[Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

[Liviu Andronic]

Hello,

Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments to be understood. Otherwise
these are simply skipped.

If, at a given moment, the Board wishes to reconsider its position on the
Moldovan Wikipedia, please regard the following points:

1. In its current form, mo.wiki is promoting an ideology. There is a slight
difference between "not being of a neutral point of view" and promoting an
ideology.

2. According to the recently adopted Language proposal
policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP>- that I suppose can be
applied to existing wikipedias to determine their
"validity" - there are three "essential" requisites that can be verified: a
valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a viable community and
audience.

The Moldovan Wikipedia fails on all three. The valid ISO code and the code
used for its domain are a coincidence, simply because ISO requires a
separate linguistic entity while the domain doesn't host such content. There
is no uniqueness since it is standard Romanian written in a different
script. There is no viable community and audience.

3. A basic objective of providing high-quality content to writers of the
"Moldovan language" will be hardly achieved, if you expect contributions
written in the Moldovan alphabet to "flow in" (when an un-freeze happens).
The script is mainly a reality of the past, while this objective could be
easier achieved if the two relevant projects were merged.

You may consider some of these arguments as personal POVs. I believe that
these are backed up by different sources that are supposed to be
western-neutral and academic (the links in my messages are not for making it
prettier), while others on logical reasoning.

Regards,
Liviu

On 2/28/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> According to what Erik wrote the other day, the pillars are, at this
> moment, not part of a "must have" doctrine for Wikipedia projects. Given
> that the WMF it self is not on firm grounds, how can you expect that the
> language committee is more firm. Having said that, you will fully
> misunderstand Bèrto's position. Your verbiage  is just to cover that you
> do not want to address what is in front of you.
>
> Your whole argument is yet another political inspired tirade why things
> are as you see them. Again, political arguments do not wash.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>