[Foundation-l] Vandalism and small wikis

Wed Nov 29 17:04:31 UTC 2006

Darko Bulatovic schreef:
> 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
Hoi,
What ISO language standard are you talking about ? As far as I am aware 
you are talking ISO-639-1/2. ISO-639-3 is quite different, ISO-639-6 
will be different again.

It is rich that you inform me that I am clueless about languages and 
standards. Maybe you have to do some research yourself. You did puff 
yourself up by stating that you are the "President of IT Association of 
Montenegro". I have been active in the IT business myself and, /that 
/does not qualify me as either a linguist or as a politician. It does 
qualify me to know if an IT person is qualified being either; it does 
not implicitly.

Again, in your argument you value the political background. When it 
comes to a vote in the language sub committee, I will vote against the 
creation of a Montenegrin because the arguments provided are political 
and not linguistics. By your very arguments it seems impossible that a 
neutral point of view would be forthcoming. My advise is that for as 
much as a Montenegrin orthography exists, it should be permitted in the 
sr.wikipedia.org.

Thanks,
   GerardM

Some more motivation::
http://www.tol.cz/look/CER/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=14&NrIssue=47&NrSection=5&NrArticle=9309