[Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

M. Williamson node.ue at gmail.com
Tue Oct 5 23:56:39 UTC 2010

I don't think it's right to delete content just because someone
doesn't like it without creating any sort of alternative. In addition,
I don't see how ro.wp community support would be needed if a separate
subdomain were used to set up such a gateway - it would really be
little more than a mirror hosted by the foundation.

All other cases where wikis with content were *deleted* rather than
just locked fell into two scenarios: content was replaced (zh-tw was
replaced by a conversion system on zh), or was in a conlang and was
migrated, sometimes by a 3rd party (toki pona, klingon, ru-sib).
Cyrillic Moldovan is a legitimate system that is currently used by
over 100,000 native speakers as a habitual language variety/script
pairing, there are a handful of websites written in it and it is used
in an official capacity by a de-facto independent political entity.

It scares me to think that we could delete content, with no
replacement in sight, for a legitimate modern language variety used
habitually by that many people in a defined territory (and potentially
in a diaspora, but that's open to debate and there's no solid
documentation that I'm aware of), simply due to the expressed dislike
or anger of a particular group of people.


2010/10/5 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM, M. Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nathan, perhaps there is a communication error here. GerardM and I are
>> arguing for the same thing, which is a transliteration engine, but
>> ONLY so long as it allows people to read AND contribute, rather than
>> just being read-only as proposed by Marcus. My other contention is
>> that if this is not possible due to community opposition at ro.wp,
>> then mo.wp should be kept; GerardM seems to disagree there and says
>> that such a solution should be done whether ro.wp community approves
>> or not. I'm still not sure how any of that is unreasonable.
>> -m.
> Perhaps there is - you and Gerard appear to be arguing that a
> round-robin transliteration option (on ro.wp, presumably) should be a
> precondition for dealing with the existence of mo.wp. It seems
> plausible that would be an unpopular proposal on the Romanian
> Wikipedia, and there don't appear to be any volunteers for doing the
> work to set it up. Almost as importantly... Since a permanent solution
> for mo.wp hasn't been forthcoming in the past 4-5 years, I'm not sure
> it's a great idea to be adding barriers -- especially when a simple,
> common sense solution is available and there appear to be few if any
> actual Transnistrians interested in a project in their script. Does
> that clear things up?
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list