Peter- Interesting definition. Why do you not define opposition as "does not support"? Can we count all abstentions in the Board of Trustees election as votes for me? Regards, Erik

Peter Danenberg wrote: Support (18) Non-support (3) Rholton Chameleon Mark Richards Sanders muc Marnanel Kukkurovaca TUF-KAT Eclecticology Ronline Philip Newton André Müller Waerth (from http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages)

Ray- I never cease to be fascinated by how much people are willing to perpetuate a lie if it serves their own purposes. Regards, Erik

Ray- 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- 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

Timwi- 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: 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.

Timwi- 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- 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

Ray- We were talking about small conlangs, maybe a 10,000 speaker cutoff. Esperanto has about 2 million speakers. Regards, Erik

Erik Moeller wrote: 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). 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: Perhaps. That being said, would a Ferengi-pedia be evidence that we have gone commercial? :-) Ec

Ray- As opposed to a tyranny of the minority? 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

Ray- 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

Neil Harris wrote: And what makes you think that it doesn't?

Timwi wrote: 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

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

Indeed, Erik; anti-Klingon ressentiment touches the very root of the matter. Loud appeals to consensus may nevertheless harbour an all-too-personal bias. Best, Peter

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 Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:44:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote: And they won't for links to Volapuk, Tokipona or Latin? 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) 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. I propose to isolate during test period (so if the test fails it doesn"t have consequences on others). 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?) 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 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. 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. -- Ki ça vos våye bén, Pablo Saratxaga http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466 [you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto] [min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]

Laurent- 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

Laurent- 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

Erik Moeller wrote: 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.

Timwi- 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

From: "Timwi" <timwi(a)gmx.net> 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.