[Foundation-l] Throwing some data onto the flamefest fire (was: English Wikipedia ethnocentric policy affects other communities)

[GerardM]

On 12/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > David Gerard schreef:
>
> > > Which is more useful on a given wiki:
> > > a) System transliteration into the script(s) of that wiki (which will
> > > apparently lead to tremendous offence to people not even using the
> > > wiki);
> > > b) Optionally append a user-ID number to the non-local script name,
> > > and have this user-ID work for blocks, log-checking, etc. (will
> > > apparently offend people who want to be "????????" rather than a
> > > number)
> > > c) Disallow both the above and require the usernames to be displayed
> > > in a script unreadable to the native speakers on that wiki (which will
> > > lead to near-automatic blocking as happens now, because you KNOW the
> > > vandals will exploit it big time)
>
> > Your question negates the issue at hand. It is therefore only describes
> > a part of the problem. The problem is that you refuse to address the
> > issue by only talking in terms of English language Wikipedia.
>
>
> Erm, the effects of your particular plans for SUL affect the largest
> and most publicly prominent wiki on Wikimedia. In the above paragraph
> you appear to be deliberately ignoring that there will be problems and
> that your plans, as outlined in your posts throughout this thread,
> will in fact make the problems worse - with publicly visible and
> media-unfriendly effect in increased vandalism - rather than going any
> way at all to solve them.


You misrepresent what I have said .. you make a habit out of that .. What I
have said is that the situation has improved a lot by the introduction of
software that prevents mixed script user names. What I have said is that
with SUL it will be easy to check if someone is a known good of another
project. What I have said is that Anthere's proposal has merit. All things
that you choose to ignore.

You also ignore that the current policy is considered to be discriminatory.
This has been pointed out by others. When you check the article on
discrimination on the English language Wikipedia, you will find the
following:
Language discrimination

People are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their
preferred language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language> is associated
with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language
is just another attribute <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute> of
separate ethnic groups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group>.
This discrimination is compounded by the failure to recognise that some of
the proposals to remedy the situation are also inherently problematic. I
perceive your position: the belief that the end justifies the means.

Put it this way: ultimately, you have to convince en:wp admins to
> administer the wiki they're admins on the way that you want them to.
> So far you've (a) signally failed to do so (b) failed to show any
> interest in doing so.
>
> You *seem* to be assuming that the Foundation will tell them what to
> do and they'll just have to fall into line or something. But it
> doesn't work like that.
>
>
> - d.


>From my perspective, you have failed miserably to convince that the position
you defend is reasonable. The situation as it existed when this policy was
implemented has changed a lot for the better. You have been great at denying
the arguments that I and others put forward.

Given that this policy is discriminatory, it is not unreasonable for the
Wikimedia Foundation itself to consider the issue. As many people have
expressed the need to change this policy, it is not even unreasonable to
expect the English language Wikipedia to change it themselves. I would say
that this would be the preferred option.

Thanks,
     GerardM