[Foundation-l] Vandalism and small wikis

[Gerard Meijssen]

Darko Bulatovic schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>   
>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>   
>>     
>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>> and stewards.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>
>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Yann
>>>>   
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you 
>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia 
>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image 
>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your 
>>> statement.
>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF 
>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin 
>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Darko bulatovic
>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>     
>>>       
>> Hoi,
>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and 
>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons 
>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article 
>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains 
>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be 
>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic 
>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>
>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are 
>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and 
>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good 
>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the 
>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>   
>>     
> Gerard,
>
> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice 
> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages 
> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as 
> there must be political will to make standard from people language. 
> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you 
> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>   
With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is 
undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.

The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and 
the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in 
Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making 
a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If 
your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project 
specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is 
much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV 
than it would otherwise be.
Thanks,
    GerardM