The same problem exist for andalousian language. Many anon votes. Sockpuppetry chances raise high as well. In short, the voting system as is is a pure joke. What do you suggest ? Ant Anthere wrote:

Anthere wrote: Currently everyone seems to acknowledge that the existing system is no longer functional. When Angela came up with it, it was a very good solution to the problem that we faced at that time, but as time has gone on, and we have more and more Wikipedias and we are more and more well known, that system has broken down. We run the risk of making very poor judgments, being hoaxed, etc. 1. I do not support the concept of a "seed wiki" because the test of what is a proper decision in this area does not depend solely on the ability of a motivated group of people to push their agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever but that we could have a successful (in the sense of article count and participation) wiki in "pig latin dialect" (a joke language seen in many humorous machine translators on the net) if a group of funny people decided to make it. A seed wiki is not the answer.

(For non-native English speakers who don't know what 'pig latin' is, it is a way of speaking English practiced mostly by either parents trying to say things in front of children in a way that children don't understand, or spoken by children for fun once they learn the trick. Orfay Onnay-ativenay Englishay eakerspay oohay on'tnay ownay atwhay igpay atinlay isay....]

On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Hoi, When you read many of the nay-sayers, you can read in many of their remarks that this many of these language problems are really political. Not only is it denied that many of these languages are languages, it is also suggested that people who ask for some recognition are extremists that should make do with the one and only language that suffices for all. When you know about these languages, I often wonder what a good reason is for supporting a language. One of the languages that is voted down because it 'does not exist' is Stellingwerfs. Stellingwerfs has a very active language community; a dictionary has been published the bible is being translated into Stellingwerfs and now there are these people who think it does not need its own wikipedia. Now Stellingwerfs is not as politicial as the Spanish languages. Then again take an other infamous example; the nds-nl is denied because people consider that it should be part of the nds-de. What people do not mention is that the nds-de has a vocal community that insists on an orthography that is German oriented. This is a great example of a language where there is NO standard orthography. The same can be said for Limburgs, there is something of a 'standard' orthography but it does not match the language that is actually spoken. The Limburg wikipedia is alive and well. It gets mentioned in the press I am really happy with it. However if a good example needs to be found of a WIkipedia that also does not have a 'standardised' spelling have a look at Neapolitan or Sicilian. The Napolitan WIkipedia for instance has already more than 3000 articles.. the amount of local involvement is great. It is there because local people are entheausiastic about this project. From my perspective I do not mind to have many wikipedias. I do want wikipedias by local people who are interested in doing this. I would welcome many projects. We will see what works and what does not. If people who start a project steal a page out of the Neapolitan book we will do exceedingly well. The argument that we do not need to revive languages is problematic in my opinion. The problem is that WE do not revive these languages, it is the people wo are the community of this wikipedia who do that. When they do well they will become us as well. My point is, do we want to be inclusionist or do we want to exclusionists. There is always a reason why we should not do something. The point is that it is not you who is doing it, it is you who is denying someone else.

As to anonymous people voting, might it be possible that they are actually be people speaking that language that say they want to get involved? (assume good faith) And given all these people who are NOT going to involve themselve in a language why would they vote against, what is it to them? Thanks, GerardM

Hoi, When it comes to voting, I hate voting because so often the people who vote are not the ones that suffer the consequences. What we have seen in the votes are all kinds of motivations that I have tried to debunk. When you understand what is behind a vote (in any direction) you often find that the reasoning given does not really make sense. What I do not like is that voting is the only obstacle for a Wikipedia. When a Wikipedia has been squatted by people who do not know the language and make a 'best effort' of writing in a language, we are not willing to say this should not be. I think this is appalling. I think more highly of an intellectual effort like the Klingon one than of this mongrel languages. When the voting is as political as it apparantly is with these Spanish languages you can expect all the bad things when voting happens including ballot stuffing. So when you find people who are passionate about their language let them have their wikipedia. When it is not viable recognise it for a non viable project and kill it off. When you want to decide these things with a vote, you will deny the people who believe in their language and want to make it happen. You do not give anything to the people who do not know this language. In a way it is discrimination pure and simple. When you have some quality and quantity demands for the continued existence of a project, you make it more honest. When a project fails to meet these criteria, it means that the people who asked for it are not the persons to do a good job. Lock it maybe save and delete it and wait for better times. My opinion is therefore clear; do not have votes but have quality and quantity demands. NB Given the amount of wikipedias where the language exists because of its army, denying new wikipedias for this reason is problematic. Either a wikipedia exists because of some language criteria and quantitative and qualititative demands or it should not. Thanks, GerardM On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >GerardM wrote: > >>On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Hi >>> >>>I was asked yesterday if it was mandatory that during votes for new >>>languages creation, the editor >>>* has an account on meta >>>* has an account on any already existing project >>> >>>I do not know what the current policy is. >>>I am hesitant to be in favor of one or another. >>>I would rather say the voter should be at least a participant to another >>>language, because this would imply he at least know the concept. >>>However, I am not sure this should be mandatory... except that.... >>> >>>Someone raised a complaint about the current vote here : >>> >>> > >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Murcian_.28Murciano.29_.2825_support.3B_12_oppose.29 > >>>On this new languages, we have >>>* anon ips voting >>>* accounts on meta with no edits voting >>>* accounts on meta with just a user page on meta voting >>>* accounts on other projects voting. >>> >>>Fact is, I made a bunch of quick semi-random checks (in short, on red >>>meta accounts in particular), and admittedly, many of them are probably >>>sharing the same living-room... >>> >>>I fear the editor who complained is probably right in mentionning sock >>>puppetry... though we can not entirely prove it of course. >>>Which raise the question of how fair is a vote on a controversial >>>language, when half voters are not current participants and may not even >>>be different poeple ? >>> >>> >>>What should we do ? >>> >>>Ant >> >> >> >>Hoi, >>When you read many of the nay-sayers, you can read in many of their > >remarks > >>that this many of these language problems are really political. Not only > >is > >>it denied that many of these languages are languages, it is also > >suggested > >>that people who ask for some recognition are extremists that should make > >do > >>with the one and only language that suffices for all. >> >>When you know about these languages, I often wonder what a good reason > >is > >>for supporting a language. One of the languages that is voted down > >because > >>it 'does not exist' is Stellingwerfs. Stellingwerfs has a very active >>language community; a dictionary has been published the bible is being >>translated into Stellingwerfs and now there are these people who think > >it > >>does not need its own wikipedia. Now Stellingwerfs is not as politicial > >as > >>the Spanish languages. Then again take an other infamous example; the > >nds-nl > >>is denied because people consider that it should be part of the nds-de. > >What > >>people do not mention is that the nds-de has a vocal community that > >insists > >>on an orthography that is German oriented. This is a great example of a >>language where there is NO standard orthography. The same can be said > >for > >>Limburgs, there is something of a 'standard' orthography but it does not >>match the language that is actually spoken. The Limburg wikipedia is > >alive > >>and well. It gets mentioned in the press I am really happy with it. > >However > >>if a good example needs to be found of a WIkipedia that also does not > >have a > >>'standardised' spelling have a look at Neapolitan or Sicilian. The > >Napolitan > >>WIkipedia for instance has already more than 3000 articles.. the amount > >of > >>local involvement is great. It is there because local people are >>entheausiastic about this project. >> >>From my perspective I do not mind to have many wikipedias. I do want >>wikipedias by local people who are interested in doing this. I would > >welcome > >>many projects. We will see what works and what does not. If people who > >start > >>a project steal a page out of the Neapolitan book we will do exceedingly >>well. The argument that we do not need to revive languages is > >problematic in > >>my opinion. The problem is that WE do not revive these languages, it is > >the > >>people wo are the community of this wikipedia who do that. When they do > >well > >>they will become us as well. My point is, do we want to be inclusionist > >or > >>do we want to exclusionists. There is always a reason why we should not > >do > >>something. The point is that it is not you who is doing it, it is you > >who is > >>denying someone else. > > >Thanks for your long and detailed answer Gerard.... but it is not the >point I really raise. I absolutely do not want right now to enter into >issues of whether a language should or should not exist, but only in the >issue of "if we make a vote, this vote must be fair. If not, then let us >not do any vote at all". And "if we choose the vote option, how to make >a vote fair" ? > > > >>As to anonymous people voting, might it be possible that they are > >actually > >>be people speaking that language that say they want to get involved? > >(assume > >>good faith) And given all these people who are NOT going to involve >>themselve in a language why would they vote against, what is it to them? >> >>Thanks, >>GerardM > >I assume good faith up to a certain point. After some point, this is not >good faith, this is innocence :-) > >My problem is that if we start a project because there are 10 >supporters, we sort of hope that a certain momentum will exist from the >very beginning. When it actually turns out that only 1 person is behind >10 supports... errrrr.... there is no momentum. > >And if a language is started with 10 supports and 5 oppose. And the 10 >supports are only one person... is there sense in making a vote at all ? > >Ant > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere wrote: Why do it difficult with seedwiki's. Give languages a chance on a real wiki for say three months. If they haven't created 100 articles of some length by then (so not 1 line, but lets say approx 10 lines at least) we lock them. Also make a requirement that a new language has one "adopter" an experienced wikipedian that regardless if he speaks the language or not will guide the new wikipedians on the pad of NPOV etc. And who will be a preliminary admin so he will be able to kick vandalism.

Anthere wrote: Objective criteria can be established for this. 1. A key set of interface pages must have been written in or translated into the language, 2. There must be a minimum number of articles exceeding a specified length written in the main namespace of the project, and 3. There must be a minimum number of contributors, EACH of whom has written a minimum number of qualifying articles in the main namespace. Perhaps there could be others too. Ec

Please consider that the interface is one of the most difficult parts to do - with Neapolitan I have part of it online, part of it here and we are still thinking on how to call certain things in Neapolitan - because there are no "official terms" for many things - often people use English, some Italian and some an Englis/Italian that has been adapted to Neapolitan. I'd say the interface cannot be ready fast - it takes quite a lot of time to decide, because this is one of these very particular situations where thanks to Wikipedia neologisms are being created. I very much listen to young people when they talk about computers and internet to understand, but believe me: it is more than just "translating some words". I'd leave a lot of time for the interface, but I would expect that some basic articles can be written by anyone: descriptions of towns, churches, museums etc.

then, I suppose you would rather support the idea of letting new languages develop on a seed wiki... and see to which point it is viable ? This still raise the issue of "when do we consider a language should be removed from the seed wiki and put in the live wiki" (even though the entire content might be a hoax :-)) ? Ant

My problem is that if we start a project because there are 10 supporters, we sort of hope that a certain momentum will exist from the very beginning. When it actually turns out that only 1 person is behind 10 supports... errrrr.... there is no momentum.

People vote for two very distinct things, in the same voting process. 1) Should this language get its own language wikiprojects? 2) Should we create a wikiproject for this language NOW, given the amount of support it has? There should be an ongoing project devoted to identifying the set of languages for which the answer to 1) is YES. For 2), the voting process should require some evidence that the voter is interested and able to contribute on the resulting wiki if it is created (to avoid dead wikis). A fine way to demonstrate such evidence is to have a space on the same wiki as the votes (in this case, on meta) where people can edit a sample main page... say "[[m:Voro Wikipedia]]" and its subpages. This way a) proving you're not a sockpuppet also develops the fledling project; the contributions can later be transwikied to the new lang-project. SJ