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

[Mark Williamson]

Umm... we've been over this a thousand times, Liviu. You have hashed
and rehashed the same arguments. People see through your lies and
distortion every time, so trying again isn't going to do anything for
you.

Mark

On 02/03/07, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.