[Foundation-l] A dangerous precedent

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 28 23:25:05 UTC 2007

When you take for instance an information box and all the labels are
translated in a language, much systematic information can be provided
without writing down one sentence. For languages with little or no
information on the Internet it is great information that can be without

When you cannot make things clear, when you cannot make it understood WHY
the interwiki links system is under thread, you make it clear why it is an
article of faith to you. The interwiki system has one purpose and one
purpose only. It allows people to find information on the same subject in
another language. The benefit of this system is that it allows our readers
to find more or other information. It allows writers to find sources to
information in another Wikipedia; it enables more information without a need
for a lot of research for the projects that are poor in information.

Now YOU tell me how the interwiki is endangered.

The way you describe the activities of the vo.wikipedia, "cheating" is a
clear indication of not assuming good faith. You also deny that it is
legitimate to do whatever to grow the language. In many ways it is
legitimate. When it is as you suggest a crime, to build a language, it is a
victimless crime.

The opportunity for all of us is to ensure that genuine information is
provided. This may mean that the QUALITY of the information can be improved
but for me it does not mean at all that a single sentence is needed to
provide genuine information. In order to move forward you have to accept
this premise and subscribe to the notion that we are there to provide
information and then you may help the execution of a strategy.


On Dec 28, 2007 10:23 PM, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2007 19:12:51 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > [...] and the notion that an article without a
> > sentence can be informative is impossible to you.
> An encyclopedia article without a full sentence is indeed not able to be
> informative. I really don't want to discuss this trivial fact. Otherwise
> we
> will never get far.
> >. You are of the opinion that the Interwiki system is undermined by what
> you
> > indicate as the Volapuk "articles" but you provide no arguments for this
> > opinion whatsoever; it is an article of faith, your faith.
> Hm. I honestly don't know what I should answer in order to make a concrete
> problem more concrete.
> Maybe a single example (I know this one can be fixed quick, but there are
> thousands of articles with the same defect):
> http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Férin Looks like if the Smeirabot went a bit
> crazy and forgot to write any real sentence in there. But sure the
> interwikis
> from the other wikipedias to this "article" don't undermine the interwiki
> system at all. Sure...
> > What you should do is try to understand what the
> > Volapuk Wikipedia, and for that matter similar projects, aims to
> achieve.
> They (no *he*!) want to promote Volapük as a language and attrac new
> editors
> with this edit cheating. Thats it. Nothing more. Smeira admitted this.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Volap%C3%BCk_Wikipedia&diff=707639&oldid=706939
> This is also a typical comment of him. Full of cloudy lenghty sentences,
> wild
> questioning and other techniques just in order to make the debate diffuse.
> Arnomane
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list