Hi,
with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
Please allow me to remind you again that people are waiting to ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE to the damn thing.
Thanks, Timwi
Timwi-
Hi,
with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
I see no such majority support. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not built on majority support, but on the consensus principle whenever possible. I'm sure lots of people want to work on lots of things. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is the right place to do that. In the case of Klingon, it isn't. I may change my mind once an actual Klingon shows up. Regardless, I have no problem with a vote on the matter and will accept the result.
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
I see no such majority support. [...] Regardless, I have no problem with a vote on the matter and will accept the result.
Let's tally it up, therefore:
Support (7) Non-support (2) -------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Wales Erik Moeller Timwi Ivan Krstic Ray Saintonage Andre Engels Mathias Schindl Tim Starling Peter Danenberg
where support has been loosely defined as "does not oppose."
Best, Peter
Interesting definition. Why do you not define opposition as "does not support"?
Lol; that's making the case, Erik.
I happen to be partial to legacy: it belongs to Unix; and Klingon is to the twentieth century what Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are to Denmark: a worthy postscript.
Best, Peter
Peter Danenberg wrote:
Support (18) Non-support (3)
-------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Wales Erik Moeller Timwi Ivan Krstic Ray Saintonage Andre Engels Mathias Schindl Tim Starling Peter Danenberg
Rholton Chameleon Mark Richards Sanders muc Marnanel Kukkurovaca TUF-KAT Eclecticology Ronline Philip Newton André Müller Waerth
Timwi wrote:
Peter Danenberg wrote:
Support (18) Non-support (3)
-------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Wales Erik Moeller Timwi Ivan Krstic Ray Saintonage Andre Engels Mathias Schindl Tim Starling Peter Danenberg
Rholton Chameleon Mark Richards Sanders muc Marnanel Kukkurovaca TUF-KAT Eclecticology Ronline Philip Newton André Müller Waerth
Yes I voted for, but I don't need to have my vote counted twice. 17-3 is still respectable. :-) Ray Saintonge = Eclecticology
Erik Moeller wrote:
Ray-
Yes I voted for, but I don't need to have my vote counted twice. 17-3 is still respectable. :-)
I never cease to be fascinated by how much people are willing to perpetuate a lie if it serves their own purposes.
I never suggested that there was an ulterior motive to counting my vote twice. My comments on the mailing list appear with my real name, and on meta with my pseudonym. It's an easy mistake for the person tabulating the "votes" from both places not to know that the two names represent the same person. A simple mistake is far from being a lie.
Ec=Ray
Ray-
I never suggested that there was an ulterior motive to counting my vote twice. My comments on the mailing list appear with my real name, and on meta with my pseudonym. It's an easy mistake for the person tabulating the "votes" from both places not to know that the two names represent the same person. A simple mistake is far from being a lie.
That was not my point. The list you quote counts people who have said that they do not care either way as supporters. This makes it worthless. If you were not aware of this, I apologize.
Regards,
Erik
Timwi-
Erik Moeller wrote:
with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
I see no such majority support.
Are you blind?
See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as "supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result. Furthermore, it is obvious that a page about artificial languages would primarily attract people interested in artificial languages, of which there are many on Wikipedia thanks to our generous policy with regard to conlangs. If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about it. This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the current impasse.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as "supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result.
Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of the three objectors?
WTF?
Timwi-
Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of the three objectors?
The number of people who do not care is irrelevant - they do not care, hence they do not count. The only other number that matters is that of those who want a Klingon Wikipedia. Even if these two numbers are within different orders of magnitude (which I doubt), our goal should be consensus. For example, Brion suggested moving conlangs to their own wiki separate from Wikipedia. Using an existing wiki like Unilang would be another option.
In any case, your aggressive pushing hurts your cause much more than it helps it - it makes those who oppose the project less likely to accept a compromise solution.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Timwi-
Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of the three objectors?
I would like to point that the current discussion is done in english and that only people that speak english can participate. I m fully supporting the position of Erik requesting a vote on meta that would take care of the whole wikipedia community position.
fr:greatpatton
Erik Moeller wrote:
For example, Brion suggested moving conlangs to their own wiki separate from Wikipedia. Using an existing wiki like Unilang would be another option.
I still hold these options to be the best courses of action. That said, Erik: let's back down. It appears to me both of us oppose the Klingon wiki for the same reasons, but I don't think concensus is easily possible without alienating too many people; utilitarianism dictates stepping down at this point, I think.
Cheers, Ivan.
Erik Moeller wrote:
In any case, your aggressive pushing hurts your cause much more than it helps it - it makes those who oppose the project less likely to accept a compromise solution.
As far as I can see, you were the one who first brought up an aggressive attitude that led to the wiki being shut down.
I think I have every right to be pretty damn angry at that.
Timwi
Timwi-
As far as I can see, you were the one who first brought up an aggressive attitude that led to the wiki being shut down.
Hardly. The wiki was started under false pretenses. There had been prior objections, and there was no dictatorial decree nor a vote which justified its creation. I will accept a fair vote and I'm open to compromises. What I will not accept is opinions being trampled on, even if they are minority opinions (which has not been empirically demonstrated).
If you are correct and so many people support Klingon, why don't you set up a vote? The result should be obvious soon. I regret to say that so far the advocacy for a Klingon Wikipedia has been on the level of Klingon diplomacy.
Regards,
Erik
Timwi-
I have offered the compromise of allowing the Klingon Wikipedia, but disallowing any links to it from any other Wikipedia.
That's an interesting solution, I missed that. If we can make this a general policy for small conlangs, I for one would be reasonably happy. Just to clarify, that should include both links from the Main Pages and interlanguage links.
It might be a better idea to follow Brion's suggestion and move the conlang wikis to a separate project altogether. That's because a Klingon wiki would likely not be just about encyclopedic subjects, but also a dictionary, a general history of the language and fictional culture, etc. The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" rule is not very applicable to conlangs. While I'm not too fond of using Wikimedia resources for people's pet projects, there seems to be a significant conlang community within Wikipedia and we could honor that fact through a separate wikiproject.
In both cases, I think a well-publicized vote would be a good idea regardless just to get community backing.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
It might be a better idea to follow Brion's suggestion and move the conlang wikis to a separate project altogether. That's because a Klingon wiki would likely not be just about encyclopedic subjects, but also a dictionary, a general history of the language and fictional culture, etc. The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" rule is not very applicable to conlangs. While I'm not too fond of using Wikimedia resources for people's pet projects, there seems to be a significant conlang community within Wikipedia and we could honor that fact through a separate wikiproject.
How will the Esperantists feel about being treated this way?
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
Timwi-
I have offered the compromise of allowing the Klingon Wikipedia, but disallowing any links to it from any other Wikipedia.
That's an interesting solution, I missed that. If we can make this a general policy for small conlangs, I for one would be reasonably happy. Just to clarify, that should include both links from the Main Pages and interlanguage links.
At last! This is a good compromise. This is a "compelling argument" that addresses my previous worries. If we can have this, I see no reason why we shouldn't accept recreational conlangs with ISO codes, and if Klingon is one of them, why not?
-- Neil
Erik Moeller wrote:
There had been prior objections, and there was no dictatorial decree nor a vote which justified its creation.
There was no dictatorial decree nor a vote which justified the creation of Toki Pona. There would have been prior objections, had the idea been brought up before its creation.
This is NOT a strawman argument. It is an argument in favour of treating Klingon and Toki Pona fairly and equally (as opposed to being an argument in favour of having a Klingon Wikipedia).
If you are correct and so many people support Klingon, why don't you set up a vote? The result should be obvious soon.
Yes, the result will be that 3 people object and 100 people "don't care", and then you will falsely infer from that that you have reason to keep tlh.wikipedia.org suspended.
Timwi
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Sunday 30 May 2004 19:27, Erik Moeller wrote:
up a vote? The result should be obvious soon. I regret to say that so far the advocacy for a Klingon Wikipedia has been on the level of Klingon diplomacy.
A proof of Sapir-Worf? ;)
Perhaps. That being said, would a Ferengi-pedia be evidence that we have gone commercial? :-)
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
Timwi-
Erik Moeller wrote:
with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
I see no such majority support.
Are you blind?
See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as "supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result. Furthermore, it is obvious that a page about artificial languages would primarily attract people interested in artificial languages, of which there are many on Wikipedia thanks to our generous policy with regard to conlangs. If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about it. This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the current impasse.
It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong. When you use a vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the majority. Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited to things that matter to everyone. Most of us aren't really concerned with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia. We're content to let them do their thing. If we need to inform ourselves enough to make a proper vote on everything that is proposed for a vote, we would never get anything done.
Ec
Ray-
It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong. When you use a vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to a tyranny of the minority?
Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited to things that matter to everyone. Most of us aren't really concerned with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia. We're content to let them do their thing.
If you (and I'm using the singular here) are content to "let them do their thing" then I fail to see why you would not vote in favor of a Klingon Wikipedia. The "never get anything done" argument is quite absurd given how much time we have now wasted on a discussion whose only effect appears to be to harden the respective positions.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Ray-
It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong. When you use a vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to a tyranny of the minority?
Tyranny relates to the imposition of the tyrant's will on the activities of others. As long as the pro-Klingon minority does not require that others participate in Klingon activities they are not being tyrannous.
Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited to things that matter to everyone. Most of us aren't really concerned with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia. We're content to let them do their thing.
If you (and I'm using the singular here) are content to "let them do their thing" then I fail to see why you would not vote in favor of a Klingon Wikipedia. The "never get anything done" argument is quite absurd given how much time we have now wasted on a discussion whose only effect appears to be to harden the respective positions.
My comments here and on Meta are my vote.
It's not just the Klingon discussion. We can all survive one or two of these without serious damage. The problem comes when we are confronted with a multitude of demands to vote across a broad range of subjects, many of which would otherwise be totally infamiliar.
Ec
Ray-
Tyranny relates to the imposition of the tyrant's will on the activities of others. As long as the pro-Klingon minority does not require that others participate in Klingon activities they are not being tyrannous.
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. 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.
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. Everyone working on Wikimedia is affected once we open the floodgates. The isolation which you suggest does not exist.
The risk to our reputation is increased by the fact that many people *know* what the Klingon language is. With something like Toki Pona, although I oppose it, that risk is diminished. And all that for what? So that some Star Trek fans can have a wiki of their own? If that is the goal, I see no reason why we should offer our resources for that purpose. A wiki is cheap.
I *am* an avid Star Trek fan. I have two seasons of TNG on DVD. I watch Enterprise even though it is painful to see 9/11 transformed into a space opera. I co-founded one of the largest German Star Trek role playing games (sfg.org). I provide hosting services to the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki. Although I must admit that I am biased against Klingons because they're a race of brutal morons who would never be able to build a spaceship in the real world, I assure you that I would be equally opposed to a Vulcan or Elvish Wikipedia.
I do, however, recognize that there's a difference between the goal of creating a *useful*, multilingual encyclopedia and the goal of personal entertainment. I find it regrettable that many people seem to be unable to make that distinction. This notwithstanding, I have offered compromise solutions and a vote. It seems quite clear to me who in this debate is acting tyrannically.
Regards,
Erik
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation.
At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation.
At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
And what makes you think that it doesn't?
I can not say I'm a big fan of a Klingon wiki. the more I think about it the more of a waste it seems, nobody is going to be looking to learn about topics while reading in Klingon, I think it mostly will be used by people learning the language or just for leisure. While I dont like that I have to be fair and say that besides the language origin I see no difference between Klingon and Lojban, Logban Interlingua and Esperanto.. i mean really.. lets be honest... this argument is largely biased because some people see Klingon as a very geeky thing and dont want to "look stupid or look geeky" i think this is really dumb and you know its no good to have Klingon cause it's geeky, but its OK to have Interlingua and Esperanto because they are percieved as more intellectual? get over it people... i'm not oposing the creation of the Klingon wiki, but I think i'd be happier if it wasn't around
Lightning
On May 30, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Timwi wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation. At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
And what makes you think that it doesn't?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Timwi wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation.
At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
And what makes you think that it doesn't?
Perhaps I am uninformed, but I'm not aware of a substantial number of people who use Klingon for the purpose of practical communication. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can enlighten me.
-- Neil
On May 30, 2004, at 5:08 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation.
At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
And what makes you think that it doesn't?
Perhaps I am uninformed, but I'm not aware of a substantial number of people who use Klingon for the purpose of practical communication. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can enlighten me.
*cough*interlingua*cough*
Also for the record - I support the (re)creation of the Klingon Wikipeida
(If a vote is taken for this, please be sure to announce it well and I will add this vote)
--sannse
Erik Moeller wrote:
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
We've already been through this. It is not up to you to decide that a language is "nonsense". In fact, it is quite impertinent of you to pass such unjustified judgement, especially seeing as you base it solely on the fact that it is constructed.
I *am* an avid Star Trek fan.
That is irrelevant to the discussion.
I do, however, recognize that there's a difference between the goal of creating a *useful*, multilingual encyclopedia and the goal of personal entertainment. I find it regrettable that many people seem to be unable to make that distinction.
Personal entertainment is the driving force that makes us create a useful, multilingual encyclopedia. I find it regrettable that you seem to be unable to comprehend that.
This notwithstanding, I have offered compromise solutions and a vote.
Many people have already told you why that kind of solution is neither fair nor just. If 3 people object and 100 people say they DON'T CARE, you are going to tell us the vote's result is "we will not have a Klingon Wikipedia", when in reality the result shows that THE VAST MAJORITY DOES NOT OPPOSE IT and hence there is nothing wrong with simply having it. You fail to see that an abstention in this kind of thing is a completely different thing from an abstention in an election. You seem to think that in order to counteract an opposition to having the wiki, there would have to be a majority of people actually wanting it. Out of the people who do not oppose the Xhosa Wikipedia, I wonder how many actually want it! By your logic, if I were to oppose to the idea of a Xhosa Wikipedia because I think it's a nonsense language, that would be enough to suspend it. This is the flaw in your logic.
It seems quite clear to me who in this debate is acting tyrannically.
You have as yet not convinced me how letting someone have something that is never going to affect you, your work, your life and your future, is in any way "tyrannical".
You have also as yet failed to explain why Toki Pona still exists and is not being shut down for the same reason, and is thus being treated with favouritism. That kind of thing is what I call tyrannical.
Timwi
"EM" == Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de writes:
EM> And all that for what? So that some Star Trek fans EM> can have a wiki of their own? If that is the goal, I see no EM> reason why we should offer our resources for that purpose. A EM> wiki is cheap.
I believe Memory Alpha uses MediaWiki and is a real good site:
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Main_Page
~ESP
Man, I wish *I* had nothing better to do than argue passionately about why other people shouldn't be allowed to do something. Unfortunately, some of us have wikis to run and bugs to fix.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On May 30, 2004, at 4:35 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Man, I wish *I* had nothing better to do than argue passionately about why other people shouldn't be allowed to do something. Unfortunately, some of us have wikis to run and bugs to fix.
and it seems like pretty soon you are going to have one more wiki to run ;-)
Lightning
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
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 17:10, Erik Moeller wrote:
If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about it. This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the current impasse.
It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_...
<< A certain amount of "critical mass" is necessary in order for a wiki to "take off". Without 5-10 people eagerly writing and arguing and playing with each other, it wouldn't be as much fun. So we encourage anyone who wants to build a wiki in their own language to also go out and announce/recruit for it. :-)
So to me the documented procedure says that you only have to find half a dozen people willing to populate the language wikipedia, and not to get "the majority of Wikipedia users" support.
Or may be you want to create a "wikipedia language censorship committee"? I don't believe it fits with:
<< We are aware that many of the world's 6,500 languages are not well-represented on computers or the web, and we are committed to working with language speakers and computing organizations to support as many languages as possible
The language link cites artificial languages which lists and discuss Klingon.
Please do not stop other people willingness to contribute to wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Laurent
PS: I'm by no mean an active contributor, and do not speak or know Klingon (I discovered the Knligon community on wikipedia :).
Laurent-
It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_ new_language_wikipedia
These guidelines were written in 2001, when many widely spoken natural languages did not have wikis yet. To apply them to a case like Klingon and the many other obscure conlangs that people want to push is absurd. On the matter of which languages should or should not be allowed, there is presently no community consensus. See the previous thread "Languages: crossing a border" on wikipedia-l which should lay to rest any claims that I am the only one concerned about opening the floodgates to allow any conlang that has "some number of interested speakers":
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-April/014978.html
To be sure, many people agree with your position. That doesn't mean that is the only one. Various guidelines for inclusion have been proposed, none have been adopted yet. We can treat languages on a case by case basis or we can vote on a set of binding guidelines. Both approaches are workable. Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.
Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down one wikipedia language.
These guidelines were written in 2001, when many widely spoken natural languages did not have wikis yet. To apply them to a case like Klingon and the many other obscure conlangs that people want to push is absurd.
Unless there's consensus to change this rule, it still applies: looks like a fundamental and sound principle to me. You broke it, and lots of people are unhappy with good reasons for such an impolite act.
People with technical power should not do what you've done, this is potentially very damaging for wikipedia reputation. I sincerely hope you'll revert your change and apologize.
Not to mention that in the dicussion you pointed to (thanks BTW) someone said that this old rule has been successfully applied to newer wiki like wikitravel, so I do not see why you're attacking this position with words like "absurd".
Sincerely,
Laurent
Laurent-
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.
Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down one wikipedia language.
Not at all. Tim Starling disabled the wiki on my request because it was not created in consensus. However, should the wiki be reinstated without due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.
Now, you can do it the right way, by establishing consensus or at least a proven majority in support, or you can continue complaining about the fact that this attempt to subvert due process failed. What do you prefer?
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 20:07, Erik Moeller wrote:
Laurent-
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.
Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down one wikipedia language.
Not at all. Tim Starling disabled the wiki on my request because it was not created in consensus. However, should the wiki be reinstated without due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.
Now, you can do it the right way, by establishing consensus or at least a proven majority in support, or you can continue complaining about the fact that this attempt to subvert due process failed. What do you prefer?
You have very peculiar views on democracy and discussion, you just deleted all my arguments on this point without answering them and it looks like you do the same for all responses that don't fit your views, I hope you won't harm too much the wikipedia project respectability.
Anyway, you can count my vote for not changing the currently documented rule of 5-10 active contributors to create a new wikipedia language.
Laurent
PS: I would even support immediate creation of all languages listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639 with a template page (in a few major languages) calling for help in filling them.
Erik Moeller wrote:
However, should the wiki be reinstated without due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.
I am seriously appalled at this. Jimmy, I cordially beg you to take action at this. This kind of destructive anarchistic attitude must not prevail among people with powerful access privileges.
Erik Moeller wrote:
It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_ new_language_wikipedia
These guidelines were written in 2001
Irrelevant. They have not been abolished, therefore they are in effect.
when many widely spoken natural languages did not have wikis yet.
Completely irrelevant. What does the existance of natural-language wikis have to do with anything?
To apply them to a case like Klingon and the many other obscure conlangs that people want to push is absurd.
Rubbish. It is perfectly fair and correct. Other than your artificial distinction, there is no intrinsic difference between a natural language and a constructed language other than being natural and constructed, respectively. You seem to be assuming that constructed languages have some sort of lesser status or little validity. Stop thinking that. It's ridiculous.
On the matter of which languages should or should not be allowed, there is presently no community consensus.
There DOES NOT NEED to be any consensus on "allowing" or "disallowing" anything! Who do these people think they are trying to "disallow" the existence of a Wikipedia that is NEVER GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THEM? They don't need to link to it, they don't need to contribute to it, they don't even need to LOOK at it. They can IGNORE IT! I am seriously confused how anyone here thinks they have a right to FORBID a valid, well-meant, respectable and constructive contribution from being made!
See the previous thread "Languages: crossing a border" on wikipedia-l which should lay to rest any claims that I am the only one concerned about opening the floodgates to allow any conlang that has "some number of interested speakers":
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-April/014978.html
Even if, SO WHAT?! What's so hard about deleting Wikipedias again when interest has dried out for a year or so? Why do you think you need to stop Wikipedias from being created when PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN CONTRIBUTING ?!?!?!
Various guidelines for inclusion have been proposed, none have been adopted yet.
There are. Laurent has quoted several. You just dismissed them on completely frivolous grounds.
Timwi
Timwi-
Irrelevant. They have not been abolished, therefore they are in effect.
Wrong. Any guideline needs to have rough consensus support at any given time to be in effect, *especially* when the situation to which the guideline is to be applied changes substantially as is the case here. Otherwise we would never be able to get rid of stupid guidelines that have been thought up at some ancient point in Wikipedia history. There is clearly no consensus to apply principles that have been devised for natural languages to obscure conlangs.
My position stands. It's also clear that you seem to be unable to have a reasonable discussion on the topic, so this is my last message in this thread. We can settle this through a vote or a compromise. Any attempts to subvert a fair, well-publicized and open process will not be tolerated.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
It's also clear that you seem to be unable to have a reasonable discussion on the topic
It is interesting that you always think this of other people.
And then you blindly stick to your own opinion and completely dismiss without consideration any arguments or points brought forward that might contradict it.
Personally, I'm thinking of that as unreasonable.
Now, I'm sure we'll both agree that there is no objective measurement of "reasonability", if that word exists at all. All we can do to discuss something is bring forward arguments. This is what I am doing, as well as other people who do not oppose a Klingon Wikipedia. You are not refuting any of the arguments, nor have you ever replied to my suggested compromise.
Timwi
From: "Timwi" timwi@gmx.net
Erik Moeller wrote:
with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
I see no such majority support.
Are you ...?
Could we just have a simple show of support by voting... advertise the vote, in the different email lists and in meta then give folks sometime to think and cast their vote and thus settle the issue?
This would be more valuable to our community building than to simply argue one way or the other. Since Klingon has an ISO abbrev. And Google uses it as a choice in its interface why not, I say, but let's just have a vote and settle this issue.
Sincerely, Jay B.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org