[Wikipedia-l] Policy draft: Wikimedia projects are not the place for national constitution

Mon Nov 13 16:01:18 UTC 2006

Take this pride fest to private, eh?

-S

On 11/13/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13/11/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd totally forgotten about how oblivious you were. Responding to all
> > my points as if I were serious. Everyone else, even most of the
> > Serbians, were able to tell I was kidding. I was actually expressing
> > somewhat of a Pan-Yugoslav position through use of extreme sarcasm,
> > basically, that "now everybody tries to break off from the unitary
> > South Slavic nation". The intention wasn't specifically that but to
> > highlight how ridiculous it is that we have languages in 3 versions of
> > what can't even be called different _dialects_ of the same language
> > (maybe if you had one in Cakavian instead of "Croatian").
>
> You showed extremely high level of irresponsibility. As well as all
> people from the community forgot to say me that you are a kid.
> However, I see that it seems that you became mature now... And this is
> good for you. Because your relevancy in talk with other people will
> increase.
>
> > But it is _completely irrelevant_. As I said, we do not have
> > Wikipedias for nations, but for languages. It is simply impossible to
> > use Wikipedia to build a new nation. To form a language where nothing
> > existed before, perhaps, but to build a new nation, no. It's not
> > possible, because _we do not create Wikipedias for nations!_.
>
> Mark, just read. Some people may want to use Wikipedia in the process
> of nation building. At least, two times people tried that. Zlatiborian
> didn't pass, Siberian passed. However, wish to build a nation is a
> legitimate (I hope this is the right word) wish and people were doing
> that in the past, are doing that now and will be doing that in the
> future.
>
> One of the importan part of a nation is a national language (of
> course, there are exceptions). And one who wants to make it's own
> nation will try to make a language, too; and, then, to make Wikipedia
> edition in that language.
>
> So, we came to language.
>
> Language may be constructed/artificial or it can be formalized
> dialect. In both cases 5-10 people are enough to force opening
> Wikipedia in such language (cf. Siberian Wikipedia). And their only
> intention was to make national identity around the language and
> Wikipedia in such language.
>
> I hope that it is more clear now or you will continue to pretend that
> you are not understand that?
>
> > Besides, although nation creation is mentioned often in the discussion
> > it is truly not relevant. What _is_ relevant are the merits of the
> > language itself. How many people speak it? How many people are willing
> > to edit its Wiki? etc.
>
> Mark, Wikimedia Foundation as well as local chapters, including
> Wikimedia Serbia, are involved as a party in Russian internal politics
> as it supports a group of self-proclaimed separatists because there
> were 10 people who wanted to work on Siberian Wikipedia. Maybe there
> are some principles for which we should fight, but this one is very
> foolish.
>
> So, there are some other things then number of speakers, too.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>