Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a
vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people
who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much
disregarding all the people involved in the project.

Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get
a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to
close the wiki!?

This poll is here:
http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0#Closing_this_Wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Ray Saintonge
Dejan Cabrilo wrote:

>Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a
>vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people
>who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much
>disregarding all the people involved in the project.
>
>Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get
>a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to
>close the wiki!?
>  
>
I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent
changes does show that the project is active.  Assuming that the vote
succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass
the criteria for starting a new wiki.  Under those circumstances
wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid
if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same
language.

Ec

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
Here is my comment (also on sh village pump):

;Neutral
#My opinion is between closing and neutral. As I think that I am
closer to neutral, I am writing here my opinnion.
--[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*This Wikipedia is used for expression of one political faction from
former Yugoslavia. I would like that this Wikipedia makes more
connection between people from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Serbia and Montenegro, but it is clear that it did only in the way
that people from Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia are together in demand
to close this Wikipedia. Also, I am not so optimistic that it would do
this better. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*But, some people are working here and I can't say "destroy their
work". --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#**But, those people would be more helpful on three other
Neo-Shtokavian based Wikipedias (sr, hr and bs). People who are not
extremists are very welcome on those three Wikipedias.
--[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#***But, I am not sure would they want to come there after closing
this Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*Also, it should be noted that Pokrajac would be desysoped on Serbian
Wikipedia for blocking users who made a joke (not Milica, but
Elephantus, Jovan etc.) Behaviour like this is unacceptable on
Wikipedia. And this incident started the process of closing this
Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)


On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a
> vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people
> who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much
> disregarding all the people involved in the project.
>
> Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get
> a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to
> close the wiki!?
>
> This poll is here:
> http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0#Closing_this_Wikipedia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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

re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

elephantus
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
I have followed the progress (or rather the lack of
it) on the Serbo-Croatian wikipedia since its
unlocking and I have to say that almost all of the
"contributions" there were actually verbatim
copies of articles from Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
Wikipedias done by 1-2 users. The articles were then
left untouched, in many cases with empty picture links and
original unopened red links for categories,
while their originals on the other three
wikis were changed, improved, re-categorized etc.
The wiki has about 2400 articles today with almost no
original articles longer than about a sentence.

Also, the other three Wikipedias which cover this same linguistic
territory (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) have grown
significantly in the past six months and now have a combined
total of about 35,000 articles with many active contributors
writing about topics as diverse as genetics, jumbo jets,
Native American peoples, short-lived Roman emperors etc.

Wikipedia users who want to contribute in any of the three
languages turn to either Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian wikipedias
by default. The Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia hasn't really added
any new active users since August or so. Many of the people
who support it admit openly that they do so for
ideological reasons but, as many Wikipedians know,
encyclopedias are built by those who love encyclopedias and
knowledge, not those who love ideologies.

To sum it up, I think that Wikipedia in Serbo-Croatian
should be re-locked and then removed after an appropriate
period, simply to remove interference with other projects
when doing a Google search or similar.

Elephantus

from Croatian Wikipedia


--
XXLadsl ponuda do 15.01.2006.- veće brzine, iste cijene. Samo kod
IskonInterneta uz XXLadsl surfajte 60 dana neograničeno za samo 1kunu!

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
Some of my thoughts on this: I of course, think that the vote is
totally invalid. I voted just to show that you can't close a Wikipedia
which is active.

Now, many people don't turn to Bosnian, Croatian, or Serbian
Wikipedias, because they can't identify with any of those. They are
all covering the same linguistic (or at least similar) region, but
simply because they all exist, a bit of bias is assumed by many
editors.

People like me don't identify their nationality nor the language with
either Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia (I happen to be a citizen of one of
those, but that doesn't make much difference). So, if we decide that
we need three projects for something that everybody could understand,
anyway, why don't leave a fourth one as well?

Creating Serbo-Croatian language, and identity to an extent, is as
political as recreating Croatian and Serbian, Bosnian and possibly
even Montenegrin.

Some people don't want Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to exist, because they
are very anti-Yugoslavian. Others don't want Serbian, Croatian and
Bosnian to exist as separate editions because they are anti-cultural
balkanization, and think that all of those regions share enough in
language written to be able to cooperate without big problems.

Just for example, as Serbian Wikipedia was coming into existence, many
of the articles had very strong Serbian Orthodox POV. This is getting
much better now, and I applaud the hard work of few who are trying to
fight that inherited POV. But still, it is enough for one person to
run across an article on Serbian Wikipedia which is still that biased,
see that it's in cyrillic (most Serbian websites use latin, because
it's accessible to Croatian and Bosnian, as well as Slovenian audience
that way, and using strictly cyrillic is a weak sign of nationalism -
when people deliberately decide they don't want to be accessible to
neighbours).

So, we can either have 4 Wikipedias, and upcoming Montenegrin should
be ready. OR, we can make an overarching Wikipedia for all of those
languages, or like Milosh proposed, a neo-Shtokavian centric one
(which is fine really).

Also, regarding the numbers of Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian
Wikipedias: They also often use each others contents, and many of
those pages are really just date templates.

I think this really needs to be reformed somehow. If that software,
which would transliterate between Cyrillic and Latin, appears, what's
the reason not to have ONE SINGLE Wikipedia for all of those
languages?

Most people who won't like it are POV pushers anyway (who simply don't
want to cooperate with other ethnicities - I can't justify it
otherwise).

Wikipedia is not a cultural project, it's an encyclopedia, aimed at
bringing information to people.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Now, many people don't turn to Bosnian, Croatian, or Serbian
> Wikipedias, because they can't identify with any of those. They are
> all covering the same linguistic (or at least similar) region, but
> simply because they all exist, a bit of bias is assumed by many
> editors.

Huh, "many"...

> People like me don't identify their nationality nor the language with
> either Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia (I happen to be a citizen of one of
> those, but that doesn't make much difference). So, if we decide that
> we need three projects for something that everybody could understand,
> anyway, why don't leave a fourth one as well?

This is true, but this way is just forcing separation.

> Some people don't want Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to exist, because they
> are very anti-Yugoslavian. Others don't want Serbian, Croatian and
> Bosnian to exist as separate editions because they are anti-cultural
> balkanization, and think that all of those regions share enough in
> language written to be able to cooperate without big problems.

Term "anti-cultural balkanization" is culture-fascistic.

> Just for example, as Serbian Wikipedia was coming into existence, many
> of the articles had very strong Serbian Orthodox POV. This is getting
> much better now, and I applaud the hard work of few who are trying to
> fight that inherited POV. But still, it is enough for one person to
> run across an article on Serbian Wikipedia which is still that biased,
> see that it's in cyrillic (most Serbian websites use latin, because
> it's accessible to Croatian and Bosnian, as well as Slovenian audience
> that way, and using strictly cyrillic is a weak sign of nationalism -
> when people deliberately decide they don't want to be accessible to
> neighbours).
Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have POV articles more then English
Wikipedia (of course, proportional). It is possible that some ov POV
pages are not marked, but this is only because NO ONE marked them
(Dejan could do it, but he didn't).

Latin alphabet is needed only because of Croats. Bosnians know
Cyrillics; if Slovenians know Serbian/Croatian, they know Cyrillics,
too. As well as Macedonians use only Cyrillics.

A lot of sites are in Latin only because of a lot of xenophobia toward
Cyrillics.

> So, we can either have 4 Wikipedias, and upcoming Montenegrin should
> be ready. OR, we can make an overarching Wikipedia for all of those
> languages, or like Milosh proposed, a neo-Shtokavian centric one
> (which is fine really).

In present way, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is just fourth faction. Also,
you can't build anything on personal fiction. Partial and/or full
merging between Neo-Shtokavian Wikipedias are possible only if people
are working on Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedia. It is not
possible if people who want that are working on separate factional
project.

> Also, regarding the numbers of Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian
> Wikipedias: They also often use each others contents, and many of
> those pages are really just date templates.

Serbian Wikipedia has more then 10.000 normal articles; Croatian has
at least 6.000-8.000 normal articles.

> I think this really needs to be reformed somehow. If that software,
> which would transliterate between Cyrillic and Latin, appears, what's
> the reason not to have ONE SINGLE Wikipedia for all of those
> languages?

If you want to work on such project, try to think a little bit deeper
what is possible now, what would be possible in two years etc. And,
start to work on it. The problem with you and Pokrajac is that you are
full of your ideals in emails and talk pages without any consistent
work.

We would be in much better situation now if both of you gave 10% of
your efforts from mails/talks like this instead of reopening
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.

> Wikipedia is not a cultural project, it's an encyclopedia, aimed at
> bringing information to people.

You can use a blog for spreading informations, too.

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
> Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have POV articles more then English
> Wikipedia (of course, proportional). It is possible that some ov POV
> pages are not marked, but this is only because NO ONE marked them
> (Dejan could do it, but he didn't).

I did do it. And the storm rolled upon me. I was mostly quickly
reverted, or even rolled back. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was
the one to introduce POV and copyvio templates, no? Check out my
contributions on sr.wiki (User:Dcabrilo). When I started doing it, you
proposed that we allow POV articles to stay on the wiki, with a
permanent template of: "This article was written from such and such
POV". I said we should either get rid of them, or rewrite them. You
said you thought they were just too good of essays to delete, and that
you talked to Jimbo Wales while he was in Belgrade about that issue.

And Serbian Wikipedia has more POV than English one, for sure. For
example, just until few hours ago, this thing was stuck on the top of
the Home Page:

http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%9A%D0%B5&oldid=200252

(MARRY CHRISTMAS)

Also, just for example, I noticed that article I labeled as POV (my
mistake, it was not only POV, it was also a copyvio from
http://www.svetosavlje.org/biblioteka/Recnik/A.htm), has been locked
since I put a POV tag on it... May 2004.
(http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Адам_и_Ева).

So, yes, I did try to work on POV, but you and many others had no
problems with POV (recognized as such) being included in the name
space. As long as it had a tag...

Only on May 13th did I label about a dozen articles as POV (mostly
Orthodox Christianity related). [[Википедија:Провера неутралности]].
Many of those were beyond repair (they were simply religious essays).

However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
it's only normal to have that kind of bias".

> Latin alphabet is needed only because of Croats. Bosnians know
> Cyrillics; if Slovenians know Serbian/Croatian, they know Cyrillics,
> too. As well as Macedonians use only Cyrillics.

Most Slovenes and Croats are not good with Cyrillic, and not
comfortable enough with it to make edits. Many Bosnians as well. This
is especially true for younger people. Most Macedonians, unlike most
Slovenes, can read and write in both Cyrillic and Latin for that
matter.

> A lot of sites are in Latin only because of a lot of xenophobia toward
> Cyrillics.

Also because that way it's accessible to anyone.

> > Wikipedia is not a cultural project, it's an encyclopedia, aimed at
> > bringing information to people.
>
> You can use a blog for spreading informations, too.

And what do you think Wikipedia is for? Spreading what? Wikipedia is
an attempt at encyclopedia, which is as simple as disseminating NPOV
ecyclopedic information.

Cheers,
Dejan

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Mark
Dejan Cabrilo wrote:

>However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
>it's only normal to have that kind of bias".
>  
>
I certainly hope that's not a consensus opinion, because that's flatly
unacceptable for any language's Wikipedia.  That all Wikipedia articles
must be written from a neutral point of view (which implies not from the
point of view of any nationality, ethnicity, or culture) is one of the
few absolutely non-negotiable Wikipedia policies.

-Mark

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Daniel Mayer
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
--- Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent
> changes does show that the project is active.  Assuming that the vote
> succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass
> the criteria for starting a new wiki.  Under those circumstances
> wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid
> if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same
> language.

Having an active community is NOT the most important reason to have a separate wiki. FAR more
important, given our goal to having encyclopedias that everybody on the planet can read, is to
make sure we consider how closely the proposed wiki's language is to other languages we already
have wikis for.

It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of
Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them
(which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).

In fact, our article on this confirms my suspicion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_in_standard_Serbian%2C_Croatian_and_Bosnian

So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
Wikipedias instead of just one  Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?

Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE,
violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the
Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.

We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that
retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.

-- mav


               
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Walter van Kalken

>
>We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that
>retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
>
>-- mav
>
The most horrid mistake would be a merger of wikipedias implement
fromthe top down. If the communities do not want it. Do not force them.
You would only chase away people, or create pedia's that are in a
constant editwar.

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Daniel Mayer
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic
--- Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I think this really needs to be reformed somehow. If that software,
> > which would transliterate between Cyrillic and Latin, appears, what's
> > the reason not to have ONE SINGLE Wikipedia for all of those
> > languages?
>
> If you want to work on such project, try to think a little bit deeper
> what is possible now, what would be possible in two years etc. And,
> start to work on it. The problem with you and Pokrajac is that you are
> full of your ideals in emails and talk pages without any consistent
> work.

An on-the-fly script converter is already working on the Chinese Wikipedia. It does not, I am
told, require more than one version of an article and does not fork articles. What it does is
display whatever script a person wants w/o needing separate articles written in the different
scripts.

So it appears that there is no valid reason to have separate wikis for each country that was
formerly part of Yugoslavia. One Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia will do, IMO.

We are here to build encyclopedias that everybody in the world can read and use. That does NOT
mean that we need to have encyclopedias in every single dialect spoken in the world. In fact,
doing that will only hamper our goals since it needlessly breaks-up communities that could combine
their effort into creating one encyclopedia that respects all the various mutually-understandable
dialects of a single language.

That Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian are separate languages appears to be a politically-convenient
fiction that wants to enforce differences that don't really exist. That can only tend to enforce
component-nation-specific POVs and thus violate NPOV (as would having separate Wikipedais for
Simplified and Traditional Chinese).

It is very sad that the lack of a good policy on language creation and shutdown has resulted in
this situation.

Shut down Serbo-Croatian? No. Shut down Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian and then merge them into
Serbo-Croatian? Yes.

If need be we can reduce to just two wikis until/if a Latin/Cyrillic script converter and be
created.

-- mav


               
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Mark
Delirium wrote:

> Dejan Cabrilo wrote:
>
>> However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
>> it's only normal to have that kind of bias".
>
> I certainly hope that's not a consensus opinion, because that's flatly
> unacceptable for any language's Wikipedia.  That all Wikipedia
> articles must be written from a neutral point of view (which implies
> not from the point of view of any nationality, ethnicity, or culture)
> is one of the few absolutely non-negotiable Wikipedia policies.

The theory is fine, but unless we can read the language(s) we have no
way of knowing whether NPOV is in fact being followed.

Ec

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Daniel Mayer
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent
>>changes does show that the project is active.  Assuming that the vote
>>succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass
>>the criteria for starting a new wiki.  Under those circumstances
>>wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid
>>if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same
>>language.
>>    
>>
>
>Having an active community is NOT the most important reason to have a separate wiki. FAR more important, given our goal to having encyclopedias that everybody on the planet can read, is to make sure we consider how closely the proposed wiki's language is to other languages we already have wikis for.
>
>It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).
>
>In fact, our article on this confirms my suspicion:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_in_standard_Serbian%2C_Croatian_and_Bosnian
>
>So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one  Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?
>
>Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE, violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.
>
>We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
>
If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no
problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all
these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in
front of us.  It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them
suffer from a lack of interest and activity.  Nobody would benefit by
trying to undo the past.

There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis
was a grave violation of NPOV, but adopting retroactive policies for
anything is never good without an overwhelmingly strong reason.  There
is no such overwhelming reason.  So unluss one of those communities
collapses form a total lack of interest, or there is a merger agreement
by any two or more of these communities we will probably have to live
with the fact of four communities for the forseeable future.  My crystal
ball cannot see farther than that.

Ec

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
> The theory is fine, but unless we can read the language(s) we have no
> way of knowing whether NPOV is in fact being followed.

Of course, we could go article for article, but some "interesting"
stuff that is apparently acceptable on one of those "national"
Wikipedias is:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Свето_Јеванђеље_по_Матеју (Gospel of
Matthew, full edition)
[[Свето Јеванђеље по Марку]] (Gospel of Mark, also full edition)

Not that big of a deal, but still, everybody thinks that it's OK to
post the Holy Bible on Wikipedia.

This is a proposed policy, which resulted after I labeled a bunch of
articles as POV:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедија:Тачке_гледишта
or, Wikipedia:Points of View

Basically, it's a proposal to allow people to write from certain POVs,
which would be labeled so. Here are the rules (my translation from
that page):
1. At least one editor wants to write about it.
2. At least five editors support legitimacy of that POV.
3. At least one of those five is an admin.
4. At least five articles in user namespace describing that POV.
5. That the POV does not promote racial, religious or other hate and
doesn't call for violence. This is solemly a concern of such things as
fascism or nazism.
6. That the POV has local (i.e. is connected to Serbia somehow) or
global importance.
7. That the POV is described in a proper place on Serbian Wikipedia.

Like I said, this was a proposed policy, from May 2005 (the last time
I was active on Serbian Wikipedia, it was in part a response to the
fact that I overnight labeled a bunch of articles as POV, because I
found them to be essays on Orthodox Christianity, but obviously,
others realized the POV in supporting this policy). Still, it got 5
votes for, and 3 against. I think it describes the inherit POV of such
national projects.

The following users supported the policy:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Милош
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Горан_Анђелковић
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Bonzo
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Djordjes
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Dzordzm

All of them are admins/bureaucrats, so people of trust there think
that NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about.

Three people voted against, users Zocky (not an admin, not active), me
(not an admin, not active) and Aleksandar (doesn't seem to be an
admin, I don't know if he is active).

That policy never made it thru, but for example, if you visit
[[Категорија:Светитељи]], which is Category:Saints, you will notice in
almost each and every article among those the following line at the
bottom:
"Велики део овог текст је преузет из охридског пролога светог владике
Николаја Велимировића. Он не подлеже ауторским правима" - meaning "Big
chunk of this text was taken from Ohrid's Prologue of St. Ruler (not
sure about translation of his title) Nikolaj Velimirovic. It is not
affected by copyright."

Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Velimirovic was a part of
Serbian Orthodox Church and writer of big part of its doctrine (or at
least, what some say should be). So, it's much worse than copying
stuff from some outdated encyclopedia, it's actually copying stuff
from the source which is as POV as possible. And that seems acceptable
on Serbian Wiki. Most of the articles are totally POV, as you can
imagine coming from a church source.

The reason I am writing this is to show that national wikipedias are
inheritly biased - they can be very good on covering stuff like
nature, science, etc. but when it comes to more touchy topics, it will
be hard to get editors from different perspectives.

I am pretty much presented with a choice: should I use Serbian,
Bosnian or Croatian wiki? I am not either a Serb, a Bosnian, or a
Croat, and I communicate on daily basis with people from Serbia,
Bosnia and Croatia, using my native language (whatever it is). I work
together with Serbs, Croats and Bosnians on many en.wikipedia
articles. And I chose to only edit, when I do edit in non-english
wikipedias, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Why would I go for anything
else? If I am writing about World War 2, I will write a much better
article if it's together with editors from all of those countries,
than only one of them.

So, if we can't have only one Wikipedia for all of us, than at least
let the ones among us who are capable of working with everyone, work
as we know best.

Dejan

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Brion Vibber
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no
> problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all
> these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in
> front of us.  It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them
> suffer from a lack of interest and activity.  Nobody would benefit by
> trying to undo the past.
>
> There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis
> was a grave violation of NPOV,

There's no support for that whatsoever, actually.

These wikis were all in existence in the 2001-2002 era, apparently part of the
first batch of bulk-created wikis made from a list of ISO 639 standard language
codes:
* http://sh.wikipedia.com/ (Serbo-Croatian)
* http://sr.wikipedia.com/ (Serbian)
* http://hr.wikipedia.com/ (Croatian)

I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list
and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present.
Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.

Later, bs.wikipedia.org was added by request, on the basis that
1) our policy was to create wikis for any language with an ISO 639 language
code, on the assumption that an international standards body had a better handle
on what's out there than us
2) it wasn't very fair or neutral to have Serbian and Croatian but *not* a
Bosnian wiki.

At some point the Serbo-Croatian one was shut down and articles copied to the
others, on the basis that:
1) ISO 639 had rescinded the 'sh' code several years ago (in fact prior to the
creation of that wiki, so an out of date list must have been used), so that wiki
in fact was inconsistent with our language creation policy and probably would
not have been created if anyone were looking at it explicitly
2) a number of people were strongly requesting that

Later, at some point, someone reopened the Serbo-Croatian one, I'm not sure why.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Daniel Mayer
--- Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list
> and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present.
> Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.

I don't think anybody here is blaming the developer who created the wikis or allowed them to be
created. The violation is much more esoteric than that; that we have separate wikis for political
instead of real linguistic reasons. That, not the act of creating if the developer did not know,
is the violation.

-- mav


               
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I did do it. And the storm rolled upon me. I was mostly quickly
> reverted, or even rolled back. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was
> the one to introduce POV and copyvio templates, no? Check out my
> contributions on sr.wiki (User:Dcabrilo). When I started doing it, you
> proposed that we allow POV articles to stay on the wiki, with a
> permanent template of: "This article was written from such and such
> POV". I said we should either get rid of them, or rewrite them. You
> said you thought they were just too good of essays to delete, and that
> you talked to Jimbo Wales while he was in Belgrade about that issue.

Between 27th July 2004 and 3rd March 2005 you made 53 edits on Serbian
Wikipedia (including your translation of article about Kosovo and
excluding any conflict).

More then two months after your last edit (13th May 2005) you started
with marking a dozens of articles with POV tag (a lot of them was/are
POV, but some of them wasn't/aren't POV, but your personal opinion)
without any intention to work on them! Also, you came with a lot of
bad faith. And I don't know what kind of feed back you expected?

You are talking now with a bad faith, too and you are misleading
people on the list. The idea of the template "This article was written
from such and such POV" was not to become permanent, but to stay there
until we have someone who can change the article accord to NPOV.
Because, unlike English Wikipedia, we don't have a number of experts
and/or people who are interested in such fields AND our intention was
to mark them with the same icons, but less offensive to prevent
further edit wars. AND it didn't pass because you and Zocky was
against that.

Just a little number of articles which you marked as POV are essays
and they are marked as essays now on Serbian Wikipedia. We will keep
them until we find some other place for them.

> And Serbian Wikipedia has more POV than English one, for sure. For
> example, just until few hours ago, this thing was stuck on the top of
> the Home Page:
>
> (MARRY CHRISTMAS)

You have some exact number of POV pages? Community started with idea
to congratulate all important dates for all confessions which are
related to Serbian cultural area (Christianity and Islam).

> Also, just for example, I noticed that article I labeled as POV (my
> mistake, it was not only POV, it was also a copyvio from
> http://www.svetosavlje.org/biblioteka/Recnik/A.htm), has been locked
> since I put a POV tag on it... May 2004.
> (http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Адам_и_Ева).

As well as people who put it also got permissions to do that.

> So, yes, I did try to work on POV, but you and many others had no
> problems with POV (recognized as such) being included in the name
> space. As long as it had a tag...

No, you didn't try to work on POV, you just marked the articles
without any intention to work on them.

> Only on May 13th did I label about a dozen articles as POV (mostly
> Orthodox Christianity related). [[Википедија:Провера неутралности]].
> Many of those were beyond repair (they were simply religious essays).
>
> However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
> it's only normal to have that kind of bias".

Community agreed that it is normal that we would have more articles
about Orthodox Christianity then about Hinduism now. You are lying
again.

> > Latin alphabet is needed only because of Croats. Bosnians know
> > Cyrillics; if Slovenians know Serbian/Croatian, they know Cyrillics,
> > too. As well as Macedonians use only Cyrillics.
>
> Most Slovenes and Croats are not good with Cyrillic, and not
> comfortable enough with it to make edits. Many Bosnians as well. This
> is especially true for younger people. Most Macedonians, unlike most
> Slovenes, can read and write in both Cyrillic and Latin for that
> matter.

All Bosnians are learning Cyrillic in primary school (unlike Croats).
In general, young Slovenes doesn't know Serbian/Croatian.

But, the fact is that your xenophobia toward Cyrillic alphabet exists,
but I didn't see any xenophobia toward it from editors of Croatian
Wikipedia.

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
In reply to this post by Daniel Mayer
On 1/8/06, Daniel Mayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible
> dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between
> and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking
> articles).

No. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian AND Serbo-Croatian are four (political)
standards based on Neo-Shtokavian dialect. The first three have
political support now, the last one doesn't have any political support
except Yugoslav nationalist like Cabrilo.

> So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and
> Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one  Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?

For sure, we would not have "one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia" because
"Serbo-Croatian language" is very offensive term here. We can have
something similar, but, no one of people who advocates for
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia wants to work on such project.

> Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE,
> violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the
> peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.

Speaking strictly, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian have different
standards (something like differences between Norwege Bokmal and
Danish). Almost all of that is possible to solve using software and we
are working on it.

In other hand, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is unlocked because of clear
political reasons: Some people couldn't wait for Latin version of
Serbian Wikipedia and they made a Latin fork of Serbian Wikipedia.

> We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply
> that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.

Yes.

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
In reply to this post by Daniel Mayer
On 1/8/06, Daniel Mayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> An on-the-fly script converter is already working on the Chinese Wikipedia. It does not, I
> am told, require more than one version of an article and does not fork articles. What it
> does is display whatever script a person wants w/o needing separate articles written in
> the different scripts.

It is not only a matter of scripts. Only Serbian Wikipedia will have
FOUR variants, not two. Possible united Wikipedia would have at least
TEN versions (maybe more). We are working on it.

> So it appears that there is no valid reason to have separate wikis for each country that
> was formerly part of Yugoslavia. One Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia will do, IMO.

Until we would have a good implementation of software, separate
Wikipedias are needed. Serbo-Croatian is, again, offensive term to 90%
of inhabitants of Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Croatia.

> We are here to build encyclopedias that everybody in the world can read and use. That
> does NOT mean that we need to have encyclopedias in every single dialect spoken in the
> world. In fact, doing that will only hamper our goals since it needlessly breaks-up
> communities that could combine their effort into creating one encyclopedia that respects
> all the various mutually-understandable dialects of a single language.

We (the community from Serbian Wikipedia) have very good cooperation
with the community from Croatian Wikipedia and I am going to Zagreb in
the first part of Februray to see them.

> That Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian are separate languages appears to be a
> politically-convenient fiction that wants to enforce differences that don't really exist. That
> can only tend to enforce component-nation-specific POVs and thus violate NPOV (as
> would having separate Wikipedais for Simplified and Traditional Chinese).

POV is present on English Wikipedia, too. There are no chance to add
free about USA foreign politics on English Wikipedia. For example,
there are a number of articles named as "incidents" even US soldiers
were killing a lot of civilians. Pushing POV is very usual on
Wikipedia.

> Shut down Serbo-Croatian? No. Shut down Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian and then
> merge them into Serbo-Croatian? Yes.

And shut down three communities and one formed local chapter and one
local chapter in the process of forming.

> If need be we can reduce to just two wikis until/if a Latin/Cyrillic script converter and be
> created.

You are not introduced in the problem well.

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

Re: Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

Milos Rancic
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not that big of a deal, but still, everybody thinks that it's OK to
> post the Holy Bible on Wikipedia.

You are lying again.

> Like I said, this was a proposed policy, from May 2005 (the last time
> I was active on Serbian Wikipedia, it was in part a response to the
> fact that I overnight labeled a bunch of articles as POV, because I
> found them to be essays on Orthodox Christianity, but obviously,
> others realized the POV in supporting this policy). Still, it got 5
> votes for, and 3 against. I think it describes the inherit POV of such
> national projects.

1. You marked articles as POV without any intention to work on them.
If you do the same on English Wikipedia, POV tag would be removed
through some time.
2. It didn't pass because of your voting (on Serbian Wikipedia 5:3 is
not enough for introducing some new rule).

> The following users supported the policy:
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Милош
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Горан_Анђелковић
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Bonzo
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Djordjes
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:Dzordzm
>
> All of them are admins/bureaucrats, so people of trust there think
> that NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about.

You didn't translate the parts about NPOV.

> Three people voted against, users Zocky (not an admin, not active), me
> (not an admin, not active) and Aleksandar (doesn't seem to be an
> admin, I don't know if he is active).

And admins/bureaucrats didn't introduced the rule because of voting non-admins.

> Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Velimirovic was a part of
> Serbian Orthodox Church and writer of big part of its doctrine (or at
> least, what some say should be). So, it's much worse than copying
> stuff from some outdated encyclopedia, it's actually copying stuff
> from the source which is as POV as possible. And that seems acceptable
> on Serbian Wiki. Most of the articles are totally POV, as you can
> imagine coming from a church source.

And, again, you didn't mention that the article about Nikolaj
Velimirovic is still under POV tag because the article doesn't include
his relations toward anti-Semitism and Hitler.

It seems that you have a lot of personal problems in relation with
Serbian Wikipedia...

> The reason I am writing this is to show that national wikipedias are
> inheritly biased - they can be very good on covering stuff like
> nature, science, etc. but when it comes to more touchy topics, it will
> be hard to get editors from different perspectives.

And what about Piere de Cuberten's nazism? No one wrote anything about
that on English Wikipedia.

> I am pretty much presented with a choice: should I use Serbian,
> Bosnian or Croatian wiki? I am not either a Serb, a Bosnian, or a
> Croat, and I communicate on daily basis with people from Serbia,
> Bosnia and Croatia, using my native language (whatever it is). I work
> together with Serbs, Croats and Bosnians on many en.wikipedia
> articles. And I chose to only edit, when I do edit in non-english
> wikipedias, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Why would I go for anything
> else? If I am writing about World War 2, I will write a much better
> article if it's together with editors from all of those countries,
> than only one of them.
Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian adjectives mean a language, not a
nation. And it seems that you have a lot of Serbian, Croatian and
Bosnian ethnicities and cultures. For you, they are "anti-civilized",
they are "regressive", they are... This is a clear fascism.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
123