[Wikipedia-l] Re: Enhanced search for local language clusters? (Was:: Request ...

[Bjarte Sorensen]

Fellow wikipedians,

This mailing-list was presented with a few arguments that have been raised in a
debate on no: since the request for a wikipedia in Norsk Bokmål on this
mailing-list by Lars Alvik.

Olve Utne has already pointed out a few flaws in these. I will expand on what he
said:

>1. Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.

So in other words most of the content is in the wrong place? Norsk bokmål (of
which riksmål both linguistically and politically is considered a conservative
variant) has its own ISO 639-1 code, nb, in the same way as nynorsk has one,
nn. The ISO code "no" for Norwegian can really only apply to the Norwegian
spoken language, as there is no one written language called solely Norwegian,
but rather two official forms and several unrecognised variants (including
riksmål).

Some of the articles on no: are in nynorsk and the wiki explicitly allows
entries in the variants mentioned above. Still the UI (not to mention its name:
Wikipedia - den frie encyklopedi) is in bokmål/riksmål, something which deters
arrival of more Nynorsk-contributors. Also, editing a bokmål-article is for me
not difficult (although for some it may be, and it may also be difficult
editing nynorsk-articles for many bokmål-users), but I'd of course rather
translate it to see it in my own language on a wiki that fully integrates the
language. Translating it to nynorsk from bokmål and then leave it on no: I
would consider disrespectful towards the initial contributors.

>2. The debate started on nn:, and is probably an attempt to claim (or deny
>the other part use of the no; domain)

The debate did as a matter of fact not start on nn:. I started the debate on a
page there after seeing an independent person's (Ulf Lunde, recent arrival at
both no: and nn:) request on this mailing-list. I didn't know him from before,
but despite being new he's rased some important points. I found it very natural
to discuss the matter with fellow wikipedians, and it did not occur to me that
anyone would find it offensive that I started the debate there rather than on
no: I made it clearly visible for everyone who visited nn: with a link on the
front page. A prominent administrator from no: indeed noticed the debate (which
was the intention). However, instead of contributing to our debate (he is also a
user on nn: like I and everyone else on nn: are users of no:), he went back to
no: and commenced a discussion on the Village Pump with the following words
(translated by myself):

"==Campaign against no.wikipedia.org==

I have noticed that there is an indelicate campaign against Norwegian wikipedia
on the Nynorsk wikipedia, and I would just like to remind everyone that the
discussion about bokmål occurs here on the pages reserved for that."

I am not shy to admit that I personally think that until the MediaWiki
technology allows for a custom UI and parallel texts I believe the Norwegian
wikipedia is best served by two wikis, one on nn: and one on nb:, while no: can
be a redirect to the major wiki or possibly a disambiguition link. Other people
in the debate on nn: (but certainly not all) may have similar opinions, but I
can hardly see how a discussion and brainstorm about this equates with a
campaign against no:! Such rhetoric only serves to make people annoyed.

He goes on to try exclude users of nn: the right to debate this matter on nn:.
Most users of nn: are users of no: and are proficient in bokmål. It also is a
matter that concern us for as long as there is nynorsk material on no: and the
wikipedia is using our common iso-code, no. I agree that the discussion should
be held on no:, but half expecting outbursts like the one above, I suppose I
subconsciously chose our friendlier nn: for such a discussion.

>3. A split (practicaly a move) would give bokmål (the dominant language) a
>unfamiliar name.

Somewhere else in the debate on no: it was argued:

"The domain no: and its meaning is wellknown, while the domain nb: is totally
unknown [...]. To swap to nb: as primary domain will therefore be very damaging
for this version's continued growth"

I think it is important to distinguish between the top-level domain ".no" and
the iso-code "no". It is the latter that has traditionally determined
wikipedia-URIs, not the former. Languages know no political borders.

Based on what I've said above, I personally believe the suggestions from Andre
and Mark are both good with a bias towards Andre's suggestion. Leaving two
wikis for editing in the same language I think is counter-productive and will
only serve to confuse new users. I think the situation is served best by moving
the current contents to nb: (while having a server-wide redirect from no: to
keep search-engine links etc active), and to implement a trans-Scandinavian
search feature as suggested by Olve Utne on this mailing-list once this is
technologically possible.

Finally, I also suggest that, if these changes are made, the language names
showing up in interwiki-links are changed from

Nynorsk ([nn:]) --> Norsk (Nynorsk)
Norsk ([no:])   --> Norsk (Bokmål) ([nb:])

Sincerely,

Bjarte Sorensen

(User BjarteSorensen on en:, no:, nn:, commons:)