[Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

Mark Williamson node.ue at gmail.com
Sat Mar 31 22:31:58 UTC 2007

He's probably thinking of Lower Sorbian =
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/dsb (approx. 300 pages
already), Saterlandic = http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq
(approx. 300 pages already), and Latgalian =
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/bat-ltg (approx. 150 pages
already), among others.

The new policy has been confusing for the people who made these
requests originally. They cannot understand why they should have to
make a second request. And besides, if their first request can just be
shot down for no reason at all, why couldn't their second request? I
think this is starting to seem pointless to them. Going directly from
"approved requests" to "automatically denied requests"... makes 0


On 31/03/07, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Aside from the kabyle, ottoman turkish, and crimean tatar wikipedias, what
> requests are you thinking of where editors are serious about starting
> their wiki?
> By the way -- I haven't said it often enough since incubator.wikimedia
> got set up, but Three Cheers for that lovely site.  It is wonderful to
> have a proper space to develop a new language wiki, precisely so that
> these issues of how to fix a reasonable language policy can take place
> without preventing interested editors from developing new articles in
> their chosen language.
> I'm not sure anyone is saying "everything is fine, move along", but I
> think we also have a familiar exaggeration on both sides of the issue of
> what the differences are between two fairly similar positions about what
> is required to start a new wiki... perhaps it is time for a loud
> broadcasting of the new language policy, and a call (in more languages
> than just English) for interested participants to return to
>    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_languages
> and weigh in?
> SJ
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Arbeo M wrote:
> > 2007/3/30, The Cunctator cunctator at gmail.com:
> >
> >> The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.
> >
> > That's exactly the point. On one side we have a number of well-advanced
> > requests for new languages with good potential. There's a number of editors
> > who are serious about starting their wiki. And on the other side we have a
> > committee in charge enabling this type of progress. Yet, nothing ever
> > happens, instead today we're "celebrating" half a year without a single new
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > That's just the cold hard facts and they speak for themselves.
> >
> > I don't want this discussion to revolve in circles or drift off into
> > polemics but we'd be a whole lot further if the committee would acknowledge
> > this reality instead of insisting that everything is fine a long as the holy
> > rules are left untouched. Please!
> >
> > --Arbeo
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list