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

[Mark Williamson]

Tim, we're not talking about dead languages or conlangs.

We're talking about languages that are spoken by real, tangible people
as their everyday native language, and which have at least 5
supporters, native speaker support, and no oposition at all.

Specifically, now people are waiting for Ladino, Waray-Waray, and
Neapolitan. You can look any of them up on Ethnologue if you like.
Waray-Waray and Neapolitan have millions of speakers; Ladino has at
least tens of thousands but might have more.

These requests have many supporters, native speaker support
(especially in the case of Ladino and Neapolitan, where heaps of
native speakers dropped by to show their support), and no opposition.

Mark

On 24/09/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE