[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia ethnocentric policy affects other communities
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 12:07:27 UTC 2006
Sam Korn schreef:
> On 12/22/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No other WMF project has as many resources as the English language
>> Wikipedia does. No other project gets as much attention from the
>> developers. No other project does as well as a result. No other project
>> can therefore withstand the constant abuse from vandals as successfully.
> One senses that here lies the real reason so many people are bitching
> so much about en.wikipedia -- jealousy. Users of other wikis see all
> that the Foundation and the developers devote to the English Wikipedia
> and ask why that can't come to their efforts too. Perhaps they see
> the intense media coverage that the English Wikipedia gets and compare
> their own coverage unfavourably.
Jealousy, hell not for me. OmegaWiki has its own momentum and is doing
quite well thank you. When you consider the amount of press projects in
other languages get, it is quite similar remember, the Dutch Wikipedia
is world famous in the Netherlands and Belgium. What I argued was that
the English language Wikipedia has the resources to withstand abuse from
vandals. For the record I do think the English Wikipedia is doing a
>> However, this does not mean that might is right.
> No. Obviously.
>> It also does not mean
>> that arguments used that are in opposition to some of its policies can
>> be ignored as is currently happening.
> I don't see this happening. I see a lot of English Wikipedians who
> are trying to find a way to resolve the problems that SUL could bring.
> I don't see anyone on this list ignoring the opposition or the
> arguments, just people who are trying to get a rational discussion on
> the subject.
>> With the improvements
>> that have happened like the prevention of mixed script user names and
>> the upcoming the SUL the arguments for the practice of blocking non
>> Latin users on sight have been largely removed.
> Nonsense. All that has been changed is that the sledgehammer policy
> currently in use is now outdated and overblown and should be
> *modified* to take these considerations into account. The arguments
> for the practice have not changed; the arguments against the practice
> have been strengthened, however, and that's a completely different
> kettle of fish
The arguments for the current policy have already largely gone away.
With SUL the arguments will be even less relevant. And thank you for the
acknowledgement that the current practice is outdated and overblown.
More information about the foundation-l