[Foundation-l] Language autonomy and "readiness" (was: Swedish, Spanish, French Wikinews set up)

Tue Feb 1 08:39:47 UTC 2005

Daniel -

>Again, those data were in a language that I already noted was fine for
>Wikinews. And English, being such an international language and spoken by so
>many people can not be a used in such a test. The English-speaking community of
>users working on Wikimedia projects is huge. So your results are not at all
>surprising. 
>  
>
That's not my point. My point is that you have not presented data in 
support of your hypothesis at all.

>Imposing the results of a global vote onto a language community which has a
>great deal of opposition to the vote result, is not something that makes for
>harmonious co-existence between languages.
>
I do not see it as an imposition, but as the logical outcome of the 
global vote. Running a global organization like Wikimedia is always a 
balancing act between preserving a coherent identity and respecting 
local variations.  My proposal takes into account local variations, such 
as the China situation. In these cases, a local vote is justifiable. If, 
however, we run it for every language community, this will just lead to 
largely divergent identities forming over the long term, in part simply 
due to statistical fluctuations or temporary shifts in opinion. 
Wikimedia will no longer be recognizable as one, the risk of forks will 
increase, and the pace of innovation will become ever more heterogenous.

The disharmony right now is the result of miscommunications and a 
somewhat surprising launch. That's why I conclude from this experience 
that the timetable should be up to the interested participants to decide 
-- not to people who have no interest in the project at all, because it 
would then effectively become another vote *on the project*, which I am 
opposed to. "Not in the immediate future" makes little sense if you're 
asking people who have pledged to participate in the project when they 
want to do it.

Regards,

Erik