[Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 29 13:03:32 UTC 2007
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe
disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.
Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a
more solid solution?
--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all this is an unusual situation. The
> language committee has been
> given the task to decide things that have to do with
> languages. We have
> published what our basic guide lines are. A language
> has to have some status
> and based on this we make a decision.
> For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel
> are available. There was a
> group of people who high jacked these codes and did
> not allow people to use
> the official orthography. There was a really vibrant
> incubator project for
> the Belarus language as officially written in
> Belarus. Given the guide
> lines, the old project was parked under a different
> code that is conforming
> to the standard.
> When you say that there is a dead lock in the
> creation of projects, you are
> mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and
> this is what is required.
> We do allow for languages to be started in the
> Incubator, but we cannot
> promote them to full projects until there is a
> message file. This is
> probably some four minutes of work per language.
> Until there is a message
> file, and the first amount of effort has gone in
> localisation, people can
> work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead
> locked is the promotion
> to full project status.
> When you state that it would be preferable that
> people collaborate, you are
> right. People did choose not to do that. Might was
> right, and possession was
> 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent
> with the way the Wikimedia
> Foundation works and consequently there was a need
> for a solution to this
> knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this
> way. Given that it has not
> been deleted has more to do with the fact that we
> allow for a procedure that
> is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> committee' and with the wish
> that people finally decide to collaborate than with
> the fact that we should
> allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> motivated projects are anathema
> to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I don't know if this is the right place for my
> complaint, but I was
> > taken by complete surprise by what has happened to
> the Belarusan
> > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing
> bewiki (in "classical"
> > orthography by the incubator project in
> ("normative" orthography).
> > For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
> request to close the
> > existing bewiki
> > (cf.
> > To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
> > wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal
> and debate.
> > Second, given the deadlock in the new languages
> creation process, I am
> > more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an
> exception was
> > possible.
> > Third, the most desirable path to be taken would
> have been to have a
> > single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as
> enwiki accepts both
> > British and American English. Have there been
> serious efforts in this
> > direction, prior to the current decision? A
> Belarusan user says at
> > ,----
> > | That was the only cause, by which it was used
> mostly in be.wiki; but
> > | both systems were allowed to be used, and
> so-called "current" variant
> > | was also used there by minority which preferred
> it, and they didn't
> > | have any obstacles to contribute; administration
> welcomed contributors
> > | in all grammar versions.
> > `----
> > If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of
> the old bewiki was
> > inevitable.
> > Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
> don't believe that the
> > closure of the existing project was necessary. The
> proponents of the
> > Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
> bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have
> existed in
> > parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the
> current one is even
> > uglier.
> > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
> transparency. At
> > I read:
> > ,----
> > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
> created at
> > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board
> of trustees on
> > | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> > `----
> > I would say, that those who take such a drastic
> decision, that risks
> > to deter a large number of committed authors,
> should be required to
> > deliver a full explanation of their decision. The
> above brief
> > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
> > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki
> has been frozen, but
> > no decision has been taken concerning its future.
> This is just totally
> > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board
> of trustees make a
> > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should
> make a /full/
> > decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially
> leaves the existing
> > conflict open.
> > Forth,
> > --
> > http://www.infoe.de/
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
More information about the foundation-l