[Foundation-l] Re: new language policy

[Anthere]

then, I suppose you would rather support the idea of letting new 
languages develop on a seed wiki... and see to which point it is viable ?

This still raise the issue of "when do we consider a language should be 
removed from the seed wiki and put in the live wiki" (even though the 
entire content might be a hoax :-)) ?

Ant


GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When it comes to voting, I hate voting because so often the people who vote
> are not the ones that suffer the consequences. What we have seen in the
> votes are all kinds of motivations that I have tried to debunk. When you
> understand what is behind a vote (in any direction) you often find that the
> reasoning given does not really make sense.
> 
> What I do not like is that voting is the only obstacle for a Wikipedia. When
> a Wikipedia has been squatted by people who do not know the language and
> make a 'best effort' of writing in a language, we are not willing to say
> this should not be. I think this is appalling. I think more highly of an
> intellectual effort like the Klingon one than of this mongrel languages.
> 
> When the voting is as political as it apparantly is with these Spanish
> languages you can expect all the bad things when voting happens including
> ballot stuffing. So when you find people who are passionate about their
> language let them have their wikipedia. When it is not viable recognise it
> for a non viable project and kill it off.
> 
> When you want to decide these things with a vote, you will deny the people
> who believe in their language and want to make it happen. You do not give
> anything to the people who do not know this language. In a way it is
> discrimination pure and simple. When you have some quality and quantity
> demands for the continued existence of a project, you make it more honest.
> When a project fails to meet these criteria, it means that the people who
> asked for it are not the persons to do a good job. Lock it maybe save and
> delete it and wait for better times.
> 
> My opinion is therefore clear; do not have votes but have quality and
> quantity demands.
> 
> NB Given the amount of wikipedias where the language exists because of its
> army, denying new wikipedias for this reason is problematic. Either a
> wikipedia exists because of some language criteria and quantitative and
> qualititative demands or it should not.
> 
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> 
> On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>GerardM wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>I was asked yesterday if it was mandatory that during votes for new
>>>>languages creation, the editor
>>>>* has an account on meta
>>>>* has an account on any already existing project
>>>>
>>>>I do not know what the current policy is.
>>>>I am hesitant to be in favor of one or another.
>>>>I would rather say the voter should be at least a participant to another
>>>>language, because this would imply he at least know the concept.
>>>>However, I am not sure this should be mandatory... except that....
>>>>
>>>>Someone raised a complaint about the current vote here :
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Murcian_.28Murciano.29_.2825_support.3B_12_oppose.29
>>
>>>>On this new languages, we have
>>>>* anon ips voting
>>>>* accounts on meta with no edits voting
>>>>* accounts on meta with just a user page on meta voting
>>>>* accounts on other projects voting.
>>>>
>>>>Fact is, I made a bunch of quick semi-random checks (in short, on red
>>>>meta accounts in particular), and admittedly, many of them are probably
>>>>sharing the same living-room...
>>>>
>>>>I fear the editor who complained is probably right in mentionning sock
>>>>puppetry... though we can not entirely prove it of course.
>>>>Which raise the question of how fair is a vote on a controversial
>>>>language, when half voters are not current participants and may not even
>>>>be different poeple ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What should we do ?
>>>>
>>>>Ant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hoi,
>>>When you read many of the nay-sayers, you can read in many of their
>>
>>remarks
>>
>>>that this many of these language problems are really political. Not only
>>
>>is
>>
>>>it denied that many of these languages are languages, it is also
>>
>>suggested
>>
>>>that people who ask for some recognition are extremists that should make
>>
>>do
>>
>>>with the one and only language that suffices for all.
>>>
>>>When you know about these languages, I often wonder what a good reason
>>
>>is
>>
>>>for supporting a language. One of the languages that is voted down
>>
>>because
>>
>>>it 'does not exist' is Stellingwerfs. Stellingwerfs has a very active
>>>language community; a dictionary has been published the bible is being
>>>translated into Stellingwerfs and now there are these people who think
>>
>>it
>>
>>>does not need its own wikipedia. Now Stellingwerfs is not as politicial
>>
>>as
>>
>>>the Spanish languages. Then again take an other infamous example; the
>>
>>nds-nl
>>
>>>is denied because people consider that it should be part of the nds-de.
>>
>>What
>>
>>>people do not mention is that the nds-de has a vocal community that
>>
>>insists
>>
>>>on an orthography that is German oriented. This is a great example of a
>>>language where there is NO standard orthography. The same can be said
>>
>>for
>>
>>>Limburgs, there is something of a 'standard' orthography but it does not
>>>match the language that is actually spoken. The Limburg wikipedia is
>>
>>alive
>>
>>>and well. It gets mentioned in the press I am really happy with it.
>>
>>However
>>
>>>if a good example needs to be found of a WIkipedia that also does not
>>
>>have a
>>
>>>'standardised' spelling have a look at Neapolitan or Sicilian. The
>>
>>Napolitan
>>
>>>WIkipedia for instance has already more than 3000 articles.. the amount
>>
>>of
>>
>>>local involvement is great. It is there because local people are
>>>entheausiastic about this project.
>>>
>>>From my perspective I do not mind to have many wikipedias. I do want
>>>wikipedias by local people who are interested in doing this. I would
>>
>>welcome
>>
>>>many projects. We will see what works and what does not. If people who
>>
>>start
>>
>>>a project steal a page out of the Neapolitan book we will do exceedingly
>>>well. The argument that we do not need to revive languages is
>>
>>problematic in
>>
>>>my opinion. The problem is that WE do not revive these languages, it is
>>
>>the
>>
>>>people wo are the community of this wikipedia who do that. When they do
>>
>>well
>>
>>>they will become us as well. My point is, do we want to be inclusionist
>>
>>or
>>
>>>do we want to exclusionists. There is always a reason why we should not
>>
>>do
>>
>>>something. The point is that it is not you who is doing it, it is you
>>
>>who is
>>
>>>denying someone else.
>>
>>
>>Thanks for your long and detailed answer Gerard.... but it is not the
>>point I really raise. I absolutely do not want right now to enter into
>>issues of whether a language should or should not exist, but only in the
>>issue of "if we make a vote, this vote must be fair. If not, then let us
>>not do any vote at all". And "if we choose the vote option, how to make
>>a vote fair" ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>As to anonymous people voting, might it be possible that they are
>>
>>actually
>>
>>>be people speaking that language that say they want to get involved?
>>
>>(assume
>>
>>>good faith) And given all these people who are NOT going to involve
>>>themselve in a language why would they vote against, what is it to them?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>
>>I assume good faith up to a certain point. After some point, this is not
>>good faith, this is innocence :-)
>>
>>My problem is that if we start a project because there are 10
>>supporters, we sort of hope that a certain momentum will exist from the
>>very beginning. When it actually turns out that only 1 person is behind
>>10 supports... errrrr.... there is no momentum.
>>
>>And if a language is started with 10 supports and 5 oppose. And the 10
>>supports are only one person... is there sense in making a vote at all ?
>>
>>Ant
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l