[Foundation-l] Vandalism and small wikis

[Darko Bulatovic]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>   
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>>> and stewards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yann
>>>>>   
>>>>>     
>>>>>       
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you 
>>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia 
>>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image 
>>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your 
>>>> statement.
>>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF 
>>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin 
>>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Darko bulatovic
>>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Hoi,
>>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and 
>>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons 
>>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article 
>>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains 
>>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be 
>>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic 
>>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>>
>>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are 
>>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and 
>>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good 
>>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the 
>>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> Gerard,
>>
>> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice 
>> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages 
>> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as 
>> there must be political will to make standard from people language. 
>> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you 
>> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
>> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>>   
>>     
> With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is 
> undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.
>
> The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and 
> the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in 
> Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making 
> a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If 
> your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project 
> specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is 
> much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV 
> than it would otherwise be.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>   
Gerard you really make your position on this clear. If you check 
requirements for ISO you will see that for language code it will need a 
Government support. So language is political and ethnic question, but 
you seems that don't have that wide understanding of history of 
languages. I know the history of my language and that give me quite wide 
understanding of political background. So please don't be that narrow in 
understanding.

Thank you
Darko Bulatovic