to install some wikis at a time instead of doing one at a time. I suppose it is easier for them to do it in one rush instead of creating one new wiki at a time and that they are waiting to reach a certain number. Really I don't know.
Unfortunately I myself don't have the time to do that - otherwise I'd just say: give me the access data and show me one time what needs to be changed manually in the configuration and I just install them - but maybe we can find a helping hand that just cares about such things? - Really I don't even know if that is possible ... just take someone, teach how to do things and let them do ... this is something to be asked for.
Thanks again for asking for Neapolitan :-)
Ciao, Sabine
___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely wasn't a very intelligent approach, for it left us with quite a number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are heaps of requests that have been discussed very thoroughly by the community (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages). Some of them are pretty well-qualified and supported by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set up for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was hard for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I made a separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages). Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 % unequivocal (at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native speakers, ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
[...] Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know that our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK unpaid, too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if somebody has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Arbeo M wrote:
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
It's sad that a tech savvy person can't devise a bot to automatically place a no vote whenever any of these questions come up. :-)
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors.
An interesting and important point! That some action will drive away editors is a classic argument around here. Certainly some who consistently lose votes will be driven away. (Is that so bad?) Whether that harms the overall project is a matter of speculation, since no-one has over provided evidence to back that up.
I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
If we spend all our time making sure that we have expressed ourselves on every vote nothing else would be accomplished. Therein lies the biggest problem in any voting process.
I was just wondering if somebody has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't lose too many potential new contributors)?
The way some people around here read rules that would soon be taken as meaning that one new WP per month would be mandatory.
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
There will be very few wet eyes in the crowd.
Ec
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au schrieb:
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
Hi Tim!
This is a very definite answer. Thanks for talking straight!
If this the current attitude of Wikipedia's decision-makers on the issue I'll accept it, of course. However, I think the fact that Wikipedias for new languages are created solely upon requests from Wikimedia board members needs to be annouced to the "general public". Because, at the moment, most users don`t seem to be aware of this fact (at least I wasn't as yet). Several pages like e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia still create a very different impression, i. e. that you _can_ actually have a new WP in your language if you request it, find supporters, convince the community etc. Given the reality you just informed me about, that's quite misleading. I guess we should change those pages so they don't cause people to put a lot of time and effort into projects that don't have a change of success.
Regards,
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Tim, we're not talking about dead languages or conlangs.
We're talking about languages that are spoken by real, tangible people as their everyday native language, and which have at least 5 supporters, native speaker support, and no oposition at all.
Specifically, now people are waiting for Ladino, Waray-Waray, and Neapolitan. You can look any of them up on Ethnologue if you like. Waray-Waray and Neapolitan have millions of speakers; Ladino has at least tens of thousands but might have more.
These requests have many supporters, native speaker support (especially in the case of Ladino and Neapolitan, where heaps of native speakers dropped by to show their support), and no opposition.
Mark
On 24/09/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely wasn't a very intelligent approach, for it left us with quite a number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are heaps of requests that have been discussed very thoroughly by the community (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages). Some of them are pretty well-qualified and supported by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set up for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was hard for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I made a separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages). Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 % unequivocal (at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native speakers, ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
[...] Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know that our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK unpaid, too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if somebody has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them.
Some while ago I stopped creating wikis except by an explicit request from a board member since several cases have ended up being later canceled entirely on Jimbo's order (Toki Pona) or at least turned out to be quite controversial after the fact (dewikiversity). Starting a weeks-long flamewar on the lists and pissing off contributors by canceling their wiki months later turns out to be an unproductive and un-fun use of my time. :)
But if nothing happens without board go-ahead, and the board won't issue requests, well... nothing happens.
What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
If you board guys could stamp your approval on that policy and explicitly state I have authority for new-language addition following those rules as Chief Technical Doohickey, I'd be happy to do it. (Under those rules it's pretty clear Toki Pona wouldn't have happened due to the requirement to seek public consensus first; dewikiversity wouldn't have happened due to it being a separate project and thus not covered by these rules.)
If not, then I need some marching orders one way or the other.
-- brion vibber (b4ion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote: .
... especially when no
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
has ever been agreed upon?
If you board guys could stamp your approval on that policy and explicitly state I have authority for new-language addition following those rules as Chief Technical Doohickey, I'd be happy to do it.
That would indeed mean a huge step forward. If those clear, objective rules are officially implemented they will provide security to both developers and proposers of new languages. A win-win situation. That proposed policy really ought to become effective ASAP.
Arbeo
P.S.: Those requests listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages are already fulfilling all requirements of the proposed policy.
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Generally, for a proposed policy to be implemented, it requires some degree of consensus and compromise.
So far, there is no consensus, although there have been some attempts at compromise.
Of course, if the Board wants to go ahead and make it policy, that's their decision to make, but I don't support it in its current form (see my comments on the talkpage).
Mark
On 25/09/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote: .
... especially when no
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
has ever been agreed upon?
If you board guys could stamp your approval on that policy and explicitly state I have authority for new-language addition following those rules as Chief Technical Doohickey, I'd be happy to do it.
That would indeed mean a huge step forward. If those clear, objective rules are officially implemented they will provide security to both developers and proposers of new languages. A win-win situation. That proposed policy really ought to become effective ASAP.
Arbeo
P.S.: Those requests listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages are already fulfilling all requirements of the proposed policy.
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
On 9/25/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
If you board guys could stamp your approval on that policy and explicitly state I have authority for new-language addition following those rules as Chief Technical Doohickey, I'd be happy to do it.
It's up to the community to approve it. I rewrote the policy, so it obviously has my approval, but the rest of the Board don't see this as something within their jurisdiction. If a developer thinks the policy has consensus, they can abide by it and make new wikis. If they don't, they can tell the people requesting new wikis to go and fix the policy and get a consensus on it. I've responded to a lot of the concerns at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages but there are really too few people giving any opinion at all to determine whether or not there is consensus for this yet.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
There's no stagnation, Wikipedia is growing faster than ever. I'm happy to make decisions regarding how I use my time, and I've done so on many occasions. I'm hardly going to agree to a policy which puts that decision in the hands of others.
I'm not asking for the Board to approve new language requests, in fact I'd be happier if they didn't. I'm just saying I'd honour them if they did.
Arbeo M wrote:
If this the current attitude of Wikipedia's decision-makers on the issue I'll accept it, of course. However, I think the fact that Wikipedias for new languages are created solely upon requests from Wikimedia board members needs to be annouced to the "general public". Because, at the moment, most users don`t seem to be aware of this fact (at least I wasn't as yet). Several pages like e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia still create a very different impression, i. e. that you _can_ actually have a new WP in your language if you request it, find supporters, convince the community etc. Given the reality you just informed me about, that's quite misleading. I guess we should change those pages so they don't cause people to put a lot of time and effort into projects that don't have a change of success.
Of course it's not announced anywhere, it's a bureaucratic black hole. We cover up the fact that there is no procedure by pretending the procedure is just really difficult.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Tim, we're not talking about dead languages or conlangs.
We're talking about languages that are spoken by real, tangible people as their everyday native language, and which have at least 5 supporters, native speaker support, and no oposition at all.
Specifically, now people are waiting for Ladino, Waray-Waray, and Neapolitan. You can look any of them up on Ethnologue if you like. Waray-Waray and Neapolitan have millions of speakers; Ladino has at least tens of thousands but might have more.
Literate speakers of Neapolitan can all read Italian. Italian is the language of instruction in state schools in the area. The same can be said for Ladino with respect to Turkish or Hebrew. Waray-Waray now rarely appears in print in its local area, having been displaced by English, both in local schools and in print.
In all three cases, the majority of speakers are accustomed to obtaining information in a national language. Even if we create it, the Wikipedia in Waray-Waray or Neapolitan will never be comparable in size to the Wikipedia in English or Italian. So regardless of what we do, they'll have to continue to obtain most of their information in the same way. The function of these wikis, it seems to me, would be pride rather than education. That's not the function I volunteered to promote when I signed up with Wikipedia.
These requests have many supporters, native speaker support (especially in the case of Ladino and Neapolitan, where heaps of native speakers dropped by to show their support), and no opposition.
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Angela wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
There's no stagnation, Wikipedia is growing faster than ever. I'm happy to make decisions regarding how I use my time, and I've done so on many occasions. I'm hardly going to agree to a policy which puts that decision in the hands of others.
I'm not asking for the Board to approve new language requests, in fact I'd be happier if they didn't. I'm just saying I'd honour them if they did.
Your definition of "Wikipedia" is relevant here. Yes, the English project does well. When it is you who decides what a good policy is, it means that we need more people who can and will do things that are necessary. So that you can decide what you want to do but that it will not frustrate the things that should happen as the result of accepted procedures.
Arbeo M wrote:
If this the current attitude of Wikipedia's decision-makers on the issue I'll accept it, of course. However, I think the fact that Wikipedias for new languages are created solely upon requests from Wikimedia board members needs to be annouced to the "general public". Because, at the moment, most users don`t seem to be aware of this fact (at least I wasn't as yet). Several pages like e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia still create a very different impression, i. e. that you _can_ actually have a new WP in your language if you request it, find supporters, convince the community etc. Given the reality you just informed me about, that's quite misleading. I guess we should change those pages so they don't cause people to put a lot of time and effort into projects that don't have a change of success.
Of course it's not announced anywhere, it's a bureaucratic black hole. We cover up the fact that there is no procedure by pretending the procedure is just really difficult.
The way procedures are created and maintained is the black hole. When there is a tentative consensus that a procedure is to be used it has one SPOV. This single point of failure are the people who have to act on it. It takes a developer to create new language projects. When they decide not to honour the result of a procedure, there is no come back. Procedures like the one about new language projects ARE torpedoed in that way. Saying that there is no procedure is not reasonable because the new proposals are made to go through these hoops. It is not reasonable that you suggest that there is no procedure after months of it being actively being enforced.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Tim, we're not talking about dead languages or conlangs.
We're talking about languages that are spoken by real, tangible people as their everyday native language, and which have at least 5 supporters, native speaker support, and no oposition at all.
Specifically, now people are waiting for Ladino, Waray-Waray, and Neapolitan. You can look any of them up on Ethnologue if you like. Waray-Waray and Neapolitan have millions of speakers; Ladino has at least tens of thousands but might have more.
Literate speakers of Neapolitan can all read Italian. Italian is the language of instruction in state schools in the area. The same can be said for Ladino with respect to Turkish or Hebrew. Waray-Waray now rarely appears in print in its local area, having been displaced by English, both in local schools and in print.
In all three cases, the majority of speakers are accustomed to obtaining information in a national language. Even if we create it, the Wikipedia in Waray-Waray or Neapolitan will never be comparable in size to the Wikipedia in English or Italian. So regardless of what we do, they'll have to continue to obtain most of their information in the same way. The function of these wikis, it seems to me, would be pride rather than education. That's not the function I volunteered to promote when I signed up with Wikipedia.
There is a law under way in Italy that will have education in Neapolitan in schools. 89% of schools in Napels have indicated that they will teach Neapolitan when the law has passed. When you also consider that Sicilian is doing really well. There is no reason that Neapolitan will not do well as a project. Continuing the discussion about what the merits are for these particular languages should be beside the point of this mail. This threat is about "no more new Wikipedias"
Tim Starling is as well known as Mark Williamson for his POV. They are at both ends of the spectrum. There is just one difference. Tim is the one that can create new projects and won't while Mark is the one that can't create new projects and would. You can say a lot about Mark, but he tries to involve himself in many projects and spends much effort in making the smaller projects work. He is putting his effort in where his mouth is.
In the past projects were started that were silly. Projects for "languages" like Klingon, problematic are the languages with fewer than 100.000 speakers. But also languages that we really want with tens of miljons of people are not doing well. For Tim it is a reason not to create any new projects while it should be a reason for research and marketing in how to make these projects work.
These requests have many supporters, native speaker support (especially in the case of Ladino and Neapolitan, where heaps of native speakers dropped by to show their support), and no opposition.
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
-- Tim Starling
This is in my opinion a really nasty argument. It basically says, that anything can be frustrated because there are people who are silently opposed. It negated all the need of building a visible consensus or opinion. In essence, given this as a "reasonable" argument, anything goes as long as you are able to support yourself.
Basically you say to the people who want these new languages that they should piss off. That your Wikimedia Foundation is not their Wikimedia Foundation. That they do not need information in their language.
Thanks, GerardM
Another argument to add:
Many of the existing Wikipedias (Catalan, Basque, Galician, Sicilian, Scots, etc etc) are in languages whose speakers are generally also highly fluent in a more widely-spoken language (Spanish or French, Spanish or French, Spanish or Portuguese, Italian, and English, respectively).
Should we delete these Wikipedias?
I think that, with time, a Neapolitan Wikipedia could grow to be the size that the Italian Wikipedia is today. Will they ever be the same size at the same time? Probably not. But it's also unlikely that the Italian Wikipedia will overtake that English Wikipedia in size... it seems to have to do more with when they were started, how well they were publicised, etc., rather than some sort of internal value for each language.
Mark
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
-- Tim Starling
This is in my opinion a really nasty argument. It basically says, that anything can be frustrated because there are people who are silently opposed. It negated all the need of building a visible consensus or opinion. In essence, given this as a "reasonable" argument, anything goes as long as you are able to support yourself.
Basically you say to the people who want these new languages that they should piss off. That your Wikimedia Foundation is not their Wikimedia Foundation. That they do not need information in their language.
Look, I know my views are extreme, and I know they're not representative of the community. I never said those people who were silently opposed were in the majority, I'm just saying that I have some support. But if you can't get a single sysadmin out of about 15 to support your cause, or a single Board member, where is the consensus in favour?
Yes, I'm biased, but why don't you ask Brion instead? He has generally been in favour of adding languages, his only concern is the criticism he'll receive if he does so.
If you like, go to [[m:Developers]], work your way down the list of people with shell access, and make a request to each one in turn. I'll even give them a tutorial if they want to create a wiki.
What I'm saying is, don't make this about me. I have my opinions, but there's no reason you can't work around them.
I can't help but feel sympathetic here, the politics involved are complex, the method for "working around" my opinions might not be obvious. So let me give you some advice. Here's what I think you should do to get new languages created:
1) Find a sysadmin who is willing to get involved 2) Develop a language creation policy, with the close involvement of your chosen sysadmin. Get their agreement on every detail, give whatever concessions are necessary to acheive this. 3) With help from me or Brion, your chosen sysadmin should then become familiar with the technical details of wiki creation, and should be able to perform it in the future with little fuss.
If you can't find a sysadmin (i.e. someone with shell access) for item 1, find someone with CVS access instead. Have them develop a web interface for language addition. I've already developed a script for adding wikis (remember the create wiki button), so they can use that as a base. Make it so that anyone with steward access (or something) can add languages. That widens your field from 15 to about 60.
If there's no one with CVS access willing to do it, then find anyone at all who knows PHP. Have them develop the web interface as a patch, then ask someone with CVS access to commit it.
I will support this process. I'll offer technical advice to the developer or sysadmin involved, I'll commit patches to CVS and I'll activate the automated interface on the live site, assuming it works. I reserve the right to express my opinions in the policy discussion, but I promise I won't resort to silly stunts like threatening to leave.
I generally don't fix bugs or upload language files for wikis such as jbo and got, and I reserve the right to extend that to any particularly objectionable new wikis. That shouldn't be a problem though because Brion is happy to work on any Wikimedia wiki.
I know this all seems like a lot of work, but I'm am telling you honestly, this is what I think is required. It'll satisfy the Board (they don't have to ratify the policy), it'll satisfy the developers and it'll allow a compromise between those for and against new languages. All you need is one developer. If your cause really is a worthy one, you should be able to find one.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
- Find a sysadmin who is willing to get involved
- Develop a language creation policy, with the close involvement of
your chosen sysadmin. Get their agreement on every detail, give whatever concessions are necessary to acheive this. 3) With help from me or Brion, your chosen sysadmin should then become familiar with the technical details of wiki creation, and should be able to perform it in the future with little fuss.
Hello,
I am willing to handle the task of new wiki creation ;) Going to test the installation process this afternoon and hopefully pending wikis will be made available soon.
<snip>
I will support this process. I'll offer technical advice to the developer or sysadmin involved, I'll commit patches to CVS and I'll activate the automated interface on the live site, assuming it works. I reserve the right to express my opinions in the policy discussion, but I promise I won't resort to silly stunts like threatening to leave.
Thanks for your support ;p
cheers,
Hi Ashar,
you cannot even imagine which mail I was writing right now. So thank you! And really the community should say a giant thank you!
I was sincerely asking me what Wikipedia is about considering what was going on here. If it was really that great like I believed. What it really stands for.
Thank you for considering the most fundamental policy of Wikipedia - "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".
See: in my answer I made it clear that it is not a question of creating that wikipedia - this can be done anywhere, but the fact to be able to create easily interwiki-links, to create cross references, to use and provide material for commons/wikibooks/wiktionary/ultimate wiktionary - this is the mayor reason for having such an Encyclopedia with the Wikimedia Foundation (at least for me).
Have a great Sunday!
Sabine
I am willing to handle the task of new wiki creation ;) Going to test the installation process this afternoon and hopefully pending wikis will be made available soon.
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it schrieb:
Hi Ashar,
you cannot even imagine which mail I was writing right now. So thank you! And really the community should say a giant thank you!
Btw: Ashar was the only one I received a reply from when I first asked for the creation of nap-Wiki a couple of weeks a ago at wikitech-l. He was willing to help but unsure about the technical details back then.
So here's a big "Thank You" from me, too!
I'd also like to express my respect for Tim's willingness to provide some very useful hints despite his personal objections against adding new languages.
Looks we're on the right track now.
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________ Was denken Sie über E-Mail? Wir hören auf Ihre Meinung: http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p0379378.aspx
Arbeo M wrote:
Btw: Ashar was the only one I received a reply from when I first asked for the creation of nap-Wiki a couple of weeks a ago at wikitech-l. He was willing to help but unsure about the technical details back then.
Yup, and at that time I was too lazy to bother searching how to create new wikis. I looked at the script with Tim Starling behind my back giving me tips / fixing stuff etc...
The addwiki.php script got fixed by Tim and we updated the developer how-to ( http://wp.wikidev.net/Add_a_language ).
So now anyone with cvs/shell access will be able to create a newwiki just by following the how-to.
I'd also like to express my respect for Tim's willingness to provide some very useful hints despite his personal objections against adding new languages.
I object adding most new languages too although we can probably give them a chance and eventually lock them in a few months if they are not successful.
(note: pending wikis will be created soon)
cheers,
Unfortunately it seems that lately, that statement -
"an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language"
Should be changed to: "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in only the most populous or their respective state-sponsored languages."
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sabine Cretella Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 7:15 AM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: No more new Wikipedias !
Hi Ashar,
you cannot even imagine which mail I was writing right now. So thank you! And really the community should say a giant thank you!
I was sincerely asking me what Wikipedia is about considering what was going on here. If it was really that great like I believed. What it really stands for.
Thank you for considering the most fundamental policy of Wikipedia - "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".
See: in my answer I made it clear that it is not a question of creating that wikipedia - this can be done anywhere, but the fact to be able to create easily interwiki-links, to create cross references, to use and provide material for commons/wikibooks/wiktionary/ultimate wiktionary - this is the mayor reason for having such an Encyclopedia with the Wikimedia Foundation (at least for me).
Have a great Sunday!
Sabine
I am willing to handle the task of new wiki creation ;) Going to test the installation process this afternoon and hopefully pending wikis will be made available soon.
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Cool. Y a quand même quelqu'un qui assure, ici...
Traroth
--- Ashar Voultoiz hashar@altern.org a écrit :
Tim Starling wrote:
- Find a sysadmin who is willing to get involved
- Develop a language creation policy, with the
close involvement of
your chosen sysadmin. Get their agreement on every
detail, give whatever
concessions are necessary to acheive this. 3) With help from me or Brion, your chosen
sysadmin should then become
familiar with the technical details of wiki
creation, and should be able
to perform it in the future with little fuss.
Hello,
I am willing to handle the task of new wiki creation ;) Going to test the installation process this afternoon and hopefully pending wikis will be made available soon.
<snip> > I will support this process. I'll offer technical advice to the > developer or sysadmin involved, I'll commit patches to CVS and I'll > activate the automated interface on the live site, assuming it works. I > reserve the right to express my opinions in the policy discussion, but I > promise I won't resort to silly stunts like threatening to leave.
Thanks for your support ;p
cheers,
-- Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ IM: hashar@jabber.org ICQ: 15325080
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I liked the 'create wiki' button. If that would come back, but only for sysops within a language or from a language, that would help out a lot.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Starling Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 5:59 AM To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: No more new Wikipedias !
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
-- Tim Starling
This is in my opinion a really nasty argument. It basically says, that anything can be frustrated because there are people who are silently opposed. It negated all the need of building a visible consensus or opinion. In essence, given this as a "reasonable" argument, anything goes as long as you are able to support yourself.
Basically you say to the people who want these new languages that they should piss off. That your Wikimedia Foundation is not their Wikimedia Foundation. That they do not need information in their language.
Look, I know my views are extreme, and I know they're not representative of the community. I never said those people who were silently opposed were in the majority, I'm just saying that I have some support. But if you can't get a single sysadmin out of about 15 to support your cause, or a single Board member, where is the consensus in favour?
Yes, I'm biased, but why don't you ask Brion instead? He has generally been in favour of adding languages, his only concern is the criticism he'll receive if he does so.
If you like, go to [[m:Developers]], work your way down the list of people with shell access, and make a request to each one in turn. I'll even give them a tutorial if they want to create a wiki.
What I'm saying is, don't make this about me. I have my opinions, but there's no reason you can't work around them.
I can't help but feel sympathetic here, the politics involved are complex, the method for "working around" my opinions might not be obvious. So let me give you some advice. Here's what I think you should do to get new languages created:
1) Find a sysadmin who is willing to get involved 2) Develop a language creation policy, with the close involvement of your chosen sysadmin. Get their agreement on every detail, give whatever concessions are necessary to acheive this. 3) With help from me or Brion, your chosen sysadmin should then become familiar with the technical details of wiki creation, and should be able to perform it in the future with little fuss.
If you can't find a sysadmin (i.e. someone with shell access) for item 1, find someone with CVS access instead. Have them develop a web interface for language addition. I've already developed a script for adding wikis (remember the create wiki button), so they can use that as a base. Make it so that anyone with steward access (or something) can add languages. That widens your field from 15 to about 60.
If there's no one with CVS access willing to do it, then find anyone at all who knows PHP. Have them develop the web interface as a patch, then ask someone with CVS access to commit it.
I will support this process. I'll offer technical advice to the developer or sysadmin involved, I'll commit patches to CVS and I'll activate the automated interface on the live site, assuming it works. I reserve the right to express my opinions in the policy discussion, but I promise I won't resort to silly stunts like threatening to leave.
I generally don't fix bugs or upload language files for wikis such as jbo and got, and I reserve the right to extend that to any particularly objectionable new wikis. That shouldn't be a problem though because Brion is happy to work on any Wikimedia wiki.
I know this all seems like a lot of work, but I'm am telling you honestly, this is what I think is required. It'll satisfy the Board (they don't have to ratify the policy), it'll satisfy the developers and it'll allow a compromise between those for and against new languages. All you need is one developer. If your cause really is a worthy one, you should be able to find one.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a écrit :
In all three cases, the majority of speakers are accustomed to obtaining information in a national language. Even if we create it, the Wikipedia in Waray-Waray or Neapolitan will never be comparable in size to the Wikipedia in English or Italian. So regardless of what we do, they'll have to continue to obtain most of their information in the same way. The function of these wikis, it seems to me, would be pride rather than education. That's not the function I volunteered to promote when I signed up with Wikipedia.
And cultural conservation ? Avoiding the vanishing of languages is a good purpose, in my opinion. In your hypothesis, if we look at the extrem case, why to start a wikipedia in another language than english, since more and more people speak this language ? Just learn english, and you will have access to wikipedia !
These requests have many supporters, native
speaker support
(especially in the case of Ladino and Neapolitan,
where heaps of
native speakers dropped by to show their support),
and no opposition.
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
People who are silently opposed ? What does it mean ? They are opposed, but not enough to express their opposition. I call that "people who don't care"...
-- Tim Starling
Traroth
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Traroth wrote:
People who are silently opposed ? What does it mean ? They are opposed, but not enough to express their opposition. I call that "people who don't care"...
I, for one, am (usually) silently in favour.
Gerrit.
Traroth wrote:
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a écrit :
The function of these wikis, it seems to me, would be pride rather than education. That's not the function I volunteered to promote when I signed up with Wikipedia.
And cultural conservation ? Avoiding the vanishing of languages is a good purpose, in my opinion. In your hypothesis, if we look at the extrem case, why to start a wikipedia in another language than english, since more and more people speak this language ? Just learn english, and you will have access to wikipedia !
There are many good purposes, and cultural coservation is one of them. That does not mean we should scatter resources to support every such proposal that comes along. How is an endangered language saved by a diletante with more ego than brains, who happens to write a handful of articles in the language in question.
There are always many vocal supporters, and there are always people who are silently opposed. Or rather, they are silent until those in power give in to the lobby and create new wikis, and then they open up with ridicule and criticism. We've seen it many times before.
People who are silently opposed ? What does it mean ? They are opposed, but not enough to express their opposition. I call that "people who don't care"...
Maybe those who are silently opposed have better things to do with their time than maintain a vigil over every cockamamy scheme that comes along. They would rather save their energy for those instances when one of those schemes threatens to succeed.
Ec
Angela wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
You're essentially correct. If the Board doesn't make such decisions maybe no-one will, and sometimes that's not entirely a bad thing. I personally think that the proposed policy that you mention makes it too easy to start a new Wiki; the proposed Cantonese Wikipedia could likely succeed under these policies. Leaving that aside there is still a question of process which remains to be solved. A strong argument can be made that adopting such a policy is within the mandate of the Board because it has an overall impact on the Wikimedia projects as a whole. This cannot be said of the application of such a policy to a particular set of circumstances. The application needs to be delegated to someone who has enough courage to say no when the criteria have not been met; that person needs to feel confident that his decision in accordance with policy will not be undermined when some disgruntled individual goes whinging to the Board.
The broader stagnation dilemma that you raise is a real problem in "democratic" structures. Jimbo has said from time to time on these lists that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's fine, but even Macchiavelli did not believe in a regime of unremitting suppression. A happy populace will always be more productive. No Board of Directors of a large corporation will get entangled in the day-to-day micromanagement of that corporation; that would be disastrous.
What does fall within the Board's scope of operation (not it's authority, where in law it can do everything) is the right to establish a basic operating rule outlining what does the Board do itself, and what it delegates. It then develops credibility by not interfering with the work of its delegates as long they act within their duly defined mandates.
When some kind of board structure was being proposed before the Wikimedia Foundation was formally established I suggested two levels of boards. One, essentially the present Board, would function more as trustees who would ensure that the Foundation remain within the principles that led to its establishment; it would also be responsible for such broad issues as the financial viability of the organization. The second would have a more operational capacity, it could investigate proposals in greater detail and advise the trustees about current issues; it would have decision-making powers within defined parameters.
The concept of democracy embraced by some of Wikimedia's citizens leaves much to be desired. Sometimes policy changes are passed because no-one has noticed a subtle change on a policy page; other policies are subjected to votes where very few people know about the vote or participate. In yet other cases policies are debated interminably and the policy that wins is the one that's left on the policy page after evryone else is exhausted.. In yet other cases there may be a very strong debate between two strong-willed individuals with everyone else completely avoiding the issue and failing to step in with alternatives that would lead to a generally acceptable solution.
Ultimately the question is not about who makes the specific decision to go ahead with a new language or project. It is about how the Board scalably defines its own role within the organization, and commits itself to that well defined role.
Ec
Maybe a *really* representative Board ? Where do you think the resistance to Board decisions come from ?
Traroth
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com a écrit :
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I
received a request from a
Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such
specific request, I'll
carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them,
not because I think it
contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
has ever been agreed upon?
Angela. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Traroth wrote:
Maybe a *really* representative Board ? Where do you think the resistance to Board decisions come from ?
The 2 who really make the decisions were voted for to represent us ........ so how much more representative can they get?
Waerth/Walter
When I read things like "Some while ago I stopped creating wikis except by an explicit request from a board member since several cases have ended up being later canceled entirely on Jimbo's order (Toki Pona)" (Brion), I'm not really sure that Anthere and Angela are taking the one taking decisions...
Traroth
--- Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net a écrit :
Traroth wrote:
Maybe a *really* representative Board ? Where do
you
think the resistance to Board decisions come from ?
The 2 who really make the decisions were voted for to represent us ........ so how much more representative can they get?
Waerth/Walter _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I think you're correct, to a certain extent.
I don't like the current setup of the board, I don't think it's representative enough, and that irritates me.
But I am unlikely to complain unless it threatens one of my "pet projects". Hm
Mark
On 26/09/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Traroth wrote:
Maybe a *really* representative Board ? Where do you think the resistance to Board decisions come from ?
In these circumstances from those whose pet projects are being skewered.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com a écrit :
I think you're correct, to a certain extent.
I don't like the current setup of the board, I don't think it's representative enough, and that irritates me.
But I am unlikely to complain unless it threatens one of my "pet projects". Hm
Mark
No complaint, no change...
Traroth
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language people have to speak ? Or what ?
Traroth
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a écrit :
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely
wasn't a
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
quite a
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
heaps
of requests that have been discussed very
thoroughly
by the community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
supported
by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
up
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
hard
for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I
made a
separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages).
Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 %
unequivocal
(at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native
speakers,
ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
[...] Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know
that
our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK
unpaid,
too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if
somebody
has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we
don't
lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Traroth wrote:
That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language people have to speak ? Or what ?
I think a possible problem might be that a small language wiki gets a lot of spam and maybe copyright violations. Enduring copyright violations are a problem, and if there is only one person that knows the language, it's difficult to control. But if anyone has a better answer, I'll be happy to hear.
regards, Gerrit.
P.S. In general it is better appreciated if you write your message below the other person's, instead of top-posting like you do, because it's easier to read.
Right
Time for me to say something here.
Angela is essentially right about myself not being willing to get involved in the decision of a new language creation.
I consider the board is not here to micromanage things and that natural leaders or natural groups of decision makers should appear to make the final decision on whether to open a new language or not.
The board must certainly be involved in the deciding whether to create a NEW PROJECT (such as Wikiversity or others), because this decision is *strategic* to our whole organisation.
But once a project has be agreed upon, I do not see the decision of opening one language or not being the job of board members, EXCEPT for decision such as whether to work in real languages only, or to accept constructed languages, because again, it might be a strategic decision. My opinion on the matter is simply that languages such as Klington are not welcome. And it seems the other board members agree with this.
However, collecting and offering knowledge to the largest number of people on earth is our mission. And it makes sense that knowledge is offered in the language people know best. So, I consider that by default, as a board member, I agree with the creation of any (real and used) language. It also makes sense to ME, to help sustain endangered languages; so I see no limit to our possibilities here.
However, AS A PERSON, I try to be practical and realistic. Practically, a project with only one editor working on it, has high chances to be crap or pov. It is NOT a 100% certain, but chances are high. The problem with new languages is not only workload for the developers, the problem with a new language with very few participants is simply a project which is most of the time of poor quality. The QUANTITY of information in the small wiki is NOT an issue for me. These projects will NEVER be 100 000 articles big. It does not really matter. Even if it contains only 5000 great quality stuff, it is WORTH it. Because good quality content is worth. But most small projects usually are of poor quality. And this is not very good for our image. Some will argue that as long as they are small, they are not very visible, so it might not matter much. To a certain extent, this is true. However, each time I visit the french wikinews, my heart grieves, because though small, though demo, it is visible. And poor quality is noticed.
So as a person, I would prefer that all the small languages future wiki only start if they can show a significant group of editors involved and motivated. However, some would also argue that if new languages REQUIRE 5 editors motivated at the same time to start... some encyclopedias such as Bambara would NEVER start. And THIS would be a disastrous decision.
So, here is my handle. If more than 5-10 real and motivated people are asking for a new language, by all means, let's start the new language. Why on Earth would you need a board decision to do this ? These guys are real, with real needs and real motivation and real language. The project is approved. So ? Why not creating it ? If only 1 or 2 people are asking for the language, then we should discuss the reality of the language proposed and the opportunity of the opening. If the language is spoken by 10 millions of people, by all means, we should open it. 10 millions readers/editors IS significant. If spoken by only 200 people, then we might decide to get to know the only interested editor a bit more ... so delay the creation a little bit.
By the way, it would be nice that small new languages make the effort to make short reports from time to time, so that any major difficulty does not go unnoticed (such as a pov domination).
Anthere
Traroth wrote:
That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language people have to speak ? Or what ?
Traroth
--- Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a écrit :
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely
wasn't a
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
quite a
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
heaps
of requests that have been discussed very
thoroughly
by the community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
supported
by numerous native speakers willing to contribute. However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
up
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
hard
for our developers to recognize which new language proposals can be considered as accepeted by the community (and therefore created). That's why I
made a
separate page intended to list languages that unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages).
Since this can be a controversial question I only placed those cases there that are 100 %
unequivocal
(at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native
speakers,
ISO code, no objections, etc.).
I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean I've changed my mind.
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.
[...] Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know
that
our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK
unpaid,
too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if
somebody
has an idea how we could remedy this situation and maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we
don't
lose too many potential new contributors)?
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I completly agree with this, even if seem to presuppose that *image* is a main issue, what may be, if we look at what image implies (public interest, donation, number of contributors and so on), but it is certainly not so obvious you seem to think.
Traroth
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com a écrit :
Right
Time for me to say something here.
Angela is essentially right about myself not being willing to get involved in the decision of a new language creation.
I consider the board is not here to micromanage things and that natural leaders or natural groups of decision makers should appear to make the final decision on whether to open a new language or not.
The board must certainly be involved in the deciding whether to create a NEW PROJECT (such as Wikiversity or others), because this decision is *strategic* to our whole organisation.
But once a project has be agreed upon, I do not see the decision of opening one language or not being the job of board members, EXCEPT for decision such as whether to work in real languages only, or to accept constructed languages, because again, it might be a strategic decision. My opinion on the matter is simply that languages such as Klington are not welcome. And it seems the other board members agree with this.
However, collecting and offering knowledge to the largest number of people on earth is our mission. And it makes sense that knowledge is offered in the language people know best. So, I consider that by default, as a board member, I agree with the creation of any (real and used) language. It also makes sense to ME, to help sustain endangered languages; so I see no limit to our possibilities here.
However, AS A PERSON, I try to be practical and realistic. Practically, a project with only one editor working on it, has high chances to be crap or pov. It is NOT a 100% certain, but chances are high. The problem with new languages is not only workload for the developers, the problem with a new language with very few participants is simply a project which is most of the time of poor quality. The QUANTITY of information in the small wiki is NOT an issue for me. These projects will NEVER be 100 000 articles big. It does not really matter. Even if it contains only 5000 great quality stuff, it is WORTH it. Because good quality content is worth. But most small projects usually are of poor quality. And this is not very good for our image. Some will argue that as long as they are small, they are not very visible, so it might not matter much. To a certain extent, this is true. However, each time I visit the french wikinews, my heart grieves, because though small, though demo, it is visible. And poor quality is noticed.
So as a person, I would prefer that all the small languages future wiki only start if they can show a significant group of editors involved and motivated. However, some would also argue that if new languages REQUIRE 5 editors motivated at the same time to start... some encyclopedias such as Bambara would NEVER start. And THIS would be a disastrous decision.
So, here is my handle. If more than 5-10 real and motivated people are asking for a new language, by all means, let's start the new language. Why on Earth would you need a board decision to do this ? These guys are real, with real needs and real motivation and real language. The project is approved. So ? Why not creating it ? If only 1 or 2 people are asking for the language, then we should discuss the reality of the language proposed and the opportunity of the opening. If the language is spoken by 10 millions of people, by all means, we should open it. 10 millions readers/editors IS significant. If spoken by only 200 people, then we might decide to get to know the only interested editor a bit more ... so delay the creation a little bit.
By the way, it would be nice that small new languages make the effort to make short reports from time to time, so that any major difficulty does not go unnoticed (such as a pov domination).
Anthere
Traroth wrote:
That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language
people
have to speak ? Or what ?
Traroth
--- Tim Starling
t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a
écrit :
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely
wasn't a
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
quite a
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
heaps
of requests that have been discussed very
thoroughly
by the community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
supported
by numerous native speakers willing to
contribute.
However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
up
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
hard
for our developers to recognize which new
language
proposals can be considered as accepeted by the
=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I think that with the exception of Wikipedia in Klingon, and perhaps Old English and Latin, having a Wikipedia in a language has never hurt our image.
The Klingon Wikipedia was the object of ridicule sometimes. I would suspect that occasionally, in places with whose press I am not acquainted, they also find it silly that we have Wikipedias in regional minority languages. But so far, they don't seem to cause an image problem.
Mark
On 28/09/05, Traroth traroth@yahoo.fr wrote:
I completly agree with this, even if seem to presuppose that *image* is a main issue, what may be, if we look at what image implies (public interest, donation, number of contributors and so on), but it is certainly not so obvious you seem to think.
Traroth
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com a écrit :
Right
Time for me to say something here.
Angela is essentially right about myself not being willing to get involved in the decision of a new language creation.
I consider the board is not here to micromanage things and that natural leaders or natural groups of decision makers should appear to make the final decision on whether to open a new language or not.
The board must certainly be involved in the deciding whether to create a NEW PROJECT (such as Wikiversity or others), because this decision is *strategic* to our whole organisation.
But once a project has be agreed upon, I do not see the decision of opening one language or not being the job of board members, EXCEPT for decision such as whether to work in real languages only, or to accept constructed languages, because again, it might be a strategic decision. My opinion on the matter is simply that languages such as Klington are not welcome. And it seems the other board members agree with this.
However, collecting and offering knowledge to the largest number of people on earth is our mission. And it makes sense that knowledge is offered in the language people know best. So, I consider that by default, as a board member, I agree with the creation of any (real and used) language. It also makes sense to ME, to help sustain endangered languages; so I see no limit to our possibilities here.
However, AS A PERSON, I try to be practical and realistic. Practically, a project with only one editor working on it, has high chances to be crap or pov. It is NOT a 100% certain, but chances are high. The problem with new languages is not only workload for the developers, the problem with a new language with very few participants is simply a project which is most of the time of poor quality. The QUANTITY of information in the small wiki is NOT an issue for me. These projects will NEVER be 100 000 articles big. It does not really matter. Even if it contains only 5000 great quality stuff, it is WORTH it. Because good quality content is worth. But most small projects usually are of poor quality. And this is not very good for our image. Some will argue that as long as they are small, they are not very visible, so it might not matter much. To a certain extent, this is true. However, each time I visit the french wikinews, my heart grieves, because though small, though demo, it is visible. And poor quality is noticed.
So as a person, I would prefer that all the small languages future wiki only start if they can show a significant group of editors involved and motivated. However, some would also argue that if new languages REQUIRE 5 editors motivated at the same time to start... some encyclopedias such as Bambara would NEVER start. And THIS would be a disastrous decision.
So, here is my handle. If more than 5-10 real and motivated people are asking for a new language, by all means, let's start the new language. Why on Earth would you need a board decision to do this ? These guys are real, with real needs and real motivation and real language. The project is approved. So ? Why not creating it ? If only 1 or 2 people are asking for the language, then we should discuss the reality of the language proposed and the opportunity of the opening. If the language is spoken by 10 millions of people, by all means, we should open it. 10 millions readers/editors IS significant. If spoken by only 200 people, then we might decide to get to know the only interested editor a bit more ... so delay the creation a little bit.
By the way, it would be nice that small new languages make the effort to make short reports from time to time, so that any major difficulty does not go unnoticed (such as a pov domination).
Anthere
Traroth wrote:
That you don't want to make the work to create new wikipedias is something I can understand, but why destroy existing one ? 'Beats me ! What I cannot understand is : except the workload problem, where is exactly the problem with new languages ? Do you want to say which language
people
have to speak ? Or what ?
Traroth
--- Tim Starling
t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au a
écrit :
Arbeo M wrote:
... at least not for the past three months or so.
In the past you only had to drop the name of some language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that language was created right away. This surely
wasn't a
very intelligent approach, for it left us with
quite a
number of inactive Wikipedias.
Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are
heaps
of requests that have been discussed very
thoroughly
by the community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
Some of them are pretty well-qualified and
supported
by numerous native speakers willing to
contribute.
However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set
up
for quite a while now.
Some time ago there had been a remark that it was
hard
for our developers to recognize which new
language
proposals can be considered as accepeted by the
=== message truncated ===
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com schrieb:
I consider the board is not here to micromanage things and that natural leaders or natural groups of decision makers should appear to make the final decision on whether to open a new language or not.
[...]
But once a project has be agreed upon, I do not see the decision of opening one language or not being the job of board members, EXCEPT for decision such as whether to work in real languages only, or to accept constructed languages, because again, it might be a strategic decision. My opinion on the matter is simply that languages such as Klington are not welcome. And it seems the other board members agree with this.
This surely sounds sensible. A decision not to allow constructed languages anymore could certainly be regarded as a strategic decision. Since the board seems to be unanimous on this matter and the issue keeps on coming up again and again - causing unproductive strife each time - wouldn't it make sense if the board turned this attitude into an official policy?
Thus, the community would be disburdened from a controversial issue that obviously is not really solvable here and concentrate on making the existing Wikipedias work and starting successful new ones.
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
On 9/28/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
This surely sounds sensible. A decision not to allow constructed languages anymore could certainly be regarded as a strategic decision. Since the board seems to be unanimous on this matter and the issue keeps on coming up again and again - causing unproductive strife each time - wouldn't it make sense if the board turned this attitude into an official policy?
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for? And, we know wikipedia is going to be around forever in one form or another, what if the international auxiliary language i'm starting now is as useful and notable as Esperanto in 100 years? I think that no formal rules should be written that will ban all conlangs from becoming wikis. I think we should mention somewhere in the policies that almost all conlangs will pretty much be rejected instantly, unless there is a significant reason to make the wiki.
Other then Klingon, I don't see how any of these wikis hurt our image. I've even heard arguments like this about simple:. And speaking of simple:, what about other supposed conlangs that are based on natural languages? Modern Hebrew is technically a conlang, in that Hebrew was dead for many years, and a group of people revived it into a modern version, based on ancient Hebrew, coined new terms for modern things like computers, etc.
Almost all Jews are *supposed* to speak Hebrew. They have to make a speech for their barmitzfa to prove it, don't they? I think it's the official language of Israel.
Now, I don't know if we have a Hebrew wikipedia yet, so if we do, don't laugh at me. I have to assume we do. But, this is really about any other similar conlang that could pop up.
On 9/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for?
I don't think there is any other conlang "as notable as Esperanto". Wikipedia currently exists in Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Lojban and Volapük, although the last two aren't very big.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
On 9/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for?
I don't think there is any other conlang "as notable as Esperanto". Wikipedia currently exists in Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Lojban and Volapük, although the last two aren't very big.
I looked at ISO 639-3 and it proposes to recognize 24 conlangs: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Afrihili&action=editAfrihili, Brithenig, Ceqli, Delason, Dutton World Speedwords, Esperanto, Glosa, Ido, Interglossa, Interlingua, Interlingue, Jakelimotu, Klingon, Láadan, Linga, Lojban, Novial, Occidental, Orcish, Quenya, Romanova, Sindarin, Tceqli, and Volapük This unfortunately includes Klingon. Toki Pona is not on the list. It looks as though they have dropped Europanto. It does put their reliability in doubt.
Ec
Klingon? rofl.
On 9/28/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On 9/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for?
I don't think there is any other conlang "as notable as Esperanto". Wikipedia currently exists in Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Lojban and Volapük, although the last two aren't very big.
I looked at ISO 639-3 and it proposes to recognize 24 conlangs: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Afrihili&action=editAfrihili, Brithenig, Ceqli, Delason, Dutton World Speedwords, Esperanto, Glosa, Ido, Interglossa, Interlingua, Interlingue, Jakelimotu, Klingon, Láadan, Linga, Lojban, Novial, Occidental, Orcish, Quenya, Romanova, Sindarin, Tceqli, and Volapük This unfortunately includes Klingon. Toki Pona is not on the list. It looks as though they have dropped Europanto. It does put their reliability in doubt.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Klingon funny ...... ? I feel recognizing Orcish actually beats that!
Waerth
Phroziac wrote:
Klingon? rofl.
On 9/28/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On 9/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for?
I don't think there is any other conlang "as notable as Esperanto". Wikipedia currently exists in Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Lojban and Volapük, although the last two aren't very big.
I looked at ISO 639-3 and it proposes to recognize 24 conlangs: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Afrihili&action=editAfrihili, Brithenig, Ceqli, Delason, Dutton World Speedwords, Esperanto, Glosa, Ido, Interglossa, Interlingua, Interlingue, Jakelimotu, Klingon, Láadan, Linga, Lojban, Novial, Occidental, Orcish, Quenya, Romanova, Sindarin, Tceqli, and Volapük This unfortunately includes Klingon. Toki Pona is not on the list. It looks as though they have dropped Europanto. It does put their reliability in doubt.
Ec
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
Klingon funny ...... ? I feel recognizing Orcish actually beats that! Waerth
Indeed. Speaking as a Tolkiencruft loremaster, Orcish should definitely not be there, as it was just an overall name for multiple different dialects of which only a few sentences are known. Black Speech would be more reasonable, but there are still only several known sentences of that.
2005/9/24, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au:
If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.
It'd be OK, if only WPs for smaller or non-existent languages are ignored. But I have an example of Udmurt WP, which has at least two native supporters (and more to come, if it started and shown good). Udmurt is a large language of more than 500 thousand speakers, it's not a "dialect-language", but a "fully featured" language with its own literature, newspapers, schools (though most in rural areas), etc.
I really do hope that the Udmurt WP will appear at least during this autumn. :) I've added Udmurt to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages if it is the newer shortest way.
Sincerely, Slavik IVANOV, [[:os:User:Amikeco]]/[[eo:Vikipediisto:Slavik IVANOV]]
-- Esperu cxiam!
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org