Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
Hi everyone,

while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the
controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some
sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no
such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal
authority to handle this case.

The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed
language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant
authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is
non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many
Russians.

Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to
non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable
conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona)
editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their
authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects
as they see fit.

Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied
to the ru-sib Wikipedia.

Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),

Johannes


Footnotes:
[1]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
> It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia.

"historical contemporary"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.

According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias it has
a low depth, but it is higher than some Wikis that are much larger:

- Lombard (0 depth)
- Telugu (3 depth)
- Cebuano (0)
- Volapuk (0)
- Newari (2)
- Bishnupriya Manipuri (3)
- Ido (3)
- Sundanese (4)
- Javanese (3)
- Piedmontese (2)
- Tajik (3)
- Sanskrit (2)
- Yoruba (1)

Mark

On 31/07/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the
> controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some
> sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no
> such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal
> authority to handle this case.
>
> The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed
> language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant
> authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is
> non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many
> Russians.
>
> Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to
> non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable
> conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona)
> editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their
> authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects
> as they see fit.
>
> Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied
> to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
>
> Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
>
> Johannes
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia
>
> --
> http://www.infoe.de/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the
> controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some
> sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no
> such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal
> authority to handle this case.
>
> The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed
> language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant
> authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is
> non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many
> Russians.
>

Without making any deeper judgement on the language in question,
much less the content; I think you have seriously misunderstood
the meaning of the word "constructed language".

A _constructed language_ is one that is created without any
historical precedent at all of people speaking anything remotely
like it.

On this basis I don't think you can be talking about a constructed language
as such, even though I make no judgement on whether the language/dialect
 - what have you - is notable enough to merit any presence on wikimedia.

> Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to
> non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable
> conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona)
> editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their
> authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects
> as they see fit.

I am not saying the same solution is a wrong solution, but I *do*
think you are comparing apples and oranges.


> Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied
> to the ru-sib Wikipedia.

There may or may not be double standards, but circumstances certainly
alter cases, and whatever might be fair in the particular case you are
discussing, pretty certainly it will not hinge on a comparison to klingon or
toki pona.

> Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
"Mark Williamson" <[hidden email]>
writes:

> At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.

[...]

Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.

Thanks,

Johannes

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
"Thomas Dalton"
<[hidden email]> writes:

>> It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
>> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia.
>
> "historical contemporary"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Should have been "historical *and* contemporary".

Verbose: Russian dialects of Western Siberia which are, as far as I
know, mostly extinct, and the dialect of the Pomors which I understand
is still preserved in some remote places of Arkhangelsk region and
maybe neighbouring provinces in North-Western Russia.

Thanks,

Johannes
--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
"Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
<[hidden email]> writes:

> On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,

[...]

>> The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed
>> language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant
>> authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
>> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is
>> non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many
>> Russians.
>>
>
> Without making any deeper judgement on the language in question,
> much less the content; I think you have seriously misunderstood
> the meaning of the word "constructed language".
>
> A _constructed language_ is one that is created without any
> historical precedent at all of people speaking anything remotely
> like it.

I don't think you are right here. Most conlangs borrow heavily from
existing vernaculars or historical languages. Take for instance
Esperanto, Interlingua, Slovio, Latina sine flexione.

Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it,
"Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It
would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian
North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed
from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from
standard Russian as possible).

> On this basis I don't think you can be talking about a constructed
> language as such, even though I make no judgement on whether the
> language/dialect - what have you - is notable enough to merit any
> presence on wikimedia.

The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by
relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other
form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible
under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet
phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.

>> Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to
>> non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in
>> non-notable conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona
>> (tokipona) editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia,
>> where their authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue
>> their projects as they see fit.
>
> I am not saying the same solution is a wrong solution, but I *do*
> think you are comparing apples and oranges.

...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less
or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite
scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences
do you see?

>> Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied
>> to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
>
> There may or may not be double standards, but circumstances certainly
> alter cases, and whatever might be fair in the particular case you are
> discussing, pretty certainly it will not hinge on a comparison to klingon or
> toki pona.

[...]

I cannot see what you mean by "circumstances alter cases" when
referring to this case. In fact, if ru-sib was proposed today, it
would almost certainly be rejected. The ru-sib guys were just lucky
that they managed to get their Wiki created just before a
comprehensive policy on new languages had been developed.

Thanks,

Johannes

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

<lots of good stuff>

I think what you said in that last posting clarified the
situation admirably. Where I lacked the proper context
before, your posting was greatly informative and I at least
feel your position is much stronger as a result (in my eyes,
even if it may not mean that much in the larger scheme of
things).

What you describe would indeed be a very fishy situation.


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
That's still 1,211 pages.

Mark

On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Mark Williamson" <[hidden email]>
> writes:
>
> > At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
>
> [...]
>
> Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johannes
>
> --
> http://www.infoe.de/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it,
> "Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It
> would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian
> North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed
> from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from
> standard Russian as possible).

Of course it isn't a vernacular. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural
language - there are several natural "standard" languages that aren't
anybody's vernacular, or that weren't until very recently.

I find your statement regarding intelligibility suspect. Please
provide references to support it.

> The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by
> relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other
> form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible
> under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet
> phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to me that we should close all existing
Wikis that would not be created under the current policy. I feel that
we should grandfather them in and treat proposed removals on a
case-by-case basis.

> ...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less
> or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite
> scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences
> do you see?

First of all, that offending content is part of a poem used as an
example of a certain author, or at least that is what I have been
told.

Second of all, the differences are very great, and they lie in the
intention of the respective languages: Toki Pona is intended as a
simple international auxiliary language; Klingon is the language of a
fictional race of aliens. Siberian, on the other hand, is intended to
be a language for a specific geocultural group.

> I cannot see what you mean by "circumstances alter cases" when
> referring to this case. In fact, if ru-sib was proposed today, it
> would almost certainly be rejected. The ru-sib guys were just lucky
> that they managed to get their Wiki created just before a
> comprehensive policy on new languages had been developed.

There are dozens of other Wikis that would not be created today
because current policy is very restrictive due to the xenophobic idea
that "we already have enough Wikis". If the current policy had existed
at the beginning, who knows how many languages we'd have today?

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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
"Mark Williamson" <[hidden email]>
writes:

> On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Still I'm not keen to fight over terms. What ever you call it,
>> "Sibirskoi govor" is not a vernacular, not a natural language. It
>> would not be understood by its alleged native speakers in the Russian
>> North, as much of its vocabulary is either constructed or borrowed
>> from other languages (and deliberately designed to be as distant from
>> standard Russian as possible).
>
> Of course it isn't a vernacular. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural
> language - there are several natural "standard" languages that aren't
> anybody's vernacular, or that weren't until very recently.
>
> I find your statement regarding intelligibility suspect. Please
> provide references to support it.

Almost all terms for modern terms are completely invented and do not
exist elsewhere. Just some examples from the main page: "mezhugigma"
("Internet"), "robotny vedy" (probably "natural sciences"),
"vseznaika" ("encyclopaedia"), "bashlykoznaisvo" ("management"),
"artelezaisvo" (probably "social science"), "mudrionozaisvo" (probably
"philosophy"). I could continue for quite a while but I'm afraid it
will get boring. However, the creator of the language has explicitely
stated this intention in his blog:

,----
| "I don't think it will be too hard to construct a Siberian language,
| adding to chaldon's dialect grammar the required amount of Tatar
| roots, up to making the Siberian language unintelligible to European
| Russians. "[1].
`----

>> The simplest and most objective criteria we have is recognition by
>> relevant bodies external to Wikimedia. ru-sib has no iso code or other
>> form of external recognition, thus it clearly wouldn't be eligible
>> under the current language proposal policy. It is purely an Internet
>> phenomenon, propagated by a bunch of bloggers.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't make sense to me that we should close all existing
> Wikis that would not be created under the current policy. I feel that
> we should grandfather them in and treat proposed removals on a
> case-by-case basis.

When there are no issues, there is certainly no need to do
anything. But, alas, this is not the case here.

>> ...only in the sense that the aforementioned Wikis have probably less
>> or no offensive content, like referring to Russians as "Muscovite
>> scum" ("Moskal'ska svoloch"). Or which other substantial differences
>> do you see?
>
> First of all, that offending content is part of a poem used as an
> example of a certain author, or at least that is what I have been
> told.

A "poem" - what a lame pretext. This poem has been uploaded by its
very author, who is at the same time the creator of the language and
the founder and one of the administrators of this wiki. Gimmie a
break! There have been many pleas to take this page down. He has
consistently refused to do so.

Additionally, there are many articles, which are just as
non-encyclopaedic as this one. Take the article "Rosseia", ("Russia"),
which i.a. states that "the symbols of Russian mentality are Vodka and
herring" or Yaroslav Zolotaryov's original article on Alexander
Pushkin, where he described him as "Russian nigger and poet". N.b.:
This version has been written by the creator of the language, and
founder and administrator of the ru-sib Wikipedia.[2]

> Second of all, the differences are very great, and they lie in the
> intention of the respective languages: Toki Pona is intended as a
> simple international auxiliary language; Klingon is the language of a
> fictional race of aliens. Siberian, on the other hand, is intended to
> be a language for a specific geocultural group.

...if you call a bunch of bloggers at livejournal.com a "geocultural
group", maybe. So what?

[...]

Thanks,

Johannes


Footnotes:
[1] "Не думаю, что будет сложно сконструировать сибирский язык, залив в чалдонскую диалектную грамматику нужное количество татарских корней, вплоть до непонимания сибирского языка европейскими русскими." http://samir74.livejournal.com/2005/04/30/

[2]  http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%2C_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&oldid=4587

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> writes:

> or Yaroslav Zolotaryov's original article on Alexander
> Pushkin, where he described him as "Russian nigger and poet". N.b.:
> This version has been written by the creator of the language, and
> founder and administrator of the ru-sib Wikipedia.[2]

I just saw, that I'm actually wrong here. The offensive term was
introduced by an anon. However, it was left there for almost half a
year. (I recall that this was probably the only instance, where
Zolotaryov finally responded to public protest).

Thank

Johannes

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in
relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language
SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the
problem:

- Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
Board may do that.
- Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project, so
possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then
Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according
to all other circumstances.
- Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities
will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that
introduction of such polls will push forward our community.

The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will
never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.

On 7/31/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> while I understand that nobody is keen to get dragged into the
> controversy over the "Siberian" Wikipedia[1] I still feel that some
> sort of a solution should be envisaged, even if currently there is no
> such body as a meta arbitration committee, that would have the formal
> authority to handle this case.
>
> The Siberian Wikipedia is composed in a non-notable constructed
> language, which has absolutely no recognition by any relevant
> authority. It is loosely based on historical contemporary Russian
> dialects of Northern Russia and Siberia. Much of its content is
> non-encyclopaedic, some has been considered highly offensive by many
> Russians.
>
> Notable cases, where action has been taken with regard to
> non-encyclopaedic Wikipedias in conlangs or Wikipedias in non-notable
> conlangs include the Klingon (thl) and Toki Pona (tokipona)
> editions. Both have been eventually relocated to wikia, where their
> authors have every freedom and opportunity to continue their projects
> as they see fit.
>
> Unless there are double-standards, the same solution should be applied
> to the ru-sib Wikipedia.
>
> Looking forward to your comments and opinions (if you have any),
>
> Johannes
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia
>
> --
> http://www.infoe.de/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Gianluigi Gamba
I stand for the first solution: the Language SubCom gives advice about
this case to the Board and then the Board decides whether closing or
keeping the project alive.

IMHO if we started a Wikimedia-wide vote, I'm afraid that relatively
few editors and many sockpuppets (to be identified and their votes
rejected) will vote.
I have no direct idea of how expensive a Wikimedia-wide vote is (in
terms of energy, time and personal commitment as well), but I'm afraid
it would cost too much when done just for deciding the survival of a
single project.

G. (aka Paginazero)

2007/8/1, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>:
> - Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project, so
> possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something, then
> Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as according
> to all other circumstances.
> - Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
> such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities
> will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that
> introduction of such polls will push forward our community.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On 8/1/07, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:


> The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we will
> never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.

Or more precisely any new Siberian Wikipedias will have to get their ISO
TLA first, before getting into the wikipedia/incubator.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Johannes Rohr-2
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
"Milos Rancic" <[hidden email]>
writes:

> According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in
> relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language
> SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the
> problem:
>
> - Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
> Board may do that.
> - Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,

...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see
GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]

>so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something,
>then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as
>according to all other circumstances.

except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik
Möller's statement on this.[2]

> - Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
> such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities
> will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that
> introduction of such polls will push forward our community.

I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision
on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes,
at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless
flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather
than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I
strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in
such a sharkpool.

The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee
which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However,  practical
steps in this direction have yet to been taken.

> The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we
> will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.

[...]

While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too
strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs
is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia
is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until
a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally
materialise, if ever.

Thanks,

Johannes


Footnotes:
[1]  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html

[2]  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html

[3]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia

[4]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects

--
http://www.infoe.de/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Yann Forget-2
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Mark Williamson a écrit :
> That's still 1,211 pages.

The quantity is garbage is not relevant to judge the existence of a new
language.

Yann

> Mark
>
> On 01/08/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> "Mark Williamson" <[hidden email]>
>> writes:
>>
>>> At 7,211 pages, they are obviously working on something.
>> [...]
>>
>> Mostly (i.e. ~6000 pages, iirc) are bot-generated year-stubs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Johannes


--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Johannes Rohr-2
In general, I understand both: Language SubCom and Board for lack of
will/time to work on such issues: LangSubCom shouldn't deal with
closure of some project and Board has much more important issues to
work on. However, in the present situation only Board is able to make
such decision and only LangSubCom is body which may give expertize.
So, my first suggestion was based on the simple relation: what do we
have and what do we need.

If both bodies are not willing to deal with such issues, the idea
about making Meta ArbCom is better then nothing. So, I support this
idea in the sense "what do we have and what do we need".

However, positions of ArbComs shouldn't be strong, because ~10 persons
shouldn't be able make Wikimedia-wide decisions. Also, it is quite
reasonable to suppose that such body will be under strong pressure: I
may suppose that a lot of people will try to find a way how to make
influence on those people, as well as I am sure that they will have
much more job then they would be able to do.

Also, even we have such body, it is always possible that it will say
the same as Board and LangSubCom said for this case: we are not
competent for this issue (or: sorry, we have a lot of job to do and we
are not able to work on your issue because we think that it is less
important then other issues).

Because of all of such cases I think that the best solution is to make
a body which will just work on preparing of Wikimedia-wide votings.

And it is not so hard to make a good enough model for voting (which,
btw, may be different from for different cases). For example, rules
may be:

We need people who are enough in Wikimedia and her projects, so:
- Board members, chapter board members, (sub)committee members,
stewards, Meta community and developers (may some groups more?) are
enough trusting, so we don't need to check them.
- Other method for persons to whom Wikimedian projects are important
is at least non-bot 1000 edits on all Wikimedian projects. Also, one
year of presence may be another condition.
- A method for checking reliability may be one year without any block
more then 24 hours.
- etc. etc.

We need this because we need a general method for making decisions
which are global, but not WMF related. Today we have problem related
to Siberian Wikipedia, but tomorrow we will have a problem which even
wouldn't be related to any (sub)committee's expertise.

On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Milos Rancic" <[hidden email]>
> writes:
>
> > According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in
> > relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language
> > SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the
> > problem:
> >
> > - Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
> > Board may do that.
> > - Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,
>
> ...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see
> GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]
>
> >so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something,
> >then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as
> >according to all other circumstances.
>
> except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik
> Möller's statement on this.[2]
>
> > - Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
> > such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities
> > will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that
> > introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
>
> I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision
> on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes,
> at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless
> flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather
> than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I
> strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in
> such a sharkpool.
>
> The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee
> which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However,  practical
> steps in this direction have yet to been taken.
>
> > The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we
> > will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
>
> [...]
>
> While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too
> strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs
> is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia
> is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until
> a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally
> materialise, if ever.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johannes
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html
>
> [2]  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html
>
> [3]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia
>
> [4]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects
>
> --
> http://www.infoe.de/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The language committee does not seek power. It can and will however address
issues when it is asked to do so.

From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a
linguistic entity. The second one is can it be adopted by bodies like the
ISO. The arguments that I have seen so far are not persuasive at all. GIven
also the POV attitude of the Siberian Wikipedia, the question to research
this further is not really that interesting. When the Siberian Wikipedia
were to be a normal project, we could ask for recognition but I do not feel
that this is appropriate in this case.

Personally I would not have a problem when the Siberian Wikipedia is given a
warning that it has to mend its POV ways. Second they have to get the ISO
recognition and certainly if it is not seen that they do change their ways
and do not get this recognition within half a year I would close the
project.

NB This is clearly my personal opinion.

Thanks,
     GerarrdM

On 8/2/07, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In general, I understand both: Language SubCom and Board for lack of
> will/time to work on such issues: LangSubCom shouldn't deal with
> closure of some project and Board has much more important issues to
> work on. However, in the present situation only Board is able to make
> such decision and only LangSubCom is body which may give expertize.
> So, my first suggestion was based on the simple relation: what do we
> have and what do we need.
>
> If both bodies are not willing to deal with such issues, the idea
> about making Meta ArbCom is better then nothing. So, I support this
> idea in the sense "what do we have and what do we need".
>
> However, positions of ArbComs shouldn't be strong, because ~10 persons
> shouldn't be able make Wikimedia-wide decisions. Also, it is quite
> reasonable to suppose that such body will be under strong pressure: I
> may suppose that a lot of people will try to find a way how to make
> influence on those people, as well as I am sure that they will have
> much more job then they would be able to do.
>
> Also, even we have such body, it is always possible that it will say
> the same as Board and LangSubCom said for this case: we are not
> competent for this issue (or: sorry, we have a lot of job to do and we
> are not able to work on your issue because we think that it is less
> important then other issues).
>
> Because of all of such cases I think that the best solution is to make
> a body which will just work on preparing of Wikimedia-wide votings.
>
> And it is not so hard to make a good enough model for voting (which,
> btw, may be different from for different cases). For example, rules
> may be:
>
> We need people who are enough in Wikimedia and her projects, so:
> - Board members, chapter board members, (sub)committee members,
> stewards, Meta community and developers (may some groups more?) are
> enough trusting, so we don't need to check them.
> - Other method for persons to whom Wikimedian projects are important
> is at least non-bot 1000 edits on all Wikimedian projects. Also, one
> year of presence may be another condition.
> - A method for checking reliability may be one year without any block
> more then 24 hours.
> - etc. etc.
>
> We need this because we need a general method for making decisions
> which are global, but not WMF related. Today we have problem related
> to Siberian Wikipedia, but tomorrow we will have a problem which even
> wouldn't be related to any (sub)committee's expertise.
>
> On 8/1/07, Johannes Rohr <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > "Milos Rancic" <[hidden email]>
> > writes:
> >
> > > According to the experience from past cases, the only decisions in
> > > relation to such cases had been made by Jimmy/Board or Language
> > > SubCom. According to that, there are some options to solve the
> > > problem:
> > >
> > > - Jimmy shouldn't make any personal decision in such cases. However,
> > > Board may do that.
> > > - Language SubCom shouldn't have power to close some project,
> >
> > ...and langcom members are not interested in getting involved, see
> > GerardM's earlier comment on this subject.[1]
> >
> > >so possible solution here is: Language SubCom suggests something,
> > >then Board makes decision according to this suggestion as well as
> > >according to all other circumstances.
> >
> > except that the board does not wish to get involved either, see Erik
> > Möller's statement on this.[2]
> >
> > > - Maybe the best solution is to introduce Wikimedia-wide voting in
> > > such cases: Like as voting for the Board, people from all communities
> > > will be called to vote about this issue. Personally, I think that
> > > introduction of such polls will push forward our community.
> >
> > I don't believe that voting is the right way to go. A solid decision
> > on this topic requires at least some insight into the matter. Votes,
> > at least when accompanied by discussion, tend to evolve into endless
> > flamefests, where decisions are taken on the ground of feelings rather
> > than facts. See the Siberian discussion to convince yourselves.[3] I
> > strongly believe that the decision on ru-sib should not be taken in
> > such a sharkpool.
> >
> > The best idea I've read so far is that of a Meta Arbitration Committee
> > which was suggested by GerardM.[4] However,  practical
> > steps in this direction have yet to been taken.
> >
> > > The good thing is that, thanks to creation of Language SubCom, we
> > > will never have any Siberian Wikipedia more.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > While I have my doubts wether the new policy isn't actually too
> > strict, the fact that there will be no new Wikis in private conlangs
> > is indeed a major achievement. But still, the one Siberian Wikipedia
> > is still around and I fear that it will take quite a long time, until
> > a solution (like moving the whole thing to Wikia) will finally
> > materialise, if ever.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Johannes
> >
> >
> > Footnotes:
> > [1]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029940.html
> >
> > [2]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029937.html
> >
> > [3]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia
> >
> > [4]  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects
> >
> > --
> > http://www.infoe.de/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future fate of Siberian Wikipedia

Thomas Goldammer
Hallo,

2007/8/2, GerardM <[hidden email]>:
> Hoi,
> From my point of view, the first thing we address would be is "Siberian" a
> linguistic entity. The second one is can it be adopted by bodies like the
> ISO. The arguments that I have seen so far are not persuasive at all. GIven
> also the POV attitude of the Siberian Wikipedia, the question to research
> this further is not really that interesting. When the Siberian Wikipedia
> were to be a normal project, we could ask for recognition but I do not feel
> that this is appropriate in this case.

I don't find anything about a Siberian Russian language (or dialect,
if you like that term) in official materials about languages.

For example, http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90707
Ethnologue lists 4 eastern Slavic languages, all of them are well
known and do not include Siberian Russian.

The specific language entry of Russian
(http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=rus) names two
dialects, Northern and Southern Russian. According to first language
speakers I asked this seems to be not a very good subdivision, but all
of them denied that there is a specific Siberian dialect. Maybe some
first language speakers of Russian who read this list can say
something more about that.

My personal observation is that [[ru-sib:User:YaroslavZolotaryov]] is
a kind of king of the project. And if I see things like
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Словник I doubt that this
can be called encyclopedic content. There are lessons for learners of
"Siberian", for instance
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тринацатой_шолныш_�C_Чо_сварить.
(translated: 13th chapter - what to learn) I think Zolotaryov wants to
introduce his artifical Russian dialect to other people, which is
clearly Original Research. In my opinion this project should be moved
to Wikia asap.

Saludos cordiales,
Thogo.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12