[Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

[Oldak Quill]

On 29/03/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hoi!
>
> >It seems unusual that such an orthography
> >can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent
> >that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by
> >the standard.
> The only level of recognition this ortography had was a wiki. There *might* be a Linux locale in the future, but that's not a recognition.
>
> It's loosely based on an experimental prerevolutionary ortography. Anyway, both the original and this "sort-of" version never were taught in school, at least not extensively (there was no time for that at the moment) and after the soviet take-up a number of reforms were made to all soviet languages (starting from the most diffused, russian). Massive formal education in the byelorussian linguistic entity started to be delivered only after the soviet reforms were in place.
>
> A double standard would be usable if both version where recognized at international level, yet they are not and there is no apparent chance for such a recognition. If this claim was accepted we would have no way to keep anyone from asking (say) a Quaker wikipedia based on what's survived of that language in Melville's work, another in runic script, etc. This is absolutely NOT acceptable.
>
> Rules are rules, we are not in a feudal system where we give privileges to relatives. People and linguistic entities are all equal and all have the same rights and rules. If we open the gates to the flood I will accept a klingon wiki back straight away. They even have a regular code...
>
> I understand that people have worked for this and no one says their work will be deleted, what is in discussion is whether it should be hosted by wmf or not. If and when an Arbitration Committee chooses for a NO the existing content will obviously be handed over to the Community, so that they can host it where they please. This is not the Holy Inquisition, Gestapo or NKVD, we don't burn books in public squares.
>
> >Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokmål and
> >Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?
> If they get an ISO recognition they will obviously be hosted as anyone else, but not until then. We absolutely exclude becoming a place in which linguistic codes get issued, because this is not wmf mission.
>
> > Wikimedia needs to be pragmatic. No standard is perfect.
> Sorry, no. Issueing linguistic standards means issueing political statements, which is absolutely incompatible with our mission (NPOV, etc). If anyone does not like ISO (true, it's far from being perfect) they are welcome to discuss the issue directly with ISO.
>
> As you perfectly understand the alternative is that we will start to say "yes" to one lot and "no" to another. Based on what? On our moods? On the number of hysterics they can make? On the money they can pay me to change my vote? On someone's political ideas? Maybe we can have one more ordeal of crazy berserks in meta? No, sorry. There's but one God, and He is called ISO.
>
> BTW, that's because we ARE pragmatic. It's true Oldak, there's no such
> thing as a perfect system, yet it's a long time since we all decided that
> having a clear set of Unperfect Laws and a number of independent powers
> balancing each other is much better then hoping for some Emperor's
> sympathy. At least THIS much is clear. We are not Gods or Emperors, so let
> ISO care for codes while we care for encyclopedias.

Thanks for clearing this up and giving an account of the situation
"for dummies". Based on what you say, and assuming it is correct, the
committee was right to make the decision that it made. Wikimedia
should not pander to the political use of language: it can be quite
manipulative.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)