[Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

Thu Mar 29 14:06:47 UTC 2007

I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects
that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.  

Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name.  My
main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of
specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki
type "Arbitration Committee".  I don't think the WMF
can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings
without crossing the line of controling the content.  

I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions. 
A community is either supported by WMF servers or not.
 Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is
in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings
outside of "Yes" or "No".  As long this route of
appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.

BirgitteSB

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

> Hoi,
> Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final
> appeal" that would work
> for me too.
> 
> What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not
> represent; what
> be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project
> did not represent the
> Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it
> is proven to have
> content that is systematically incompatible with for
> instance the NPOV
> notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage.
> It should be abundantly
> clear that what the core values are of, for instance
> Wikipedia, are not
> things that can be disregarded by a community. When
> they want to have a
> Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it
> on their own servers
> without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to
> it.
> 
> It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here
> too the board has laid
> down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room
> is finite. As a
> consequence this is not a departure from how things
> were done, a committee
> as I suggested would only take on issues that have a
> gravitas where without
> such a procedure a project would be deleted or where
> a large part or all of
> the content gets removed because of whatever the
> reasons are that make it
> deemed to be necessary.
> 
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
> 
> On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 