Hi,
I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis. These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created as soon as possible!!
1. Banyumasan (8) 2. Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2 anonymous votes]) 3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose) 4. Samogitian (Žemaitėška) (11) 5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
More info on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
Kind regards, Servien Ilaino; and the Meta-Wiki community
No -- with 3 oppose votes, the Dutch LS Wiki should NOT be created. 2 votes was one thing; 3 is quite a different thing.
Mark
On 24/11/05, Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis. These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created as soon as possible!!
- Banyumasan (8)
- Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
anonymous votes]) 3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose) 4. Samogitian (Žemaitėška) (11) 5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
More info on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
Kind regards, Servien Ilaino; and the Meta-Wiki community
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Mark, 2 anonymous votes that basically disqualify themselves.. Great to know that you are there on your own Mark. So there is one qualified vote and two unqualified votes, three is a different thing. As to the proposed ideas of Jimmy, both Stellingwerfs, Gronings and Veluws could get their own Wikipedias as well. I am sure you would support that as well. If you don't then basically you agree with me that Jimmy's proposal has its fair share of problems.
There is no such thing as an objective way of saying what a language is. You can come close but as long as people are willing to go on their hobby horse or fight from their ivory tower you will have for many languages controversy because they might be a dialect.
For me having new projects is not a problem as long as people put sincere effort in their project. Yes, I have moved my position more and more towards allowing for most efforts. I am also not really afraid of hoaxes, when we find them we delete them if we are able and willing to come to such a decision. What is there to lose but the effort that a new community can put into a project that will be one of our projects?
As to shifting position, even when a dialect gets its wikipedia, it will reflect the culture that is part of the people that speak it. When people of other dialects read this, they will find the pecularies of these people and find the differences and similarities. It will be a kind of information that will be hard to get in any other way.
So yes, bring on nds-nl :)
Thanks, GerardM
On 11/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No -- with 3 oppose votes, the Dutch LS Wiki should NOT be created. 2 votes was one thing; 3 is quite a different thing.
Mark
On 24/11/05, Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis. These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created as soon as possible!!
- Banyumasan (8)
- Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
anonymous votes]) 3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose) 4. Samogitian (Žemaitėška) (11) 5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
More info on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
Kind regards, Servien Ilaino; and the Meta-Wiki community
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2 anonymous votes that basically disqualify themselves.. Great to know that you are there on your own Mark. So there is one qualified vote and two unqualified votes, three is a different thing. As to the proposed ideas of Jimmy, both Stellingwerfs, Gronings and Veluws could get their own Wikipedias as well. I am sure you would support that as well. If you don't then basically you agree with me that Jimmy's proposal has its fair share of problems.
How do anonymous votes disqualify themselves? Wikimedia voting policy is very clear. Anon voting is allowed unless local policy specifically dictates otherwise.
There is no such thing as an objective way of saying what a language is. You can come close but as long as people are willing to go on their hobby horse or fight from their ivory tower you will have for many languages controversy because they might be a dialect.
...
For me having new projects is not a problem as long as people put sincere effort in their project. Yes, I have moved my position more and more towards allowing for most efforts. I am also not really afraid of hoaxes, when we find them we delete them if we are able and willing to come to such a decision. What is there to lose but the effort that a new community can put into a project that will be one of our projects?
I for one don't think that's particularly relevant. What _is_ relevant, is that even when the vote was at 15-4, Servien tried to shove it through even though by ALL definitions that is absolutely not consensus.
As to shifting position, even when a dialect gets its wikipedia, it will reflect the culture that is part of the people that speak it. When people of other dialects read this, they will find the pecularies of these people and find the differences and similarities. It will be a kind of information that will be hard to get in any other way.
I don't think it's relevant. 3 oppose votes.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Hi,
I'll step in here and try not to cause too much of a fuss.
I just want to notice here that every time this debate comes up, the only one who voices objections is Mark, the only non-anonymous voter against the new language Wikipedia. (I may remember this selectively though.) Of course, the people that most eloquently *support* the creation probably voted for it too.
I wanted to write a conclusion here but couldn't really think of any. Just wanted to let you know that this struck me. The rest of the mailing list doesn't seem to want to get involved.
Regards, Leon
On 24/11/05, Leon Planken leon@ch.tudelft.nl wrote:
Hi,
I'll step in here and try not to cause too much of a fuss.
I just want to notice here that every time this debate comes up, the only one who voices objections is Mark, the only non-anonymous voter against the new language Wikipedia. (I may remember this selectively though.) Of course, the people that most eloquently *support* the creation probably voted for it too.
Yes, to a certain degree; but how many people asked for its creation on-list? So far, Servien and Arbeo and perhaps Gerard M. So just as it's not fair to apply 3 to a full count of voters, I don't think it's fair to do the same for 1.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Hoi, There is one other thing wrong with voting for languages. You are supposed to vote for a project if you are willing to help with that project. Consequently I have not voted for nds-nl. For people who vote AGAINST the setup of a language there is no such barrier. There is nothing in there for them. It does not have consequences.
There has been a lot of acromony about this language, Mark has moved it out of the standard request page several times and it still just does not die. If anything it proves that people want this language and want it badly. I do not understand what is in there for Mark. I do know that a democracy and voting where the votes do not carry the same weight is bad.
Thanks, GerardM
On 11/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/11/05, Leon Planken leon@ch.tudelft.nl wrote:
Hi,
I'll step in here and try not to cause too much of a fuss.
I just want to notice here that every time this debate comes up, the only one who voices objections is Mark, the only non-anonymous voter against the new language Wikipedia. (I may remember this selectively though.) Of course, the people that most eloquently *support* the creation probably voted for it too.
Yes, to a certain degree; but how many people asked for its creation on-list? So far, Servien and Arbeo and perhaps Gerard M. So just as it's not fair to apply 3 to a full count of voters, I don't think it's fair to do the same for 1.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
There is one other thing wrong with voting for languages. You are supposed to vote for a project if you are willing to help with that project.
That's quite untrue. If it were true, it would say so in some official or quasiofficial page. And it doesn't.
Consequently I have not voted for nds-nl. For people who vote AGAINST the setup of a language there is no such barrier. There is nothing in there for them. It does not have consequences.
...
Then, why don't we have Zlatiborian WP? Or American English?
If you requested a new language, "Meijssenish", and somehow managed to find 5 or 6 people willing to work on it, does that mean that opposition votes would not matter?
The voting system is implemented to weed out requests that have issues with them or that might cause problems. Thus, Zlatiborian, American English, Brazilian Portuguese, DDR-Sprach, and the like, were not created, even though they had some supporters.
There has been a lot of acromony about this language, Mark has moved it out of the standard request page several times and it still just does not die.
No -- you've got it backwards. I have moved it BACK to the standard request page; Servien has been moving it off of there to the Approved requests page.
If anything it proves that people want this language and want it badly. I do
No -- it proves that Servien is stubborn. He requested people to come vote against the Veluws WP because he was afraid the proposal might come through... even though that would've meant a Wikipedia in his language in some form or another.
not understand what is in there for Mark. I do know that a democracy and voting where the votes do not carry the same weight is bad.
1) What there is for me, is that I think this request is absurd. So far, only 2 (count it -- 2) native speakers have weighed in on this. All other votes are from people who either do not speak the variety in question at all, or who speak it not as their native language. Some votes are based on the premise that it's to separate LS from the Dutch WP, which Servien told some people, which is patently absurd. Now, I would not oppose this request if I hadn't made 100% sure that no such language exists.
According to a dialect atlas of LS referenced for me by Arbeo, there are 4 dialects of LS:
1) North Lowlands Saxon 2) Westphalian 3) Eastphalian 4) Schleswigish.
The first dialect is the dialect used in the Netherlands, as well as much of Northern Germany, and is the dialect used on the current nds.wiki.
There are no significant isoglosses along the Dutch-German border. Even the spraak/taal difference does not correspond to national boundaries -- in Groningen, they say "spraak". Veluws has some interesting linguistic features that distinguish it from other speech of the Northern LS area, but Gronings doesn't. Gronings is barely different from what's spoken in neighbouring Germany.
Also, the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages recognises one language called "Low Saxon", as a regional language in Germany and in the Netherlands. It doesn't recognise a separate "Dutch Low Saxon" language or "German Low Saxon" language.
Now, if somebody requested a Westphalian WP, I'd support it because Westphalian and Northern LS are not mutually intelligible easily. But most Northern LS dialects are.
Wikipedias are created for separate languages, not separate countries. What Servien is trying to do here is pretend that there is a separate language, when in fact there is not. All pages about "Nedersaksisch" note that it's spoken in NL and DE both. I found 0 references to a so-called "Dutch Low Saxon" language, and no website or book which considered the national border a real linguistic boundary.
The benefit to a Wikipedia in which people from different countries cooperate is that national POVs are balanced. If Servien has his way, he will have a WP of only Dutch people with largely conservative views. Many things could be written there that would be declared POV at nds.wiki.
Now, to address the "democracy" part -- Wikipedia is not a "democracy". Majority does _not_ rule. We have a little thing called "consensus". That means that there is general agreement. 3 people disagreeing out of 18 is not "general agreement". Yes, the 18 people are in a majority, but Wikipedia is designed so that the minority doesn't have to bend over so the majority can do whatever it wants, and the majority is encouraged to seek a compromise that more people will agree on.
Now certainly, if it were 1 oppose vote to 50, that would be a definite consensus. But 3 to 18 isn't. It means there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved, or the WP shouldn't be created.
Now, if the ndsnl.wiki is created, that sets the precedent for other potentially ridiculous WPs... at any moment when they just happen to have a majority supporting (as Zlatiborian did for a few days), they can say "Oh our request is approved now create it".
Mark
PS
Perhaps you want to know why I would vote against a Wikipedia, because you think its creation won't affect me. Well, if you think that, it's an incorrect assumption -- if a Wikipedia is created like that, for a national boundary rather than a genuine linguistic boundary, it degrades the status of the Foundation and of the project as a whole. I do not want to see this happen.
Now, in all of this, it's also undeniable that Servien has not exactly had exemplary behaviour either. He started out by being rather rude, then moved on to trying to force his proposal through (at one point, the vote was 15-4, and yet he still said it should be considered "Approved" because of a majority, failing to understand the concept of consensus and unresolved issues). He was impatient with questions, did not provide full explanatory answers, and continued to be rude. More recently, he has resorted to namecalling aswell.
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Ahh, and if you think Dutch spelling and German spelling of Lowlands Saxon are truly incompatible, check the archives of the mainpage at nds.wiki -- People have in the past posted messages there in Duthc spelt Lowlands Saxon, received responses in German spelling, and then responded in turn to that in Dutch spelling.
People from across the border exchange mails in LS everyday on lowlands-l.
Mark
On 25/11/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
There is one other thing wrong with voting for languages. You are supposed to vote for a project if you are willing to help with that project.
That's quite untrue. If it were true, it would say so in some official or quasiofficial page. And it doesn't.
Consequently I have not voted for nds-nl. For people who vote AGAINST the setup of a language there is no such barrier. There is nothing in there for them. It does not have consequences.
...
Then, why don't we have Zlatiborian WP? Or American English?
If you requested a new language, "Meijssenish", and somehow managed to find 5 or 6 people willing to work on it, does that mean that opposition votes would not matter?
The voting system is implemented to weed out requests that have issues with them or that might cause problems. Thus, Zlatiborian, American English, Brazilian Portuguese, DDR-Sprach, and the like, were not created, even though they had some supporters.
There has been a lot of acromony about this language, Mark has moved it out of the standard request page several times and it still just does not die.
No -- you've got it backwards. I have moved it BACK to the standard request page; Servien has been moving it off of there to the Approved requests page.
If anything it proves that people want this language and want it badly. I do
No -- it proves that Servien is stubborn. He requested people to come vote against the Veluws WP because he was afraid the proposal might come through... even though that would've meant a Wikipedia in his language in some form or another.
not understand what is in there for Mark. I do know that a democracy and voting where the votes do not carry the same weight is bad.
- What there is for me, is that I think this request is absurd. So
far, only 2 (count it -- 2) native speakers have weighed in on this. All other votes are from people who either do not speak the variety in question at all, or who speak it not as their native language. Some votes are based on the premise that it's to separate LS from the Dutch WP, which Servien told some people, which is patently absurd. Now, I would not oppose this request if I hadn't made 100% sure that no such language exists.
According to a dialect atlas of LS referenced for me by Arbeo, there are 4 dialects of LS:
- North Lowlands Saxon
- Westphalian
- Eastphalian
- Schleswigish.
The first dialect is the dialect used in the Netherlands, as well as much of Northern Germany, and is the dialect used on the current nds.wiki.
There are no significant isoglosses along the Dutch-German border. Even the spraak/taal difference does not correspond to national boundaries -- in Groningen, they say "spraak". Veluws has some interesting linguistic features that distinguish it from other speech of the Northern LS area, but Gronings doesn't. Gronings is barely different from what's spoken in neighbouring Germany.
Also, the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages recognises one language called "Low Saxon", as a regional language in Germany and in the Netherlands. It doesn't recognise a separate "Dutch Low Saxon" language or "German Low Saxon" language.
Now, if somebody requested a Westphalian WP, I'd support it because Westphalian and Northern LS are not mutually intelligible easily. But most Northern LS dialects are.
Wikipedias are created for separate languages, not separate countries. What Servien is trying to do here is pretend that there is a separate language, when in fact there is not. All pages about "Nedersaksisch" note that it's spoken in NL and DE both. I found 0 references to a so-called "Dutch Low Saxon" language, and no website or book which considered the national border a real linguistic boundary.
The benefit to a Wikipedia in which people from different countries cooperate is that national POVs are balanced. If Servien has his way, he will have a WP of only Dutch people with largely conservative views. Many things could be written there that would be declared POV at nds.wiki.
Now, to address the "democracy" part -- Wikipedia is not a "democracy". Majority does _not_ rule. We have a little thing called "consensus". That means that there is general agreement. 3 people disagreeing out of 18 is not "general agreement". Yes, the 18 people are in a majority, but Wikipedia is designed so that the minority doesn't have to bend over so the majority can do whatever it wants, and the majority is encouraged to seek a compromise that more people will agree on.
Now certainly, if it were 1 oppose vote to 50, that would be a definite consensus. But 3 to 18 isn't. It means there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved, or the WP shouldn't be created.
Now, if the ndsnl.wiki is created, that sets the precedent for other potentially ridiculous WPs... at any moment when they just happen to have a majority supporting (as Zlatiborian did for a few days), they can say "Oh our request is approved now create it".
Mark
PS
Perhaps you want to know why I would vote against a Wikipedia, because you think its creation won't affect me. Well, if you think that, it's an incorrect assumption -- if a Wikipedia is created like that, for a national boundary rather than a genuine linguistic boundary, it degrades the status of the Foundation and of the project as a whole. I do not want to see this happen.
Now, in all of this, it's also undeniable that Servien has not exactly had exemplary behaviour either. He started out by being rather rude, then moved on to trying to force his proposal through (at one point, the vote was 15-4, and yet he still said it should be considered "Approved" because of a majority, failing to understand the concept of consensus and unresolved issues). He was impatient with questions, did not provide full explanatory answers, and continued to be rude. More recently, he has resorted to namecalling aswell.
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
On Friday 25 November 2005 11:20, Mark Williamson wrote:
Ahh, and if you think Dutch spelling and German spelling of Lowlands Saxon are truly incompatible, check the archives of the mainpage at nds.wiki -- People have in the past posted messages there in Duthc spelt Lowlands Saxon, received responses in German spelling, and then responded in turn to that in Dutch spelling.
People from across the border exchange mails in LS everyday on lowlands-l.
It's nice to know that there are people who are even worse than us :)
Have you considered installing extension which is being made for Serbian Wikipedia, which would enable that each article is viewable in both spellings?
Yes, but Servien and Heiko Evermann were rude about it, and at the moment it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Mark
On 25/11/05, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Friday 25 November 2005 11:20, Mark Williamson wrote:
Ahh, and if you think Dutch spelling and German spelling of Lowlands Saxon are truly incompatible, check the archives of the mainpage at nds.wiki -- People have in the past posted messages there in Duthc spelt Lowlands Saxon, received responses in German spelling, and then responded in turn to that in Dutch spelling.
People from across the border exchange mails in LS everyday on lowlands-l.
It's nice to know that there are people who are even worse than us :)
Have you considered installing extension which is being made for Serbian Wikipedia, which would enable that each article is viewable in both spellings? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org