[Wikipedia-l] Conflict between two Wikipedias

[Mark Williamson]

And I would also like to add the same for the Indonesian/Malaysian
Wikipedias. I think it's sad that these nearly-identical languages are
spreading their resources thin over multiple projects based more on
nationality than actual linguistic differences.

Mark

On 4/14/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that this is OK.
> 
> But I think that the majority of users of mo.wikipedia will, no matter
> what, always be primarily users of Cyrillic, and I think that it
> should be dominant there until such time as there are more Moldovan
> users there who use Latin, if that is ever the case.
> 
> By the way, why exactly is it that there are separate Wikipedias for
> Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian? If everybody worked together, you
> could have a much larger Wikipedia by now - Serbian has over 10k, but
> Croatian is quite large too and Bosnian has over 1000 - imagine if you
> worked together to make one Wikipedia.
> 
> And as I noted earlier, conversion between Latin Moldovan and Cyrillic
> Moldovan by computer is not possible or at least not practical (it
> would require neural networking or AI or something)
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 4/14/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We had the similar situation with Serbo-Croatian standard language
> > (divided into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian standard). We solved that
> > with separation of Wikipedias.
> >
> > However, I think that Wikipedias are (standard) language-based, not
> > national-based (in general, I am sure that we can find some
> > national-based Wikipedia). So, solution is (as I see) very simple:
> >
> > 1. Moldavians who think that their language is Romanian should write
> > into Romanian Wikipedia (only in Latin alphabet).
> >
> > 2. Moldavians who think that their language is Moldavian should write
> > into Moldavian Wikipedia. Also, those Moldavians can implement Chinese
> > (and future Serbian) solution for them: they will have tabs (where
> > "edit", "dicsussion" and "history" tabs are) where they can choose
> > script. Also, they would have possibility to choose their interface
> > (Cyrillic or Latin).
> >
> > Also, note that content on Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedia can
> > be treated as "duplicated content".
> >
> > On 4/14/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Milos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your message.
> > >
> > > The problem is indeed similar but there is an added problem.
> > >
> > > Imagine for a moment that Serbian was only written in Cyrillic, but
> > > that there was another language, let's call it "Naibres", which was
> > > basically identical to Serbian except for political purposes. Now,
> > > Naibres is officially written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but 10% of
> > > Naibres users use the Latin alphabet.
> > >
> > > Now, with a Serbian Wikipedia already existing and being relatively
> > > large, would users wanting to add Latin-script content (in this
> > > hypothetical case, not in the real world) be allowed to add it to the
> > > Serbian Wikipedia since no "Serbian" speakers would use the alphabet,
> > > or should a separate Wikipedia be created for Naibres?
> > >
> > > And if a separate Wikipedia were created for Naibres, should it only
> > > be written in Latin because any Cyrillic content would be a
> > > duplication of the Serbian content?
> > >
> > > I know the hypothetical is confusing, but if you can work your mind
> > > around it that is basically the situation on the ground with Romanian
> > > and Moldovan.
> > >
> > > ro.wiki has over 11000 articles, but there is no willingness to accept
> > > content in the Cyrillic alphabet, which is fine. So people started
> > > having content in both scripts at mo:, but the very small community at
> > > mo: (two or three people) has decided to redirect all Latin-script
> > > pages to ro.wikipedia because the text is basically identical and we
> > > don't want to create a content fork.
> > >
> > > Ronline believes we should move Cyrillic pages to a separate subdomain
> > > since Cyrillic is not the official or majority script of "Moldovan
> > > language", but I believe that, since we already have two separate
> > > Wikipedias, we can use ro.wiki for /all/ Latin-script content, and
> > > mo.wiki for /all/ Cyrillic-script content, as long as there is a
> > > prominently-placed link on the mo.wiki mainpage (see
> > > http://mo.wikipedia.org , where it says "click aici" is the link)
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 4/14/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/13/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Many Serbians (though certainly not all) believe Bosnian is a dialect
> > > > > of Serbian or is identical, but there is no interference with Serbians
> > > > > complaining about the Bosnian Wikipedia or vice-versa, and Serbian is
> > > > > bi-scriptal even though Latin is mostly used for "Montenegrin" which
> > > > > is in a similar situation to Moldovan (except it isn't officially
> > > > > recognised as a separate language).
> > > >
> > > > Serbs are using both scripts (in Belgrade, Podgorica and Banja Luka)
> > > > and it seems that situation with Moldavians are similar (not the same)
> > > > with Serbian problem.
> > > >
> > > > So, I suggest Chinese solution for Moldavians. They would have Latin
> > > > and Cyrillic interface such Chinese have Simplified and Traditional
> > > > script. Please, look Zhengzhu's page at Meta:
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_traditional_Chinese
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
>