[Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

Thu Mar 29 13:28:04 UTC 2007

I am afraid I must disagree.  Abitration in general is
often entered into voluntarily.  I cannot see what
abitration has to do with final appeals either.  Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of its
projects that might need to be appealled.

You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue. 
However there are many ways to approach any problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
direction I cannot support WMF taking.  

BirgitteSB

--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The notion of something like a global arbitration
> committee IS that it is to
> be disturbing. Only when there is something of so
> much gravitas that
> something like the end of a living project is
> considered, it provides a
> final way to address an issue. The last thing you
> want is to get to the
> stage where such a body gets involved !!
> 
> The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known
> for a very long time that
> there point of view is unpalatable to many and that
> it goes completely
> against how things are done in all other projects.
> When asked, the language
> committee has advised and the board has decreed. For
> such issues it is good
> to allow for one last and final appeal because some
> of the reactions show
> that some people did not even want to consider that
> their actions were seen
> in such a stark light.
> 
> With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing
> voluntarily to
> recognising its authority. The choice is more one of
> having an appeal or not
> having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once
> made would be final.
> 
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
> 
> 
> On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > BirgitteSB
> >
> > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > > ).
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > > >
> > > > ,----
> > > > | 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367