Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokmål?

Thu Nov 11 20:15:42 UTC 2004

På 11. nov. 2004 kl. 11.48 skrev Lars Alvik:

>
>
> På 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:
>
>> I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
>> nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have
>> any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)
>>
>> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
>> Alvik) apparently
>> still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
>> easier (for anyone
>> not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the
>> problem.  I will also try
>> again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very
>> little "extra work"
>> associated with my proposed solution.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik wrote:
>>
>>> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
>>> of reasons why bokmål is no: (like Utne suggested). This would 
>>> create a
>>> bokmål/riksmål wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
>>> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
>>
>> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the 
>>> concept of
>>> the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
>>> and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian = 
>>> Bokmål]
>>
>> My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac 
>> or Linux
>> users on this list, or my point may be moot):
>>
>> To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the 
>> concept of
>> "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to 
>> "Windows".
>>
>> The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian 
>> languages)
>> pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read: 
>> "Norwegian").
>>
>> When Bokmål users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
>> just as upset
>> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend 
>> to have
>> monopoly on American heritage.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik also wrote:
>>
>>> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
>>> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
>>> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500 
>>> articles).
>>
>> I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
>> dictate the name of the Bokmål Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
>> set of ISO language codes which
>> is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)
>>
>> The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
>> "Norwegian" equals
>> "Bokmål", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
>> project like Wikipedia
>> to break with established naming conventions.
>>
>>
>> Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical 
>> problems*
>> in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn: 
>> one) alive
>> at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:
>>
>> Articles which exist only in Bokmål or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
>> the common no:
>> Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is 
>> required.
>>
>> New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of 
>> language form.
>> Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
>> forms; they will
>> find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokmål,
>> some in Nynorsk).
>>
>> When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
>> article should be
>> moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokmål) or to nn: (if it is in
>> Nynorsk).  The no: article
>> should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
>> about the length
>> (or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
>> more work than just writing
>> an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
>> work".  Given the amount
>> of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
>> for "moving the
>> article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
>> appear as a simple
>> click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
>> set to just move all
>> pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
>> respective databases.)
>>
>> Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
>> (Norwegian), regardless
>> of whether the article is in Bokmål or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
>> two forms exists,
>> there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in 
>> no: to the
>> existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
>> extra clicking when
>> there is no ambiguity.
>>
>> Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
>> Wikipedias also.  When
>> this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
>> within a reasonable
>> amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
>> account, because of alert
>> Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
>> redirections.  But it would be
>> simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
>>
>> An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
>> links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
>> article to another (which is the default today)?
>> Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
>> it is an existing
>> problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
>> as we allow
>> for Nynorsk (or Bokmål) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
>> (for both languages) today.
>>
>> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
>> Wikipedia sysops may
>> see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
>> the direction of
>> a multilingual Wikipedia!
>>
>> Ulf Lunde
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th 
> generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see 
> your point of view.
>
> Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the 
> last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that 
> a new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us. 
> And i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is 
> accualy articles in bokmål is a important one.
>
> A bokmål wiki at no:
>
> 1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
> 2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokmål)" (and nynorsk to 
> "norsk (nynorsk)")
> 3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokmål is no:
> 4. Bokmål and Riksmål (conservative bokmål) is allowed on the bokmål 
> wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be 
> "protected" from translation.
>
> PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the 
> english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is 
> crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).
>
> mvh. Lars Alvik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Ignore this mail, it was sent with the wrong mailaddress.