Ahh, I did read it now and I believe that "constitution" is not the
word you're aiming for. Yes, it does have the intended meaning, but in
the phrase "national constitution" it is usually referring to a
document by which a nation was founded and upon which all of its laws
are based.
I don't agree with the page because it seems like it was crafted
specifically by you with the idea to support the existance of separate
BCS Wikipedias (which is opposed by Jimbo, but will probably continue
for a long time), but to oppose the existance of Zlatiborian and
Montenegrin Wikipedias.
As has been noted in the past many, many, many times, Wikipedias are
for _languages_ not _countries_.
In Europe, the concept of language is very much tied to the concept of
the modern nation-state. But in many places this is not so. Take for
example Aromanian -- there is no nation-state. Or Romani. It is very
much an international language.
In fact, the majority of the world's languages (by which I mean
"legitimate" "established" "non-dialects" as given in the
Ethnologue),
a total of nearly 7000, are not synonymous with a nation-state (there
are less than 300 of those, and many of them chose English, French, or
Spanish as their language anyways).
Besides that, who is to judge what differences are "significant"? We
would need objective measurements for each criterium.
Also, I don't see what the reason for this page is. Maybe you are
worried about whether or not the various Balkan Wikipedias should or
should not be separate, but nobody outside of that region is. The
issue is well behind us. Nobody is planning on closing sr.wp or bs.wp,
they have too many articles, and Zlatiborian and Montenegrin were
voted against in the proposals for new Wikis.
Also, your views disagree with the democratic majority in several places.
Mark
On 13/11/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I didn't read the page, but the way I read
the _subject_, it's
absolutely incorrect.
True, a constitution does not belong at Wikipedia (or at least its
text doesn't). But it most certainly _does_ belong at Wikisource, so
long as it is free (and I don't believe a constitution can be
copyrighted, but I may be wrong there). We have a few different
constitutions at various Wikisources, and they should not be deleted.
Mark
On 13/11/06, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Please, look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_projects_are_not_the_place_for_nat…
... and give your ideas there.
I think that the policy may be more exact.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.