[Foundation-l] Re: new language policy

[Jimmy Wales]

Anthere wrote:
> 
> The same problem exist for andalousian language. Many anon votes.
> Sockpuppetry chances raise high as well.
> 
> In short, the voting system as is is a pure joke. What do you suggest ?

Currently everyone seems to acknowledge that the existing system is no
longer functional.  When Angela came up with it, it was a very good
solution to the problem that we faced at that time, but as time has gone
on, and we have more and more Wikipedias and we are more and more well
known, that system has broken down.  We run the risk of making very poor
judgments, being hoaxed, etc.

1. I do not support the concept of a "seed wiki" because the test of
what is a proper decision in this area does not depend solely on the
ability of a motivated group of people to push their agenda.  I have no
doubt whatsoever but that we could have a successful (in the sense of
article count and participation) wiki in "pig latin dialect" (a joke
language seen in many humorous machine translators on the net) if a
group of funny people decided to make it.  A seed wiki is not the answer.

(For non-native English speakers who don't know what 'pig latin' is, it
is a way of speaking English practiced mostly by either parents trying
to say things in front of children in a way that children don't
understand, or spoken by children for fun once they learn the trick.

Orfay Onnay-ativenay Englishay eakerspay oohay  on'tnay ownay atwhay
igpay atinlay isay....]

2.  I strongly support that legitimately existing small languages be
encouraged to start Wikipedias in their language either for direct
purposes of need (i.e. if many people speak only the small language) or
for language/cultural preservation purposes (i.e. if no one at all
speaks only the small language, for example Cornish, which was a dead
language which is now being revived and which has a 600 article
wikipedia and 200 converstaional speakers).

3.  I very strongly oppose the creation of new wikis for dialects which
are highly mutually intelligible with existing languages, and doubly so
if the dialects are being put forward as separate languages for
political purposes.  For example, I oppose the creation of an
African-American Vernacular English Wikipedia ("ebonics") because it is
not sufficiently different from Standard English _and_ because it's
creation would be fairly obviously done for political purposes.

4.  We must acknowledge that there are very many complex situations in
the world of languages, situations which can not be addressed by simple
prejudiced views of what languages we should have.  Additionally we must
acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, but that these
mistakes do not justify or set a precedent for future mistakes.

Among the more interesting complexities have to do with orthography.
Serbian and Croatian are, in my non-expert opinion, two very slightly
distinct dialects of exactly the same language, but with two different
orthographies and (sadly) a very politically charged situation.  This is
a special case, because rightly or wrongly (my opinion: wrongly) we now
have two wikipedias with separate communities, and there is no easy
solution.  I intend to visit Croatia and Serbia next year to try to
encourage the communities there to find a positive way to merge -- but
of course it will be up to them in the end.

-------

In my next email, I will outline what I think is a possible solution to
this dilemma.

--Jimbo