[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia ethnocentric policy affects other communities

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 11:46:29 UTC 2006

George Herbert schreef:
> On 12/22/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> geni schreef:
>>> On 12/22/06, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And how much mass vandal robots did you have before discuting and
>>>> accepting this policy (if it has been ever discussed and accepted ;))
>>>> ?
>>> It's in our records for the most part you are free to search through them.
>>>> If you have a bot making mass vandalizing, if the pseudo will be latin
>>>> or non latin won't make any difference.
>>> Evidences?
>>>> And by the way for bot generated pseudo it exists a feature ;).
>>> Um no.
>>>> The
>>>> probleme here, for my point of view, is totally different. In the five
>>>> pillars we can read "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit"
>>>> exept vandals of course, and your policy is going against this as you
>>>> block non latin pseudo before they began editing, even if they would
>>>> be a good editor.
>>> If an editor can't cope with useing a latin alphabet username (doesn't
>>> have to make sense in any lanague know to man mind) then they are
>>> unlikely to be able to contibute to wikipedia.
>> This is not the issue. Certainly with SUL there is ONE user for all
>> projects and the English language Wikipedia seems to be of a mind to
>> effectively sabotage this by insisting on practices that can be and
>> should be replaced by new practices that provide a better result. A
>> 1.000+ editor from a Korean, Serbian, Chinese, Inuktitut can be accepted
>> as a known good. Please show some good faith as this can be easily be
>> checked.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
> Users who've done 1,000+ edits on Korean, Serbian, Chinese, Inuktitut
> etc WPs are not the users we are afraid of here, Gerard.
> Please stop putting up this straw man that we're all against having
> the non-english users come on over and contribute equally.  I think
> that those will be almost universally supported as a good thing among
> en.WP editors.  Implying that we think otherwise is an offensive false
> claim.  That is not why we're objecting.
When, as the current practice seems to be, block immediately, there is 
no argument that these users are the victim of this policy. The notion 
that you find it unpalatable that these people are blocked is good. Your 
suggestion that this is what the current policy leads to is exactly the 
problem you do not face. The suggestion of making people known by a 
number is dehumanising and, it does not work either because people 
typically do not remember numbers.

You are objecting and you reserve the right not to do the obvious thing 
and install fonts. You object and you do not intent to look at the 
history of people on the WMF that will be much better available under 
SUL. You object while the problem of mixed script users has already been 
solved. You do not consider SUL and its obvious implication that we 
/will /have one person one user. You seem to be of the opinion that the 
English language Wikipedia is a law on to itself. Your assertion of 
"universal support" for the 1.000+ editors of other script projects 
could not contradict more starkly with what is actually done. When it is 
suggested that the vigilante behaviour of admins that go too far might 
have repercussions is welcomed by you with a negative because: "they are 
of good faith" while the possibility of good faith of people who use 
their standard user name is of no consequence.

To me it seems as if the way you treat others is as if they are the 
enemy. Remember, at one time you came new to the English language 
Wikipedia, would you like to be treated like this ?

PS You is not meant as only you personally, it is there for all who 
cling to this bad policy.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list