Hi,
first of all, thanks for setting up the Klingon Wikipedia :)
However, we need you to set this option that allows us to have article titles in lower-case. Example:
http://tlh.wikipedia.org/wiki/TlhInganpu%27
This article should be at [[tlhInganpu']], with a lower-case t, not T.
Thanks! Timwi
Timwi-
Hi,
first of all, thanks for setting up the Klingon Wikipedia :)
Er, excuse me? Who did this and why? I thought we had agreed to put these borderline languages on hold until there's a consensus on how to deal with them. I'm not very happy about facts being made through administrative action. As far as I can tell, there was no vote and no discussion on this.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Er, excuse me? Who did this and why? I thought we had agreed to put these borderline languages on hold until there's a consensus on how to deal with them. I'm not very happy about facts being made through administrative action. As far as I can tell, there was no vote and no discussion on this.
Erik beat me to the punch. I'm not sure this discussion belongs on tech-l, but as this is the only Wikipedia list I subscribe to and I think the topic is serious enough, I'll voice my thoughts: get Klingon wikipedia away from wikipedia.org, and do it fast.
After people are told how wikipedia works ("you mean EVERYONE can edit ANYTHING?" "yes" "clearly then it's completely useless"), convincing them of its value as a useful and convenient source of information is difficult enough as is. Adding an inexistent, overtly nerdy language to the list of translations is putting words in the mouth of the incredulous who will be ever so delighted to ask "Wikipedia? You mean the pretend-encyclopedia that is available in Klingon?"
Don't give them the luxury. Jimbo - Wikipedia is a serious project and one that, I think, has a very bright future - don't taint it with this type of exercise in pointlessness (how many users do you think will use this?). I'd suggest this language is shut down immediately and relocated offsite (possibly to http://www.memory-alpha.org/ in this case, which also runs MediaWiki and is topically correct). A list of 'Non-endorsed, unofficial Wikipedia translations' may perhaps be kept at Wikipedia, but these borderline languages should in no way be mistakable for "official" Wikipedias.
Cheers, Ivan. P.S. Before someone points out 'Google does it!' as an admissible argument, let me remind them that Google does *not* provide content. We, on the other hand, do.
Ivan Krstic wrote:
After people are told how wikipedia works ("you mean EVERYONE can edit ANYTHING?" "yes" "clearly then it's completely useless"), convincing them of its value as a useful and convenient source of information is difficult enough as is. Adding an inexistent, overtly nerdy language to the list of translations is putting words in the mouth of the incredulous who will be ever so delighted to ask "Wikipedia? You mean the pretend-encyclopedia that is available in Klingon?"
That argument is speculative and alarmist. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any significant loss of support would result from having a Klingon Wikipedia. You seem to forget that the very thing which has made Wikipedia popular is that very right to allow "EVERYONE" to "edit ANYTHING". Counterintuitive as you may find it, it is a fact of life. I frequently mention Wikipedia to others, and I also am met with the same incredulous responses. I am, nevertheless, confident enough and patient enough to know that in time they will change their mind.
I do agree that Klingon to be completely useless. If it is that useless then after a flurry of initial activity people will just ignore it, and it can safely be allowed to die "not with a bang but a whimper." It is unlikely that I will ever participate in the Klingon project, but I can respect the desire of others to do so.
Wikipedia works best when the rights of people with useless ideas are respected. There is always ample opportunity to disagree with the ideas.
Don't give them the luxury. Jimbo - Wikipedia is a serious project and one that, I think, has a very bright future - don't taint it with this type of exercise in pointlessness (how many users do you think will use this?). I'd suggest this language is shut down immediately and relocated offsite (possibly to http://www.memory-alpha.org/ in this case, which also runs MediaWiki and is topically correct). A list of 'Non-endorsed, unofficial Wikipedia translations' may perhaps be kept at Wikipedia, but these borderline languages should in no way be mistakable for "official" Wikipedias.
There is a difference between a serious project, and taking one's view of the project too seriously. Your view is reminiscent of one who guides his views by what the neighbours think. It's like being intimidated by the old neighbourhood busybody who is always looking out of her window to see what everyone is doing just so she can have ammunition for her next session of hen cackling.
Wikipedia should not reduce itself to being solely a refuge for academic elitists.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That argument is speculative and alarmist. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any significant loss of support would result from having a Klingon Wikipedia.
It's not loss of support I'm worried about, it's gaining more of it.
I do agree that Klingon to be completely useless. If it is that useless then after a flurry of initial activity people will just ignore it, and it can safely be allowed to die "not with a bang but a whimper." It is unlikely that I will ever participate in the Klingon project, but I can respect the desire of others to do so.
The problem I have with this reasoning is that it destroys the notion of a line being drawn - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is *not* Everything2 (http://www.everything2.com). It's not one Klingon wiki that 's going to be Wikipedia's downfall - but I posit it will hurt the project image or at best not help it, will be completely useless, and at the end of the day provide no benefit to anyone.
There is a difference between a serious project, and taking one's view of the project too seriously. Your view is reminiscent of one who guides his views by what the neighbours think. It's like being intimidated by the old neighbourhood busybody who is always looking out of her window to see what everyone is doing just so she can have ammunition for her next session of hen cackling.
Hardly. Think of it more as a parent sending their kid to first day of school, and making sure they're dressed nicely so the other kids don't immediately find a reason to pick on them. Not a matter of intimidation or taking something too seriously - but a matter of picking your fights.
Some years ago, a friend of mine designed a language of her own, complete with a reasonably elaborate grammar, vocabulary, style, etc. Stories and poems of varying length are written in it. Would creating a Silverelven encyclopedia be alright, then, too? (If this isn't as ludicrous to you as it is to me, then let's just agree this is a large difference of opinion and leave the issue at that).
Wikipedia should not reduce itself to being solely a refuge for academic elitists.
Academic elitists? I think that's opening a whole other can of worms. An encyclopedic effort just needs to know where to draw the line.
tojo'Qa'...
Cheers, Ivan.
Ivan Krstic wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That argument is speculative and alarmist. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any significant loss of support would result from having a Klingon Wikipedia.
It's not loss of support I'm worried about, it's gaining more of it.
Almost anything we do can lose AND gain support. We can't please everybody. Unless the effect is demonstrably significant it's not worth worrying over it.
There is a difference between a serious project, and taking one's view of the project too seriously. Your view is reminiscent of one who guides his views by what the neighbours think. It's like being intimidated by the old neighbourhood busybody who is always looking out of her window to see what everyone is doing just so she can have ammunition for her next session of hen cackling.
Hardly. Think of it more as a parent sending their kid to first day of school, and making sure they're dressed nicely so the other kids don't immediately find a reason to pick on them. Not a matter of intimidation or taking something too seriously - but a matter of picking your fights.
The decisions that kids make to pick on another one are a lot more complex than that. An overdressed kid is just as likely to be picked on. My son is 14, and it has never been a problem. I don't worry about what he wears. (His mother does enough of that.)
Some years ago, a friend of mine designed a language of her own, complete with a reasonably elaborate grammar, vocabulary, style, etc. Stories and poems of varying length are written in it. Would creating a Silverelven encyclopedia be alright, then, too? (If this isn't as ludicrous to you as it is to me, then let's just agree this is a large difference of opinion and leave the issue at that).
I believe everything you state about the development of this language. The fact is that she hasn't tried to start a Silverelven Wikipedia. It's unrealistic to expect that she ever will. Why bother to deal with a hypothetical question that has no practical application. Until she tries I can remain open-minded about it.
Wikipedia should not reduce itself to being solely a refuge for academic elitists.
Academic elitists? I think that's opening a whole other can of worms. An encyclopedic effort just needs to know where to draw the line.
What's so important about drawing lines?
tojo'Qa'...
I have no idea what that means. :-) Ec
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
[...] Wikipedia should not reduce itself to being solely a refuge for
academic
elitists.
Well said, the Webby was after all for "community". Have you ever met a person who is an active learner or user of Klingon? I have. Does 'he' look any different than the regular Joe? Nope. And yet his choice of 'hobby' is the study of an artificial language inspired by a SciFi show... :-\ But then again, have you met folks who are so devoted to the idea that a free online encyclopedia where anyone can edit just about anything can actually exist? And how!
I'm not a supporter of the Klingon language. But I would support the right of those who use the Klingon language to exist and maybe thrive. Otherwise the term "community" may not have much meaning, really. What can one lose? But it will mean some links and visits by those in the Klingon language community who will find Wikipedia a tolerant and welcoming project, indeed, Google is a good example of how it does no harm to include, but to exclude would definitely be harmful to our community.
Sincerely, Jay B.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Timwi-
first of all, thanks for setting up the Klingon Wikipedia :)
Er, excuse me? Who did this and why? I thought we had agreed to put these borderline languages on hold until there's a consensus on how to deal with them. I'm not very happy about facts being made through administrative action. As far as I can tell, there was no vote and no discussion on this.
Erik
Jimbo said he wanted it. As far as I'm concerned, developers are still answerable to him not the other way around. If you want to hold a site wide vote, go for your life. If there's enough support, we'll delete the wiki.
-- Tim Starling
Tim-
Jimbo said he wanted it. As far as I'm concerned, developers are still answerable to him not the other way around. If you want to hold a site wide vote, go for your life. If there's enough support, we'll delete the wiki.
No, that is incorrect. Jimbo said: "For example, it would be bad to have a Klingon Wikipedia, I think." http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015324.html
Given that your action was based on a false premise, please disable the wiki now.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller schrieb:
No, that is incorrect. Jimbo said: "For example, it would be bad to have a Klingon Wikipedia, I think." http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015324.html
along with
"Regarding Klingon, I have no objections to it.
I guess when it comes right down to it what I mainly want is that we have some external objective way to determine the difference between a language and a vanity project. I don't particularly care what official list we use.
--Jimbo"
later on,
Mathias
Mathias Schindler <neubau@...> quotes Jimbo saying about Klingon:
I guess when it comes right down to it what I mainly want is that we have some external objective way to determine the difference between a language and a vanity project. I don't particularly care what official list we use.
Is "inclusion in ISO 639" an objective way to determine this? I presume that ISO does not allocate language codes to just anyone's conlang project, but Klingon and Lojban, for example, are there (tlh, jbo).
Cheers, Philip
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Erik Moeller schrieb:
No, that is incorrect. Jimbo said: "For example, it would be bad to have a Klingon Wikipedia, I think." http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015324.html
along with
"Regarding Klingon, I have no objections to it.
I obviously contradicted myself, which is rare. That's obviously not good.
We should talk about it, and I should not make the final decision, but I am inclined to say that I see no real harm in it. When I made my first statement, I was unaware that (a) Klingon does have an ISO code and (b) it has an active community of hobbyist speakers. I thought it was just created for the movies and studied by 3 or 4 super-trekkies.
--Jimbo
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org