[Foundation-l] Fwd: Pt-Portuguese Wikipedia
Virgilio A. P. Machado
vam at fct.unl.pt
Tue Mar 23 19:58:52 UTC 2010
Sorry, but I could not grasp the argument "that the fomentation
around the European Portuguese issue seems to be perennial" is "clear
evidence that the community within the Portuguese wikipedia has a
very good handle on the issue." Does it mean that if a problem
doesn't go away it's because it is well handled?
I'm glad someone considers addressing matters of one's language a
pastime and salute the agreement that you don't have to know
Portuguese to engage in such pastime. Everybody should have a hobby
of some kind. Writing to a mailing list could be one. I do have other
things to do, but this is so much more fun.
Nice try that of mentioning Galician, but that is a controversial
issue and I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. It would also
make you terribly unpopular in a lot of Spanish circles of power.
There might be a mistake in the statement that those two wikipedias
relate to the Portuguese language grouping. I believe the
non-controversial wording is Portuguese-Galician language grouping.
I read with great interest the considerations about "how to discern
the degree of apartness within the *many* Portuguese dialects", that
it is "easy to weigh the pros and the cons [,of creating a European
Portuguese only wikipedia] and come to a fair *evaluation* that it
would be a very problematic "solution". I was very entertained by a
"personal evaluation" and that someone of great authority in these
matters doesn't "think a European Portuguese only wikipedia is a case
where it is ideally justified." One must be really clever to reach
all those conclusion so easily. I surely don't have an answer for
that, myself, but would love to see, and I am willing to contribute
to a serious study of the problem.
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 14:44 23-03-2010, you wrote:
>Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> > I don't see any evidence that "nobody outside the
> > Portuguese community can see a problem" unless
> > one personal opinion should be considered proof.
> > The statement was not about anybody outside the
> > Portuguese community seeing a problem, but that
> > "the issue keeps popping up". The very fact that
> > is being addressed here corroborates that
> > statement. Examples of previous discussions were
> > also provided spanning a period of five years. No
> > evidence has been produced to the contrary, i.e.,
> > that the issue does not keep popping up.
>There is also clear evidence that the community
>within the Portuguese wikipedia has a very good
>handle on the issue, for all that the fomentation
>around the European Portuguese issue seems to be
> > If "it all seems to be a lot of fuss about
> > nothing" that might be because appearances can be
> > deceiving and burring your head in the sand or
> > looking the other way will not make any existing
> > problems go away, although everybody is entitled
> > to ignore them. That's a very common attitude
> > when the problems are not at your doorstep,
> > although there's always the danger that they will
> > eventually get there. Again, the very fact that
> > this discussion is taking place here is a symptom
> > that there is a fuss about something.
>To me it seems that the great majority of people
>who are themselves on the Portuguese wikipedia
>do not think raising this issue time and again is
>a useful pastime. Thus the issue of whether you are
>or are not Portuguese language speaking yourself,
>seems to me a moot point.
> > No statements were made concerning the creation
> > or not of a "two-wiki solution". It's nice to
> > know that someone believes that "the wider
> > Wikimedia community will never accept a two-wiki
> > solution". Hopefully not everybody will have such
> > a preconceived idea and keep an open mind about
> > the specific needs of specific projects. Until
> > the problems and needs are properly accessed it
> > is premature to dismiss any alternative solution.
>I'll agree that "two-wiki solution" in this connection
>is very poor phrasing. Adding a European Portuguese
>only wikipedia wouldn't be a solution, and it wouldn't
>be "two-wiki", since I believe there currently exist
>*at least* two wikipedias relating to the Portuguese
>language grouping, namely Portuguese and Galician.
>The issue is really whether how to discern the degree
>of apartness within the *many* Portuguese dialects,
>including not only European and Brazilian but the
>African, creole Portuguese etc, and which can not
>reasonably be expected to be able to contribute
>within the default Portuguese wikipedia.
>One does not need to dismiss a proposed solution,
>to point out the inherent problems with it. And
>creating a European Portuguese only wikipedia
>would create many problems, of such weight, that
>though not dismissing the concept as a theoretical
>possibility, it is easy to weigh the pros and the cons,
>and come to a fair *evaluation* that it would be a
>very problematic "solution".
>My personal evaluation tends to be that an European
>only wikipedia is not a good solution, though I am not
>sure about the African Portuguese or the Creole Portuguese
>cases -- purely because I have not at all studied
>the issues with those. I would agree that there is still
>perhaps too much resistance towards creating
>separate wikipedias for creoles, dialects and the
>like -- in the general case -- though I don't think a
>European Portuguese only wikipedia is a case where
>it is ideally justified.
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam at fct.unl.pt
DEMI/FCT/UNL Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)
(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)
More information about the foundation-l