[Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created
node.ue at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 00:59:09 UTC 2007
I agree totally.
I posted an earlier message about this.
While we do need to deal with certain issues, specifically Belarusan,
it seems in all other cases with existing Wikis status quo is best
(Siberian and Moldovan) because these at their hearts are two very
different types of conflicts (one is for replacement or augmentation
of existing Wiki, other is for deletion of valid existing Wikis).
But for new languages, I do not think it is a good idea anymore to
have a committee. I supported the idea in the beginning, but I have
seen NO REAL ACTION and 0 agreement between members. No new Wikipedias
have been formed since the creation of this committee, while certain
test Wikis are bursting at their seams!!! (Kabyle, Latgalian, Lower
Sorbian, Crimean Tatar, Saterfrisian).
The Incubator Wiki was not made to hold such large projects. It was
made to hold proto-projects, not a web of standalone projects (like
Also, I am strongly against the "new proposal policy" by Pathoschild.
While I do see a problem with a voting system, I ALSO see a problem
with a system where it takes ten thousand years for a Wiki to get
On 25/03/07, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody!
> On 11/13 last year the formation of a subcommittee concerning the approval
> of wikis in new languages etc. was announced on this list.
> Back then, I was pleased to see that a few users committed themselves to
> taking care of multilingualism issues in Wikimedia's projects.
> Today, I am disappointed to see that the committee is inoperable.
> It is a pitiful fact that since its creation the language subcommittee has
> achieved virtually *zero *as to the advancement of multilingualism (which is
> a central pillar in Wikimedia's mission to spread knowledge worldwide).
> Even without counting the huge number of requests for new languages the
> subcommittee simply swept away upon its formation, despite the fact that
> some of them had previously been approved by the Community (cf.
> requests are just piling up big time and nothing ever happens (cf.
> One of the main arguments in favor of having a small group of specialized
> people instead of the whole community decide certain things would be to make
> things run more efficiently, in other words: speedier. Yet what's really
> happening is exactly the opposite: we're about to see *the longest period
> without a single new Wikipedia ever!!*
> What has happened?
> Has the number of requests for new languages dropped significantly? - Not
> really. Wikipedia's reputation around the world is steadily rising and more
> and more people from various regions of the globe want to start an edition
> in their own language (but we don't let them).
> Are the requests sloppier than they used to be? - Quite the contrary! The
> quality of most requests is higher than ever before (just have a look at how
> requests looked three years ago, let alone the Incubator activities) and
> editors are now preparing new editions with a lot of conscientiousness (yet
> we don't value that).
> So what *is *the reason for this total deadlock? In plain words, I would say
> it is *a language subcommittee not caring enough *about our fellow users who
> want to increase the value of Wikimedia's projects and help us on our
> mission for free knowledge by providing content in additional languages.
> What good is a language committee that never ever enables new languages?
> What do I mean by "not caring enough"? - I mean that obviously the
> subcommittee or most of its members 1. seem to applying the (all-in-all
> sensible) rules they set up too morosley (i. e. not for the benefit of but
> rather against multilinguistic progress) and 2. seem to be failing in
> adequately supporting people who want to start new wikis. Because if it
> weren't that way highly promising projects like the e. g. Kabyle, Sakha or
> Crimean Tatar Wikipedias would long be up and running and would be valuable
> new members of the Wikimedia family of projects by now.
> What's even worse is that the subcommittee members themselves don't agree on
> which rules are in force (cf.
> http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-23). Pathoschild holds
> that full localization is not mandatory before final approval (and luckily
> he still seems to remember what Wikipedia is all about and that we're
> supposed to be an open project, even to those who don't happen to have a
> computer science diploma), Berto d'Sera takes a "localization or death"
> stand and GerardM writes something secret.
> Dear Language Subcommittee Members, please stop preventing multilingualism
> and start enabling and supporting it!
> Thank y'all for taking the time to read this!
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
More information about the foundation-l