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)?

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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. 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. 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(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On 9/24/05, Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote: 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 wrote: 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: 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: 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 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.

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.

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 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.

--- Brion Vibber &lt;brion(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote: . <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages> 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(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On 9/24/05, Tim Starling &lt;t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au&gt; wrote: received a request from a specific request, I'll not because I think it 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

has ever been agreed upon? Angela. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org

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.

speaker support where heaps of 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

Arbeo M wrote: wasn't a quite a heaps thoroughly

supported up hard made a

unequivocal speakers, 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. that unpaid, somebody don't 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(a)Wikimedia.org

Traroth wrote: you 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(a)Wikimedia.org

Maybe a *really* representative Board ? Where do you think the resistance to Board decisions come from ?

Traroth wrote: In these circumstances from those whose pet projects are being skewered. Ec _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

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

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: people &lt;t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au&gt; a

contribute. language

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.

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?

Andre Engels wrote: I looked at ISO 639-3 and it proposes to recognize 24 conlangs: <http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Afrihili&action=edit>Afrihili, 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(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Klingon funny ...... ? I feel recognizing Orcish actually beats that! Waerth