On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:44:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Wikimedia is not a set of isolated projects. Once the Klingon Wikipedia exists, people will add interlanguage links to it on *all* 50+ Wikipedias. Articles like [[Holocaust]] or [[Abu Ghraib]] will have links to Klingon translations, with the associated risk of causing offense to unsuspecting readers.
And they won't for links to Volapuk, Tokipona or Latin?
Klingon will be part of our press releases. It will show up in the language directory on our Main Pages. There will inevitably be Klingon editions of Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiquote, and any other Wikimedia project. This is a significant use of our resources and has a significant potential to negatively affect our reputation.
You think that there is a so huge speaker community that it will harm the wikipedia ressources, and use that as an argument against??? It would be the most proeminent argument in favor (if that were true, I mysefl strongly doubt that there would be 10.000 articles a year on a Klingon version)
Furthermore, if we allow Klingon to be created in this way - without consensus, clear rules or a vote - Elvish, "Modern Egyptian" and other nonsense languages will follow, all with the exact same associated effects.
You don't like them, we can see it; however liking or disliking should not be taken in account at all. What should be the key is wether or not a collaborative encyclopedia on that language could be viable; or in other words, if there is a big enogh community of speakers that are willing to create and use it (that is, write and read articles).
The only way to know is to test.
So I propose a framework like this:
- create test wikis on demand (eg: tlh.test.wikipedia.org, not tlh.wikipedia.org ) - test ones are not linkable to from other wikipedias - there is viability test to pass; maybe something like being able to create some 500 articles (true ones, not stubs) after som months (the observation period could be shortened if there is huge activity, if the first 3 months show 10 new articles created a day, then it is clear the wikipedia is viable) - then, if the test passes: 1. change in the DNS and web server so that a normal domain name is used (eg: tlh.wikipedia.org ), 2. and make the old domain display a warning about the change for some 10-15 segonds then redirect. (the old domain could be dropped after some time) 3. enable interwiki links to the new domain - if the test doesn't pass: 1. some weeks before the time limit, print red warnings about it (in the same way as messages for shutdowns etc) 2. then disactivate the wiki, and make for all urls on that domain display a page explaining it failed the test and the wiki was shutdown (maybe with a link to an sql dump of the data and to a meta: page with infos on how to run one own's mediawiki site)
The decision would then be very easy: a new wikipedia will pass or fail solely on its own merits. A failed one could not reapply for some time (2 years maybe? more?).
And I'm for applying that to any language.
Note that I did something similar for Walloon language; yes I created it on my own server also because there was no wa.wikipedia.org back then; but also I didn't request for the creation of one because I was not sure it would work or not, I wanted to try it and see if that interested other people. There were problems when migrating to wikipedia.org, but they were due to the fact that different program versions and environment were involved; in the above proposal mechanism the environment and programs will be exactly the same.
Everyone working on Wikimedia is affected once we open the floodgates. The isolation which you suggest does not exist.
I propose to isolate during test period (so if the test fails it doesn"t have consequences on others).
The risk to our reputation is increased by the fact that many people *know* what the Klingon language is.
Do they know what "thlinqan" (or whatever it is written, but definitively not "klingon") is?
And a lot of people also know the word "Volapuk" and see it exactly the same way as you see klingon; yet vo.wikipedia.org is there.
Without clear, *NEUTRAL*, and previously decided rules, there will be disputes forever; doing an exception for Klingon is not neutral at all, and it is even against the spirit of wikipedia (it's NPOV, remember?)
I do, however, recognize that there's a difference between the goal of creating a *useful*, multilingual encyclopedia and the goal of personal entertainment.
And that is the *ONLY* criterium that should be used. So, stop arguing about how much you dislike klingon and how much you think it is futile, and start arguing on the usefulness of a Klingon wikipedia.
If people are willing to use a tlh wikipedia, then it is usefull, period. If there is not enough tlh speakers to care about it, it is not usefull.
My proposal above would allow to test just that. And you know what? I don't think tlh would pass the test, simply because there courrently seems not to be any real world exemple of communication in Klingon language (no weblog sites exclusively in Klingon, no personal pages written in Klingon about any kind of topics, etc). Yes, there are things available in the language, but most often they are proof of concept, not anything "real"; some people may be thrilled about the possibility to use tlh to translate something, but after a while they lost interest, simply because they don't usually use the language to communicate, to live their everydays life.
Google is translated in Klingon while the native language of Wallonia is not (just because Google decided to freeze any developpement on the translation of their interface at a time when people from the US where years long accostumed with the internet while on my own land internet for the common people was just starting...); but Google is easy, it is a quite small thing to translate, and need no following to keep it up to date (well, not much). I don't know of any people using a klingon localized operating system, nor of any people using klingon to speak with their childre, companions and relatives (well, there has been one (*1*) try, and it more or less failed, the fact that the language seems to be quite poor on vocabulary for human's life was a reason, and it is poor on that because people don't use it to communicate).
So, to summarize: # decision should be based on objective criteria, not on personal likings or dislikings # using a test framework would allow easily and objectively to see if a given language can have a wikipedia or not # I don't think tlh would be able to make a living wikipedia
I find it regrettable that many people seem to be unable to make that distinction.
But you are failing to make the distinction between the utility for *you* and the utility for the community of speakers of a given language. If it is usefull for tlh-speakers, it should be allows; it if itsn"t useful for them, then not. That it is not useful for you and for me is totally irrelevant.
This notwithstanding, I have offered compromise solutions and a vote. It seems quite clear to me who in this debate is acting tyrannically.
A very bad idea to cast a vote on the current situation, as the vote is more like "pro or agains xxxx language" and opens a very bad precedent.
The best would be to set a test framework and let the xxxx language speaker community decide by themselves, by their work or lack thereof, if it is worth or not to support it on wikipedia.
Whithout the possibility to carry such test it is impossible to know, and in doubt I will vote in favor, despite the fact that I have no special interest on tlh at all, and despite the fact that I believe it doesn't desserve a wikipedia; becuase currently I only *belive* tlh wikipedia won't be useful, I'm not *sure* about it.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l