Heiko Evermann wrote:
Hi Gerard,
slowly I am beginning to be fed up with this discussion. I ask you not to misrepresent my position any longer.
On the one word you told me by e-mail that was a hundred percent error turned out to be used 186 times on the internet (I have a screenshot of google if you don't believe it) and I found the writer who used it in her texts - she's a reporter for a newspaper in North Germany and has been writing articles in Pattdüütsch vor over 13 years for them now. I also contacted her to ask her how to categorise her writings.
Another mysterious supporting source.
You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.
Please list this word, please name this writer, so that we can discuss this one item in detail. I had listed several gravely misspelled words (according to all spellings that I know of), so please tell us which one of them you are referring here. Please name your sources. You could e.g. cite any dictionary whatsoever to prove your point. I have given details. I can show you several dictionaries that support my spelling. You so far have given 0. In words *ZERO*. That is not enough. Besides you have not even given any information about the origin of the list. We know which web site it is from, but from the misspellings in capitalization it is clear that it is derived from a text. I would really like to know which text that is. The problem is that you so far have not done anything to underly your claims with any credible source. Again: citing one website that is mirrored to some other places is circular reasoning, but no proof. Again: wiktionary is not a dump for all the misspellings in the world. You would not get through with that in any other wiktionary.
We have a letter by a university professor informing us that bitter fights are waged over what is "correct" spelling in nds. Anyway the fact that you have your sources in itself only proves that you can attribute the information that you provide to an orthography. "Werner Eichelberg sien dollet Wöörbook" is the source of Sabine's list; Werner indicated that the source were articles that were translated from deutschplatt. Your assertion that this must be incorrect is based on the availability of the resources that you have. There are some 200 valid orthographies and your assertion that some words *must *be wrong can be substantiated when you have considered them all. The sheer fact that this source has been indicated for several years as a good resource on the nds.wikipedia must count for something, (it is not just any old website :)
You again assert that they are misspellings. Given that Sabine is in the process of getting more resources for this discussion, it would be prudent to give it some time and not insist on instant resolution because this is not feasible.
So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to that..
Now the thing is that you wanted to impose things on us. Besides you created facts by importing this list into it.wiktionary.org. A list that is highly suspicious.
First of all I have done nothing here; I have not imported the list, but given your point of view that only what you know to be correct should be inserted I do agree that what Sabine did is in line with the Wiki tradition. She provides information that people can comment on. Again, I urge you to identify the words that you know to be correct for the orthography that they represent. This will ultimately give us a list of words that cannot be attributed to any orthography because they are wrong; they will then be indicated for what we will know at that time.
When Heiko is to ignore substantiated facts, he will make what he does in the Wiktionary world irrelevant. This would not be about ediwars. I do not expect that Heiko will get into an editwar as there is a perfect solution and that is using proper labelling. When Heiko indicates words to be according to the Sass orthography or whatever Heiko orthography knows, his work will be most relevant. There are plenty possible solutions here.
No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why haven't you done that all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your only argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and therefore it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with the tag "very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit from that? Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an nds.wiktionary.org needs to present data that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If there should be a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly *after* inserting the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has helped to make the data a lot more relevant.
I am not party in this really because I am not gaining access to new resources. What I am doing is showing that what is being done is relevant and an acceptable way of going forward.
To make it relevant you have to state what orthography a word is http://nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/ankieken (a recently changed article) does not indicate an orthography and is from my point of view as relevant as any of the stuff Sabine uploaded. Low Saxon may be in a bad way, it is helped by working together and doing a good job in categorizing words to the orthographies that are in use. It is not helped by us endlessly exchanging mail. I will take you more seriously when you start indicating orthographies. You can trust Sabine that she is writing to all these resources and I expect that it will lead to wordlist that will indicate what orthography they belong to. This in turn will make what we both aim for more objective; a good resource for nds.
I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a general question - it does not happen the first time that people know how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs for that: they are there in the histories.
The same accusations that Sabine put in her anonymous mail to this list were also found in her answer to my post to it.wiktionary.org, at least to my (albeit limited) understanding of Italian. And therefore this forum is indeed a place to discuss these things.
If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!
Here you show that you do not apreciate what Wiktionary is about; every wiktionary is about all words in all languages. Therefore it is completely acceptable to add this content in the Italian Wiktionary.
Then please mark these entries as what they are: Low Saxon in an awful quality, full of errors and following an unsubstantiated very private spelling of one individual. Or prove otherwise, which so far (even after lots of mails and discussions) you have not done.
As mentioned before, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Start indicating orthographies and you prove the quality of your contributions.
Please do at least try, so that we (you and I) can discuss the real issue: the quality of your data. Again: this is not Sass-spelling vs. the world, but one very private, inconsistent, doubtful spelling against the rest of Low Saxon, and we will really clean this mess up in nds.wiktionary.org. At least unless you back up your position with real facts. Now this should not be too difficult, shouldn't it?
And perhaps we can then go back to work, because there really is a lot of work to do and the list could already have been cleaned up, if we didn't have this discussion and if you then import the corrected data for us, or if you give us acces to the import script. (Which by the way I have asked for several times so far. I also need it because I have quite a long list of words (apart from your list) derived from the Low Saxon translation of KDE that I would like to import.)
The software we are using is known to you; we use the pywikipedia bot software. No problems there. Generating the source for the bot is something that is often different depending on what we have for input. It is a typical handjob. If you have a list with Sass compliant words or a list with words in another orthography (preferably with at least one translation) I am quite happy to make you a source so that you can upload this. Are these KDE files .po files ??
Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time?
There are many ways in which we can cooperate but the bottom line is; to improve nds content you have to indicate the orthography because without it, the quality of the information is debatable. So again let us work together and agree that knowing the orthography is key to proving the worth of individual lemmas.
NB this whole exchange of e-mails is not really relevant to the Wikipedia-l so I will only answer from now on at the Wiktionary-l
Thanks, GerardM