Blatant maliciousness? Please.
As for people in charge, I'm guessing they turned their backs on this discussion months ago, precisely because of mails like yours which are trolling and accusing people, when this discussion is supposed to be about whether or not to close mo.wiki.
It seems to be that when you have to groups of people opposing one another, sometimes the option to choose is the status quo, even if it isn't the "right" thing to do.
Mark
On 29/06/06, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this real?
Where are the administrators of wikipedia?
This is a blatant show of maliciousness, and nobody says anything? A load of disinformation is really better than
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Another difference is Greater Romania POV.
Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly slanted towards a Romanian view.
Romanian Wikipedians may deny this, but one has only to compare the Romanian and English articles on [[Moldova]], [[Transnistria]], [[Igor Smirnov]], [[URSS]]/[[USSR]], etc. to know.
While some Moldovans share this opinion, the opinion base in Moldova is vastly different. While it would be best to work together, in the current situation ro.wp is dominated by a huge majority of Romanians, so any moderate or nationalist Moldovan (as opposed to unionist), or someone favouring closer ties to Russia, would likely get little say in that Wikipedia.
This situation might be considered similar to the reason why the current Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian Wikipedias are incompatible for a merger -- there are many POV articles on each Wikipedia due to systemic biases that people do not realise are present.
If Romanian Wikipedians tried to make their articles conform to the same POV standard as the English Wikipedia does, this would not be an issue.
Mark
On 29/06/06, Lorenzarius lorenzarius@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know any "Moldovan", but if the difference
between "Moldovan"
and Romanian is merely a difference in the
alphabet used, we don't
even need an external script for the conversions:
because MediaWiki
already supports such conversions (this function
is introduced in
version 1.4). This function is currently being
used on the Chinese (to
convert between traditional/simplified Chinese)
and Serbian (to
convert between Cyrillic/Latin alphabet)
Wikipedia. In fact the
situation on zh: is much more complicated than
merely a difference in
alphabet, and I can assure you that the initial
discussion on zh:
(e.g. whether to split or not; whether a technical
solution is
adequate enough) is no less painful than the
current one I see here.
But as a native Chinese speaker, I think our use
of a technical
solution to overcome a not-so-technical problem
works out pretty well
so far and that we did indeed make a correct
decision to not to split.
For more info: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Paper-ZZ1
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_t...
http://sr.wikipedia.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Wikipedia -- Larry Lo http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius Tel: +852 95825791 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l