Please delete mo. wikipedia

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

Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench.
Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private
parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this
has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be
visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia

Regards,
Gutza

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

M. Williamson
Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers.
Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been
dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from
Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps
should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the
solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is
not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end
up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between
Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance
between informed or involved parties with different views.

-m.

2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:

>  I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench.
> Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private
> parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this
> has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be
> visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
>
> Regards,
> Gutza
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Gheorghe Zugravu
I think Milos proposal was about to discuss the issue of the "moldovan"
wikipedia inside the interested people, the ones who sustain the idea of
a such, and the opponents (maybe the word is not the most appropriate
one - but i can remember any other more neutral word), together with the
Langcom. In order not to monopolize the discussions on the
[foundation-l] (and I have the feeling that otherwise the subject will
become very "hot", and maybe somewhere too personalized), as M. Williams
points out regarding the discussions that may take place.

I want to remember that the question of the existence of a "moldovan
language" separated by Romanian language, with a distinct grammar,
vocabulary and literature, partially or totally different, it is an
extremely politicized question inside Republic of Moldova, first of all.
There has been no clear conclusion/decision on the question, since it
implies a lot of political issues to be brought up.
In the last years it is more a silent consensus in society that
"moldovan" is identical with Romanian language, and that "moldovan" is
merely the name of the spoken language used by people living in
historical Moldova, divide between Romania and Republica Moldova (as
Irish or Scottish dialect of English, or American-English), with some
different words - *but* - with totally identical *grammar*.

Thus the idea of Gutza to create a special discussion page on Meta will
fit the idea of an open, public and transparent discussion with the
support of Language subcommittee. And that we should not use the
foundation-l for sharing inside talks on the issue.

with respect,
somewhere from Chisinau/Moldova,
/gheorghe

On 12.10.2010 23:27, M. Williamson wrote:

> Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers.
> Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been
> dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from
> Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps
> should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the
> solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is
> not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end
> up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between
> Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance
> between informed or involved parties with different views.
>
> -m.
>
> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>  I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench.
>> Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private
>> parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this
>> has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be
>> visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g.
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gutza
>>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
 Mark,

You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this
project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in
the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have
single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from
interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of
inconsistencies in your reply:

   1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point
      gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can
      tell, there is no reason for such implications.
   2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your
      argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the
      same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar
      arguments are moot.
   3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching
      this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had
      nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line
      with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this
      entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the
      decision-making process from the very interested parties it was
      intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties
      before my message here, but you were replying to the very message
      which revealed their existence.
   4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this
      conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and
      Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent
      parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their
      presence in the new, "private" medium.

Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private
decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do
you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we
reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven
to the outside world?

Thank you,
Gutza

On 12-Oct-10 23:27, M. Williamson wrote:

> Gutza, the problem with such a solution is inequality of numbers.
> Every time this has been discussed previously, such forums have been
> dominated by Romanians from Romania with very little input from
> Moldovans and 0 input from Transnistrians. This is unfair and steps
> should be taken to remedy any systemic bias of this type. Although the
> solution of Milos of individuals or groups negotiating privately is
> not ideal, it seems to me better than rule-by-mob in which it will end
> up, as on the vote for closure of mo.wp, a battle of numbers between
> Russians and Romanians rather than a discussion of any substance
> between informed or involved parties with different views.
>
> -m.
>
> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>  I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench.
>> Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private
>> parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this
>> has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be
>> visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g.
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gutza
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

M. Williamson
2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>  Mark,
>
> You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this
> project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in
> the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have
> single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from
> interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of
> inconsistencies in your reply:

This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters",
I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited
that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched
Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the
course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't
help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and
which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have
changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect
each other as thinking individuals.

>   1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point
>      gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can
>      tell, there is no reason for such implications.

"Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers
far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great
flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal
because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the
majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any
measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure
that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not
have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the
population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller
still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding
Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity
as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the
same level of internet connectivity as either.

>   2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your
>      argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the
>      same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar
>      arguments are moot.

This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you
are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community
without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If,
theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up
for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people
who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on
it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to
function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes,
but things are often reduced to that.

>   3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching
>      this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had
>      nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line
>      with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this
>      entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the
>      decision-making process from the very interested parties it was
>      intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties
>      before my message here, but you were replying to the very message
>      which revealed their existence.

The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it
seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best
possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in
favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with
two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a
much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no
transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in
my view, I'd like to find something better.

>   4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this
>      conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and
>      Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent
>      parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their
>      presence in the new, "private" medium.
>
> Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private
> decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do
> you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we
> reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven
> to the outside world?

Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to
Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all
vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than
a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea
of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a
secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.

-m.

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 Mark,

There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have
an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?

Thank you,
Gutza

On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:

> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>  Mark,
>>
>> You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this
>> project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in
>> the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have
>> single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from
>> interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of
>> inconsistencies in your reply:
> This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters",
> I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited
> that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched
> Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the
> course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't
> help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and
> which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have
> changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect
> each other as thinking individuals.
>
>>   1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point
>>      gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can
>>      tell, there is no reason for such implications.
> "Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers
> far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great
> flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal
> because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the
> majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any
> measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure
> that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not
> have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the
> population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller
> still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding
> Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity
> as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the
> same level of internet connectivity as either.
>
>>   2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your
>>      argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the
>>      same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar
>>      arguments are moot.
> This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you
> are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community
> without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If,
> theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up
> for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people
> who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on
> it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to
> function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes,
> but things are often reduced to that.
>
>>   3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching
>>      this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had
>>      nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line
>>      with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this
>>      entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the
>>      decision-making process from the very interested parties it was
>>      intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties
>>      before my message here, but you were replying to the very message
>>      which revealed their existence.
> The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it
> seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best
> possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in
> favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with
> two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a
> much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no
> transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in
> my view, I'd like to find something better.
>
>>   4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this
>>      conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and
>>      Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent
>>      parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their
>>      presence in the new, "private" medium.
>>
>> Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private
>> decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do
>> you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we
>> reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven
>> to the outside world?
> Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to
> Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all
> vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than
> a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea
> of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a
> secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
>
> -m.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

M. Williamson
On the matter of the disposition of mo.wp - I have stated it several
times clearly in the other thread, that there should be some sort of
accommodation available for users of the Cyrillic alphabet that
enables both reading from and contributing to a Wikipedia, be it ro.wp
or a separate Wikipedia.

On the matter of how a decision should be reached in this matter, my
opinion is that we should learn lessons from the past and that endless
votes and debates which involve the whole community in a single page
do not seem an ideal solution; I also believe in transparency. I also
believe in protecting the rights of those who are not present or who
are underrepresented, that is my main reason for continued involvement
in this discussion.

-m.


2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:

>  Mark,
>
> There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have
> an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?
>
> Thank you,
> Gutza
>
> On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:
>> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>>  Mark,
>>>
>>> You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this
>>> project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in
>>> the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have
>>> single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from
>>> interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of
>>> inconsistencies in your reply:
>> This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters",
>> I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited
>> that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched
>> Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the
>> course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't
>> help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and
>> which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have
>> changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect
>> each other as thinking individuals.
>>
>>>   1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point
>>>      gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can
>>>      tell, there is no reason for such implications.
>> "Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers
>> far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great
>> flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal
>> because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the
>> majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any
>> measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure
>> that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not
>> have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the
>> population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller
>> still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding
>> Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity
>> as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the
>> same level of internet connectivity as either.
>>
>>>   2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your
>>>      argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the
>>>      same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar
>>>      arguments are moot.
>> This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you
>> are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community
>> without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If,
>> theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up
>> for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people
>> who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on
>> it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to
>> function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes,
>> but things are often reduced to that.
>>
>>>   3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching
>>>      this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had
>>>      nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line
>>>      with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this
>>>      entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the
>>>      decision-making process from the very interested parties it was
>>>      intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties
>>>      before my message here, but you were replying to the very message
>>>      which revealed their existence.
>> The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it
>> seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best
>> possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in
>> favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with
>> two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a
>> much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no
>> transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in
>> my view, I'd like to find something better.
>>
>>>   4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this
>>>      conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and
>>>      Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent
>>>      parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their
>>>      presence in the new, "private" medium.
>>>
>>> Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private
>>> decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do
>>> you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we
>>> reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven
>>> to the outside world?
>> Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to
>> Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all
>> vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than
>> a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea
>> of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a
>> secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
>>
>> -m.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 Mark,

I hope I didn't touch the actual mo.wp issue in any way -- I was
obviously referring to the decision process. On which your opinion seems
to be "don't involve the community, keep it transparent, protect the
absent". Milos came up with a proposal. I came up with a proposal. What
is your proposal?

Thank you,
Gutza

On 13-Oct-10 03:53, M. Williamson wrote:

> On the matter of the disposition of mo.wp - I have stated it several
> times clearly in the other thread, that there should be some sort of
> accommodation available for users of the Cyrillic alphabet that
> enables both reading from and contributing to a Wikipedia, be it ro.wp
> or a separate Wikipedia.
>
> On the matter of how a decision should be reached in this matter, my
> opinion is that we should learn lessons from the past and that endless
> votes and debates which involve the whole community in a single page
> do not seem an ideal solution; I also believe in transparency. I also
> believe in protecting the rights of those who are not present or who
> are underrepresented, that is my main reason for continued involvement
> in this discussion.
>
> -m.
>
>
> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>  Mark,
>>
>> There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have
>> an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gutza
>>
>> On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote:
>>> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>>>  Mark,
>>>>
>>>> You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this
>>>> project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in
>>>> the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have
>>>> single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from
>>>> interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of
>>>> inconsistencies in your reply:
>>> This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters",
>>> I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited
>>> that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched
>>> Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the
>>> course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't
>>> help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and
>>> which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have
>>> changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect
>>> each other as thinking individuals.
>>>
>>>>   1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point
>>>>      gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can
>>>>      tell, there is no reason for such implications.
>>> "Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers
>>> far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great
>>> flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal
>>> because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the
>>> majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any
>>> measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure
>>> that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not
>>> have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the
>>> population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller
>>> still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding
>>> Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity
>>> as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the
>>> same level of internet connectivity as either.
>>>
>>>>   2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your
>>>>      argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the
>>>>      same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar
>>>>      arguments are moot.
>>> This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you
>>> are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community
>>> without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If,
>>> theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up
>>> for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people
>>> who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on
>>> it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to
>>> function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes,
>>> but things are often reduced to that.
>>>
>>>>   3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching
>>>>      this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had
>>>>      nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line
>>>>      with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this
>>>>      entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the
>>>>      decision-making process from the very interested parties it was
>>>>      intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties
>>>>      before my message here, but you were replying to the very message
>>>>      which revealed their existence.
>>> The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it
>>> seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best
>>> possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in
>>> favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with
>>> two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a
>>> much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no
>>> transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in
>>> my view, I'd like to find something better.
>>>
>>>>   4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this
>>>>      conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and
>>>>      Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent
>>>>      parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their
>>>>      presence in the new, "private" medium.
>>>>
>>>> Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private
>>>> decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do
>>>> you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we
>>>> reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven
>>>> to the outside world?
>>> Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to
>>> Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all
>>> vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than
>>> a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea
>>> of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a
>>> secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact.
>>>
>>> -m.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Bogdan Stancescu-2
Hoi,
It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at the
language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this extravaganza.
However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members of
the language committee.

Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of the
Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin
transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
country.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 12 October 2010 20:08, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  I've been watching the conversation on this topic from the bench.
> Milos, this is a highly sensitive issue, you can't tell "private
> parties" to settle this privately and come back with a solution -- this
> has to be settled in a public medium (if only for the consensus to be
> visible). I suggest a page on Meta, e.g.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Decision_on_Moldovan_Wikipedia
>
> Regards,
> Gutza
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
> country.

True. But which language is this about, specifically?

Gutza

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that
it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument
and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
> > country.
>
> True. But which language is this about, specifically?
>
> Gutza
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are
yours):

   1. a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country
   2. the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact
      that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a
      project for English written in Thai)

So then, which *language* is this about?

Gutza


On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that
> it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument
> and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>  On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>> Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
>>> country.
>> True. But which language is this about, specifically?
>>
>> Gutza
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

M. Williamson
Gutza, your #2 statement does not follow, Cyrillic has been and is
currently used, including in schools, for the Eastern
Romance/Daco-Romanian/Romanian/Moldovan/whatever variety spoken in all
or some parts of Moldova (and/or, depending on your chosen political
reality, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).

The Thai script has never been used for English on a wide scale (read:
beyond one person, as a novelty), and certainly not by native or
heritage speakers of the English language. There is no comparison.

-m.

2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:

>  But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are
> yours):
>
>   1. a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country
>   2. the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact
>      that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a
>      project for English written in Thai)
>
> So then, which *language* is this about?
>
> Gutza
>
>
> On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that
>> it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument
>> and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution.
>> Thanks,
>>       GerardM
>>
>> On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>> Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
>>>> country.
>>> True. But which language is this about, specifically?
>>>
>>> Gutza
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 Mark,

You have been designated by Milos as the representative for the
wonderful, if elusive, Cyrillic-writing Romanian-speakin people of the
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. You seem to have taken your
responsibilities seriously, so you wouldn't mind if I ask: where is your
people? No Wikipedia project starts out of the blue, on a theoretical
basis -- there's always a catalyst, a representative of the people, who
wants to read and write, who wants to immerse him or herself in the
culture of the language, and generate content in their own, native
language. Where is that elusive Pridnestrovian who yearns to write
content in Romanian, in Cyrillic? Don't give me Russian statistics on
schools -- give me e-mails from real people, give me pleas, give me
petitions. I can give you e-mails, pleas and petitions regarding the
*closure* of the Moldovan Wikipedia -- show me yours.

Thank you,
Gutza


On 13-Oct-10 04:56, M. Williamson wrote:

> Gutza, your #2 statement does not follow, Cyrillic has been and is
> currently used, including in schools, for the Eastern
> Romance/Daco-Romanian/Romanian/Moldovan/whatever variety spoken in all
> or some parts of Moldova (and/or, depending on your chosen political
> reality, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).
>
> The Thai script has never been used for English on a wide scale (read:
> beyond one person, as a novelty), and certainly not by native or
> heritage speakers of the English language. There is no comparison.
>
> -m.
>
> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[hidden email]>:
>>  But then we have the following contradicting statements (and both are
>> yours):
>>
>>   1. a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a country
>>   2. the Moldovan language is in fact the Romanian language (the fact
>>      that it's written in Cyrillic is as relevant as proposing a
>>      project for English written in Thai)
>>
>> So then, which *language* is this about?
>>
>> Gutza
>>
>>
>> On 13-Oct-10 04:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> The solution of a dissolution of the mo.wikipedia is in the recognition that
>>> it is Romanian language written in Cyrillic. This is the central argument
>>> and, consequently the Romanian language is part of an acceptable solution.
>>> Thanks,
>>>       GerardM
>>>
>>> On 13 October 2010 03:34, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On 13-Oct-10 04:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>>> Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
>>>>> country.
>>>> True. But which language is this about, specifically?
>>>>
>>>> Gutza
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Gheorghe Zugravu
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:49, Zugravu Gheorghe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think Milos proposal was about to discuss the issue of the "moldovan"
> wikipedia inside the interested people, the ones who sustain the idea of
> a such, and the opponents (maybe the word is not the most appropriate
> one - but i can remember any other more neutral word), together with the
> Langcom. In order not to monopolize the discussions on the
> [foundation-l] (and I have the feeling that otherwise the subject will
> become very "hot", and maybe somewhere too personalized), as M. Williams
> points out regarding the discussions that may take place.
>
> I want to remember that the question of the existence of a "moldovan
> language" separated by Romanian language, with a distinct grammar,
> vocabulary and literature, partially or totally different, it is an
> extremely politicized question inside Republic of Moldova, first of all.
> There has been no clear conclusion/decision on the question, since it
> implies a lot of political issues to be brought up.
> In the last years it is more a silent consensus in society that
> "moldovan" is identical with Romanian language, and that "moldovan" is
> merely the name of the spoken language used by people living in
> historical Moldova, divide between Romania and Republica Moldova (as
> Irish or Scottish dialect of English, or American-English), with some
> different words - *but* - with totally identical *grammar*.
>
> Thus the idea of Gutza to create a special discussion page on Meta will
> fit the idea of an open, public and transparent discussion with the
> support of Language subcommittee. And that we should not use the
> foundation-l for sharing inside talks on the issue.

One side wants to close the project, while it is against the core
principle of Wikimedia: closing the project which serves strong
majority of 177.000 Moldovans from Transnitria without giving them at
least some other option is not according to the idea to "give the sum
of all human knowledge to every human being".

In other words, plain deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia in Cyrillic is
not an option for the near future (let's say, next couple of years),
while it is unlikely that it would be an option at all. So, some other
idea is needed.

I have some ideas how it could be solved, but my ideas are irrelevant.
In any case, their implementation would be treated as imposing a
solution "from the above". Thus, interested parties should find
solution.

Years passed in open discussions and nothing acceptable has been
concluded. So, I suggest that a couple of you should discuss privately
and articulate [a draft for] some sensible solution and present it
publicly for further discussion and, after that discussion, the final
implementation.

According to the present situation, I have no confidence in continuing
any public discussion without making a proposal. To be honest, I am
highly skeptical about public discussion after making proposal, but,
at least, at that time the proposal would be in the focus.

This issue is probably the most important reason why we don't have
Wikimedia Romania yet. That means that the interest of the whole
Wikimedian community is to have that problem solved. However, we are
not able to solve it instead of you; as well as creating Wikimedia
Romania is in the interest of Romanian Wikimedians, too.

I suppose that you understand the circumstances under which Moldovan
Wikipedia [in Cyrillic] has been created. At the early time of
Wikipedia, Moldovan language was codified as a separate language. If
it was not the situation, it would have been highly unlikely that we
have the project now, but it would have been likely that we would have
it in the future, if Transnitrian Moldovans would have adopt Internet
in significant numbers. That situation would have been much fortunate
as the linguistic and national issues in Moldova and Romania won't be
so hot after ten more years or so. However, the situation is
different.

From the point of a person who cares about Wikimedia movement, I would
say that we should close Moldovan Cyrillic Wikipedia. It is obviously
that we should care much more about living Romanian Wikimedian
community, than about non-existent Moldovan Cyrillic Wikimedian
community. However, there are some principles behind our work and they
are stronger than utilitarian reasoning. As the project exists, we are
not able just to remove it. In other words, please understand our
position.

During the past years, Mark has given strong *arguments* against the
deletion of Moldovan Cyrillic Wikipedia. Note that it is about
arguments, not about partisan speech. He has also shown ability to
seek for solutions. Because of those things, he is the best person to
talk in the name of those Moldovans who are using Cyrillic orthography
as their native one. If you feel that you have problems in
articulating your own arguments, you can ask other Wikimedians to help
to formulate your own needs toward this issue. I see that Marcus Buck,
like Mark, is giving good arguments in favor of your position. So, ask
him to help you.

Exactly because this is a hot political issue in Moldova and Romania,
there is no way that the Language committee or the Board would be
willing to decide before two sides reach an agreement. So, the right
target for discussion are not members of Language committee or Board,
but persons interested to have this problem solved. In other words,
don't count on our involvement before you make a sensible proposal for
the solution of the problem.

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 On 13-Oct-10 07:58, Milos Rancic wrote:
> but it would have been likely that we would have
> it in the future, if Transnitrian Moldovans would have adopt Internet
> in significant numbers

Why not create the new subdomain ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org at that point in
time? Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop
serving it. Whenever there will be a request from an actual native to
open such a project, open the new project as usual, and migrate the
current content from mo.wiki to that new subdomain.

Why do we need to open a new subdomain today, when the only real person
pleading for its existence is an American? Why not do the sensible thing
and wait until someone actually needs it?

Gutza

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

David Gerard-2
On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop
> serving it.


Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By
"delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it."


- d.

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Bogdan Stancescu-2
 On 13-Oct-10 13:32, David Gerard wrote:
> On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop
>> serving it.
>
> Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By
> "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it."
>

No, I am not playing with words -- saying that something will be deleted
implies a loss. I am contending that my proposal doesn't involve any
loss: Mark's work invested in creating content would not be lost from
the face of the Earth (because the content would be preserved in the
database), and no Transnitrian would feel any loss from the fact that
the content is no longer served, for the simple reason that such a
hypothetical Transnitrian (i.e. one that would be interested in such a
Wikipedia) doesn't exist for the time being. Whenever he/she will make
their presence known, the current content will be restored, so there
will be no loss at that point either.

Not at all the same thing as deleting the content.

Gutza


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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
  An'n 13.10.2010 03:29, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at the
> language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this extravaganza.
> However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members of
> the language committee.
>
> Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of the
> Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin
> transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
> country.
Really interesting news! After all the years where you and other
language committee members have exclaimed "We only process proposals for
_new_ projects. We are not involved in closing projects or resolving
language conflicts!" when did this change? A link to the discussion
where this change was decided would be very useful.


We are yet again at the stage that the question "which language is this
about?" appears. I feel I have to make some clarifications. "Romanian"
and "Moldovan" are national varieties of the same language. National
varieties are not the same as dialects. Dialects are things like
Geordie, Scouse or Kentish. These are language differences that have
developed over a period of hundreds or a thousand of years by local oral
tradition. Dialects can vary widely and there are fluent transitions
between "dialect" and "language" (e.g. Scots is considered a language of
its own by many linguists although it is treated like a dialect by many
English people). National varieties on the other hand have not developed
locally by oral tradition. They originated in the adoption of a
standardized language by a country. In the 19th century a standardized
language evolved among the educated speakers of Eastern European Romance
languages. This standardized language was adopted as a base for written
language in all regions where Eastern European Romance languages where
spoken irrespective of the fact that the standardized language usually
differed from the local dialects. The standardized language in theory
was identical everywhere. But some small differences (usually in the
lexicon) existed, e.g. when dialectal terms were adopted into the
standardized language or when laws used differing terms to regulate
things that are otherwise similar.

That's in no way special to Romanian/Moldovan. The same happened with
British vs. American English, German vs. Austrian vs. Swiss German,
French vs. Canadian French, Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish
vs. Mexican vs. Argentinian etc. Spanish, Dutch vs. Flemish Dutch etc.


The discussion we are having is not about Romanian vs. Moldovan. It's
about Latin vs. Cyrillic. It's only about the characters you use to
write it down not about the content of the words.

What are the options?
- keep the status quo
- just change the URL from 'mo' to 'ro-cyrl'
- delete mo.wp
- re-open the Cyrillic wiki for editing
- create an equal rights latn-cyrl conversion on ro.wp
- create an unequal rights conversion from latn to cyrl at ro-cyrl.wp

== Status quo ==

Advantages:
- nothing needs to be done by anybody

Disadvantages:
- everybody keeps dissatified
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic

== Change the URL ==

Advantages:
- the request that started the thread is satisfied, the wiki can no
longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a Moldovan language
different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic"

Disadvantages:
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic

== Delete mo.wp ==

Advantages:
- the wiki can no longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a
Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan
is Cyrillic"
- the Latin script users would welcome the abolition of a project that
many of them perceive to be a remnant sting of Soviet cultural
imperialism in the flesh of the Romanian language

Disadvantages:
- no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic

== Re-open the wiki ==

Advantages:
- gives the Cyrillic users the chance to build their own resource

Disadvantages:
- redundancy with ro.wp, doubling the effort
- there are almost no users who want to fill the project with content
- the Latin script users will get upset
- it will take a looong time until a useful resource comes out of it

== Equal rights conversion on ro.wp ==

Advantages:
- full participation chances for Cyrillic users
- all content fully available to Cyrillic users

Disadvantages:
- risking a revolt among ro.wp users and risking to loose a good part of
the community, possibly risking a fork
- much extra work to be done by a community largely unwilling to spend
work on it

== Unequal rights conversion off of ro.wp ==

Advantages:
- all content available to Cyrillic users

Disadvantages:
- no participation chances for Cyrillic users
- still unpopular among Latin users



 From a strictly Wikipedia-ideological and politically unideological
point of view the equal rights conversion would be the right thing to
do. But given the fact that that could totally blow the whole and very
active community of ro.wp and given the fact that we would risk this for
a less than 1% minority, a minority we have no proof of that they would
take the chance to participate if we gave it to them or that they are
even interested in the content, I think we would be ideological
dumbasses if we would accept this risk.


@FoundationStaff (one of whom is hopefully reading these discussions on
Foundation-l):
I hope the Foundation is interested in this discussion too. Bringing
knowledge to the people of the world and stuff. So, what's the
Foundation's position on this? The current lack of any action from the
Foundation's side suggests that it opts for "status quo". So what's the
Foundation's rationale for not serving the Cyrillic users? (Oh, and
please don't answer with "limited resources, other important stuff to
do". That would be a weak response. Any of the above options should be
technically implementable in a single working day and I think it's worth
to spend one working day if that means making Wikipedia available to
177,000 additional people.)

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

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

Re: Please delete mo. wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The language committee does not involve itself normally. In this thread it
was suggested that it could by exception.

What I have done is apply the normal arguments we use for new languages. The
history of a language is of no relevance. What is relevant is that we have
one series of projects for one language. Given that Romanian is the same as
Moldovan. Given that we do not allow for restrictions in new projects, the
point I make is completely predictable.

As to "links to discussion" ... we are not policy wonks, I prefer to apply
"there are no rules" this is in line with the capable people we have in our
committee and the fact that objections mean that we have to get to an
agreement in the committee.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 13 October 2010 14:41, Marcus Buck <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  An'n 13.10.2010 03:29, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> > It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at
> the
> > language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this
> extravaganza.
> > However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members
> of
> > the language committee.
> >
> > Let me be specific; a solution needs to allow for a transliteration of
> the
> > Romanian language Wikipedia into Cyrillic. Preferred is a round robin
> > transliteration. Remember, a Wikipedia is granted to a language not a
> > country.
> Really interesting news! After all the years where you and other
> language committee members have exclaimed "We only process proposals for
> _new_ projects. We are not involved in closing projects or resolving
> language conflicts!" when did this change? A link to the discussion
> where this change was decided would be very useful.
>
>
> We are yet again at the stage that the question "which language is this
> about?" appears. I feel I have to make some clarifications. "Romanian"
> and "Moldovan" are national varieties of the same language. National
> varieties are not the same as dialects. Dialects are things like
> Geordie, Scouse or Kentish. These are language differences that have
> developed over a period of hundreds or a thousand of years by local oral
> tradition. Dialects can vary widely and there are fluent transitions
> between "dialect" and "language" (e.g. Scots is considered a language of
> its own by many linguists although it is treated like a dialect by many
> English people). National varieties on the other hand have not developed
> locally by oral tradition. They originated in the adoption of a
> standardized language by a country. In the 19th century a standardized
> language evolved among the educated speakers of Eastern European Romance
> languages. This standardized language was adopted as a base for written
> language in all regions where Eastern European Romance languages where
> spoken irrespective of the fact that the standardized language usually
> differed from the local dialects. The standardized language in theory
> was identical everywhere. But some small differences (usually in the
> lexicon) existed, e.g. when dialectal terms were adopted into the
> standardized language or when laws used differing terms to regulate
> things that are otherwise similar.
>
> That's in no way special to Romanian/Moldovan. The same happened with
> British vs. American English, German vs. Austrian vs. Swiss German,
> French vs. Canadian French, Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish
> vs. Mexican vs. Argentinian etc. Spanish, Dutch vs. Flemish Dutch etc.
>
>
> The discussion we are having is not about Romanian vs. Moldovan. It's
> about Latin vs. Cyrillic. It's only about the characters you use to
> write it down not about the content of the words.
>
> What are the options?
> - keep the status quo
> - just change the URL from 'mo' to 'ro-cyrl'
> - delete mo.wp
> - re-open the Cyrillic wiki for editing
> - create an equal rights latn-cyrl conversion on ro.wp
> - create an unequal rights conversion from latn to cyrl at ro-cyrl.wp
>
> == Status quo ==
>
> Advantages:
> - nothing needs to be done by anybody
>
> Disadvantages:
> - everybody keeps dissatified
> - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
>
> == Change the URL ==
>
> Advantages:
> - the request that started the thread is satisfied, the wiki can no
> longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a Moldovan language
> different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan is Cyrillic"
>
> Disadvantages:
> - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
>
> == Delete mo.wp ==
>
> Advantages:
> - the wiki can no longer be mistaken to propagate the existence of a
> Moldovan language different from Romanian or to propagate that "Moldovan
> is Cyrillic"
> - the Latin script users would welcome the abolition of a project that
> many of them perceive to be a remnant sting of Soviet cultural
> imperialism in the flesh of the Romanian language
>
> Disadvantages:
> - no meaningful content available for users who want to read Cyrillic
>
> == Re-open the wiki ==
>
> Advantages:
> - gives the Cyrillic users the chance to build their own resource
>
> Disadvantages:
> - redundancy with ro.wp, doubling the effort
> - there are almost no users who want to fill the project with content
> - the Latin script users will get upset
> - it will take a looong time until a useful resource comes out of it
>
> == Equal rights conversion on ro.wp ==
>
> Advantages:
> - full participation chances for Cyrillic users
> - all content fully available to Cyrillic users
>
> Disadvantages:
> - risking a revolt among ro.wp users and risking to loose a good part of
> the community, possibly risking a fork
> - much extra work to be done by a community largely unwilling to spend
> work on it
>
> == Unequal rights conversion off of ro.wp ==
>
> Advantages:
> - all content available to Cyrillic users
>
> Disadvantages:
> - no participation chances for Cyrillic users
> - still unpopular among Latin users
>
>
>
>  From a strictly Wikipedia-ideological and politically unideological
> point of view the equal rights conversion would be the right thing to
> do. But given the fact that that could totally blow the whole and very
> active community of ro.wp and given the fact that we would risk this for
> a less than 1% minority, a minority we have no proof of that they would
> take the chance to participate if we gave it to them or that they are
> even interested in the content, I think we would be ideological
> dumbasses if we would accept this risk.
>
>
> @FoundationStaff (one of whom is hopefully reading these discussions on
> Foundation-l):
> I hope the Foundation is interested in this discussion too. Bringing
> knowledge to the people of the world and stuff. So, what's the
> Foundation's position on this? The current lack of any action from the
> Foundation's side suggests that it opts for "status quo". So what's the
> Foundation's rationale for not serving the Cyrillic users? (Oh, and
> please don't answer with "limited resources, other important stuff to
> do". That would be a weak response. Any of the above options should be
> technically implementable in a single working day and I think it's worth
> to spend one working day if that means making Wikipedia available to
> 177,000 additional people.)
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12