[Foundation-l] Policy modification (was possible reconsideration)

[Ziko van Dijk]

If there are some people here who say the same things again and again,
it's those handfull of people who are complaining and nagging about
nearly every subject... a behavior that has been called "message
spamming" at Wikipedia Weekly, if I remember right.

Those who propose a new language edition often don't even speak that
language by themselves, or only at level -1 or -2. Have a look at
stq.WP (Sater Frisian), installed in january. Only one user has Sater
Frisian as a native tongue (a lady from that region), but her only
edit was this very user page. Another one has level -4, right (he is
Frisian from fy). Then there are five users with -1. What to expect
from such a Wikipedia community? Half of their allegedly 500 articles
are geographical stubs and similar pseudo articles.

I wonder how many of those who advocate an Ancient Greek Wikipedia
really speak that language, at least at level -3.

Ziko


2008/5/27 Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> ...that is neither here nor there. You're sidestepping the discussion
> at hand yet again to say the same thing you've said in countless other
> messages.
>
> Mark
>
> 2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>> Hoi,
>> It is possible to request a code for a revived extinct language. The
>> argument in favour of such a code is likely to be adopted by the
>> organisations that issue the relevant codes. "Ancient" languages cannot
>> start a project because by definition expressions in that language are
>> exclusively in the past.
>>
>> There have been those that say that you can express modern language with old
>> terminology. I have asked specialists about this notion and they reject
>> this. When you want to learn Ancient Greek you learn the grammar by exercise
>> and write new text, you create problems in understanding the vocabulary that
>> is part of the language when studying modern text. The WMF is about
>> learning, when a project is known to be flawed from its inception, when
>> there are methods to make the distinction between the modern and the
>> original usage clear, it is unconscionable to accept languages under the
>> code defining the language as ancient or extinct when there is a clear route
>> of making this difference clear.
>>
>> When community decision means that this strategy is not explored because of
>> a wish not to do this, the community is not listening to arguments and hence
>> there is no wish to seek a consensus.
>>
>> It is not really important if everybody agrees on a policy. I do not happy
>> with the way the policy is currently explained. However, I am extremely
>> happy with the policy as it means that we do not have to argue all the time.
>> Changing the policy in a way that makes it less predictable and observable
>> would quickly make the policy largely irrelevant and it would rapidly
>> degenerate both the policy and the committee into a dysfunctional state.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
>>> > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of
>>> >> the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
>>> >>
>>> > I agree that community consensus on the policy should override
>>> > committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had
>>> > a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about
>>> > whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where
>>> > there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I
>>> > think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current
>>> > policy.
>>> >
>>> Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first
>>> place.  Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to
>>> replace needs to be viewed as a separate option.  It's not enough to say
>>> that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace
>>> it with.  If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let
>>> them work out an agreement among themselves.  In parliamentary procedure
>>> this is what the sub-amendment process does.  Only after the
>>> sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for
>>> adoption.
>>> > If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community
>>> > consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop
>>> > processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do
>>> > so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad
>>> > practice.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original
>>> policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus.  If there
>>> is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be
>>> treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments
>>> being repeated.  I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
>>>
>>> Ec
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde