[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the FrenchWi kipedia !

[Anthere]

Ray Saintonge a écrit:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>> Constans, Camille (C.C.) a rit:
>>
>>>> And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write is the 
>>>> one suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic Code. 
>>>> Perhaps Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in 
>>>> Algeria about how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between 
>>> American People and british people ?
>>
>>
>> More or less ok, I think. That is, if an article was written in 
>> british english, american people are supposed not to entirely rewrite 
>> it in american english. Same reversely. 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it seems like such a simple principle that it is hard to 
> understand why others could not accept it.  But neither the Americans 
> nor the British have an Academy tasked with insuring the purity of the 
> language.  Tradition, precedence and usage form a greater part of the 
> English speaking mind in language as in law. 
> Unfortunately, some French seem to give the decrees of the Académie 
> française the weight of law, leading to the ridiculous conclusion that 
> not following these decrees would be contrary to French law

Or...more precisely that the decree give what is "correct", giving to 
the other word the notion that it is unproper language. If the 
conclusion is that the word is unproper, then it should not be used on 
Wikipedia, or at least mentionned as unproper.
It is not so much what is "illegal" (against the law) than what is 
"incorrect".

Actually, if I understand well the current discussion going on on the 
aubette/abribus word group (similar to the batonnet ouaté/coton tige 
story is that

it is suggested that the whole article is put at batonnet ouaté (that is 
the word nobody uses, but that is correct by Académie opinion), and to 
make the coton tige only a redirect.

For aubette, a word totally unknown in France, it will welcome the 
article, and the word used by millions of people will just be a 
redirect. I just feel numbed with the idea of a person typing a usual 
word falling on an article which title means absolutely nothing to her. 
But the argument given is that oral language is very often full of 
imprecisions and mistakes, while the written language (wikipedia) should 
teach people the proper way to speak.

What to answer to this ? That likely, there are at least two 
significances with what NPOV means :-)

Actually, to add a lighter note on this, several french people think 
that NPOV mean biaised.

Look Ec, this is a funny extract a user *just* put on Le Bistro

"Perso je supporte complétement l'idée de mettre un peu de gaité et je 
ne vois pas en quoi mettre un logo pour certain événement de l'année 
(noel,fin du ramadan, hannuka, etc) est NPOV, car a ce moment la tout 
devient NPOV. Un article sur la théorie de l'évolution en lui même est 
NPOV pour un créationiste. Pensez vous qu'il faille mettre une notice de 
NPOV en haut de l'article. Ceci est un exemple mais il y en a des 
centaines du meme genre. Le fait d'utiliser le français est déjà un peu 
NPOV car cette langue est possède une attache culturel spécifique. Quand 
je vois les réactions de certaines personnes qui brandissent le NPOV à 
tort et à travers, je me demande comment continuer à contribuer à cette 
enclo devant autant d'intolérance. 
[[Utilisateur:Greatpatton|Greatpatton]] 12 déc 2003 à 00:16 (CET)"

The person referred to at the end of the paragraph is likely Tarquin or 
I. Holding high and against all reasons the NPOV etendard, perfect 
examples of intolerance :-)))

>>>> It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think we're really pov ? We're working to prevent that, I hope...
>>
>>
>>
>> CK is suggesting that it is perfectly ok to add to wikipedia that some 
>> words should preferably be used instead of others.
>> We can laugh upon the aubette, but there are about a dozen other words.
>>
>> He says it is ok that wikipedia article contains that
>> *"people should preferably use the word "batonnet ouaté rather than 
>> "cotton tige"" 
> 
> 
> Saying that one usage is to be preferred is a POV that should be 
> considered.  "Prefer" is not "oblige".  A person should not be condemned 
> for using the other term, and its consistent usage in a single article 
> should not automatically be changed.  When I saw this I went to see what 
> was written on the "Q-Tip" box where they use "cotton swab" in English 
> and "coton-tige" in French.  (with one "t" and a hyphen)  Under the 
> circumstance I would feel rightfully offended if someone chose to change 
> my usage of "coton-tige".

Then, I fear you will be offended because you are gonna clean your ears 
with a batonnet ouaté :-)

Unless, you consider going to the french wikipedia to defend usages ?


>> 4) Tarquin will add on top of that, that Wikipedia is not a 
>> dictionary, we are not discussing over words, but over concepts, hence 
>> it is not a good idea to have two articles, one for cotton tige, the 
>> other for batonnet ouat we all clean our ears just the same way, so 
>> one article is enough. 
> 
> 
> If it's a question of an article related to the generic Q-Tip the title 
> used by the person who first wrote the article should prevail.  The WP 
> is not a dictionary argument is a completely different and irrelevant 
> issue.  I am assuming that there is enough material about the history 
> and use of the little stick to warrant a WP article.


Question is : even if we do consider that we have enough matter to make 
a serious encyclopedic article on Q-Tip (say), do we have enough 
material to make a serious article on Coton Tige, and another one on 
batonnet ouaté ?
Either we make two articles, which require enough content
Or we make only one. Right ? If so, which one is the redirect ?
On one hand is the one only used by belgium people and preferred by the 
académie
On the other hand, is the one used likely by *all* other french speaking 
people in the world, which usage is said wrong by the Académie
Which one should be the redirect ?
I think the academic one should, because we should not surprise people.
Other think the Coton Tige should be, because it is the "incorrect" one.

>> So we do discuss again. Meanwhile, there are a couple of very 
>> interesting exchanges on typographic rules 
> 
> 
> One that I thought strange was the insistance that the "oe" digraph be 
> used.  That seemed terribly pedantic. 

yup :-)


>> Then what is CK answer, in an open letter to Tarquin and I
>> 2) that he is a long-lasting professional (28 years old expertise on 
>> typography) 
> 
> 
> A logical fallacy when used to insist that a POV is correct.

Absolutely, CK provided me a nice paragraph that included about 6 or 7 
types of different classical fallacies.

Now, what can be seriously done against someone who is repeating over 
and over and over the same bad argument, to the point one feel like he 
is talking chinese to him ?


>> 3) that the word comes from Belgium anyway 
> 
> 
> Huh?

Yeah, that is a word used in Belgium. It is frequent that Académie 
Française pick up words created in other countries than France.
I may be wrong, but I suppose they promote the use of courriel, over 
email, and courriel was invented in Canada.


>> 4) that the Acadie Franise does not respect NPOV itself 
> 
> 
> Probably true
> 
>> How reasonable is it to spent hours on such a trivial matter ? :-)))) 
> 
> 
> Not at all, but it happens with great regularity on WP in all languages. :-)


Sure. Then perhaps the more reasonable action is to just drop the whole 
matter, wait some months before fixing that oddity, and cross fingers 
that he writes not too much.
missing the teaching step entirely ?

>>>> As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those 
>>>> internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I 
>>>> find extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project 
>>>> being so different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-) 
>>>
>>>
> If that's a psychological disorder, you should listen to the comments 
> from people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia. :-D

:-)

>>> Do you think we're really different ? I'm sure there's some probleme 
>>> as ours on en, de, nl, oc,   oups not oc, there's no yet enough 
>>> people :) 
>>
>>
> Yes, but that's OK.  See your own comments to Ruimu.

The above comments are not mine, but Shai ones.
I never doubted we were different.
I already feel different from french :-)

>> Of course, there are problems on every wikipedia. But, I was trying to 
>> think about it, and on every single rule or usage I could think of, 
>> fr: and en: are different.
>> We don't use the same rules to delete, or to undelete
>> We don't use the same rules to name people sysops
>> We don't put the interlanguage links in the same order or the same 
>> place I think
>> We don't use page protection in edit wars the same way
>> We accept or do not accept the same way foreign languages in articles
>> The etiquette is different 
> 
> 
> That's healthy.  Vive la différence!
> 
> E
> c

That may be healthy, to the point you consistently forget that such a 
usage is ok here, but not ok there, or you just don't remember, or 
perhaps you go read the rules, and later discover that the rules do not 
match the reality.