[Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

[Milos Rancic]

On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <dcabrilo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that big of a deal, but still, everybody thinks that it's OK to
> post the Holy Bible on Wikipedia.

You are lying again.

> Like I said, this was a proposed policy, from May 2005 (the last time
> I was active on Serbian Wikipedia, it was in part a response to the
> fact that I overnight labeled a bunch of articles as POV, because I
> found them to be essays on Orthodox Christianity, but obviously,
> others realized the POV in supporting this policy). Still, it got 5
> votes for, and 3 against. I think it describes the inherit POV of such
> national projects.

1. You marked articles as POV without any intention to work on them.
If you do the same on English Wikipedia, POV tag would be removed
through some time.
2. It didn't pass because of your voting (on Serbian Wikipedia 5:3 is
not enough for introducing some new rule).

> The following users supported the policy:
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Милош
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Горан_Анђелковић
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Bonzo
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Djordjes
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Dzordzm
>
> All of them are admins/bureaucrats, so people of trust there think
> that NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about.

You didn't translate the parts about NPOV.

> Three people voted against, users Zocky (not an admin, not active), me
> (not an admin, not active) and Aleksandar (doesn't seem to be an
> admin, I don't know if he is active).

And admins/bureaucrats didn't introduced the rule because of voting non-admins.

> Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Velimirovic was a part of
> Serbian Orthodox Church and writer of big part of its doctrine (or at
> least, what some say should be). So, it's much worse than copying
> stuff from some outdated encyclopedia, it's actually copying stuff
> from the source which is as POV as possible. And that seems acceptable
> on Serbian Wiki. Most of the articles are totally POV, as you can
> imagine coming from a church source.

And, again, you didn't mention that the article about Nikolaj
Velimirovic is still under POV tag because the article doesn't include
his relations toward anti-Semitism and Hitler.

It seems that you have a lot of personal problems in relation with
Serbian Wikipedia...

> The reason I am writing this is to show that national wikipedias are
> inheritly biased - they can be very good on covering stuff like
> nature, science, etc. but when it comes to more touchy topics, it will
> be hard to get editors from different perspectives.

And what about Piere de Cuberten's nazism? No one wrote anything about
that on English Wikipedia.

> I am pretty much presented with a choice: should I use Serbian,
> Bosnian or Croatian wiki? I am not either a Serb, a Bosnian, or a
> Croat, and I communicate on daily basis with people from Serbia,
> Bosnia and Croatia, using my native language (whatever it is). I work
> together with Serbs, Croats and Bosnians on many en.wikipedia
> articles. And I chose to only edit, when I do edit in non-english
> wikipedias, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Why would I go for anything
> else? If I am writing about World War 2, I will write a much better
> article if it's together with editors from all of those countries,
> than only one of them.

Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian adjectives mean a language, not a
nation. And it seems that you have a lot of Serbian, Croatian and
Bosnian ethnicities and cultures. For you, they are "anti-civilized",
they are "regressive", they are... This is a clear fascism.