[Wikipedia-l] Re: No more new Wikipedias !

[Tim Starling]

Arbeo M wrote:
> ... at least not for the past three months or so. 
> 
> In the past you only had to drop the name of some
> language you'd heard of and a new wiki for that
> language was created right away. This surely wasn't a
> very intelligent approach, for it left us with quite a
> number of inactive Wikipedias.
> 
> Nowadays, it's the opposite extreme: there are heaps
> of requests that have been discussed very thoroughly
> by the community (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
> Some of them are pretty well-qualified and supported
> by numerous native speakers willing to contribute.
> However, not a single new Wikipedia has been set up
> for quite a while now.
> 
> Some time ago there had been a remark that it was hard
> for our developers to recognize which new language
> proposals can be considered as accepeted by the
> community (and therefore created). That's why I made a
> separate page intended to list languages that
> unambiguously qualify for a new wiki (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages).
> Since this can be a controversial question I only
> placed those cases there that are 100 % unequivocal
> (at least 5 supporters, at least 2 native speakers,
> ISO code, no objections, etc.). 
> 

I've stated my position on new language wikis, and we've been through
all the arguments before. Just because I'm no longer interested in
arguing every case, or putting my name on the oppose votes, doesn't mean
I've changed my mind.

I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a
Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll
carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it
contributes to our mission.

The problem with voting on the matter is that it is a vote to expand the
community. It should come as no surprise that those people who are on
the outside are voting to be on the inside. As I've previously said, we
should judge the value of a wiki by the number of readers, and by the
information it brings to those readers, not by the number of editors. A
Wikipedia in Anglo Saxon is a failure regardless of how many articles or
editors it has. I know Anglo Saxon is an extreme case, but I'm not
prepared to argue about every point in between, especially not when a
certain annoying person dominates every discussion. I tired of the
repetitive debate long ago, so I'm happy to consider the current set of
languages sufficient. Hopefully if there's any really important
languages that we've missed, a Board member will let me know.

> [...]
> Before any misunderstandings might arise: I know that
> our developers are extremely busy (and AFAIK unpaid,
> too - good gosh...). I was just wondering if somebody
> has an idea how we could remedy this situation and
> maybe have, like, one new WP per month (so we don't
> lose too many potential new contributors)? 

If those potential new contributors only want to write articles in some
little-known conlang, I won't shed any tears if they stay away.

-- Tim Starling