On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:44:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Wikimedia is not a set of isolated projects. Once the
Klingon Wikipedia
exists, people will add interlanguage links to it on *all* 50+ Wikipedias.
Articles like [[Holocaust]] or [[Abu Ghraib]] will have links to Klingon
translations, with the associated risk of causing offense to unsuspecting
readers.
And they won't for links to Volapuk, Tokipona or Latin?
Klingon will be part of our press releases. It will
show up in
the language directory on our Main Pages. There will inevitably be Klingon
editions of Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiquote, and any other
Wikimedia project. This is a significant use of our resources and has a
significant potential to negatively affect our reputation.
You think that there is a so huge speaker community that it will harm
the wikipedia ressources, and use that as an argument against???
It would be the most proeminent argument in favor (if that were true,
I mysefl strongly doubt that there would be 10.000 articles a year
on a Klingon version)
Furthermore, if we allow Klingon to be created in this
way - without
consensus, clear rules or a vote - Elvish, "Modern Egyptian" and other
nonsense languages will follow, all with the exact same associated
effects.
You don't like them, we can see it; however liking or disliking should
not be taken in account at all.
What should be the key is wether or not a collaborative encyclopedia
on that language could be viable; or in other words, if there is a big
enogh community of speakers that are willing to create and use it (that
is, write and read articles).
The only way to know is to test.
So I propose a framework like this:
- create test wikis on demand (eg:
tlh.test.wikipedia.org, not
tlh.wikipedia.org )
- test ones are not linkable to from other wikipedias
- there is viability test to pass; maybe something like being able
to create some 500 articles (true ones, not stubs) after som months
(the observation period could be shortened if there is huge activity,
if the first 3 months show 10 new articles created a day, then it is
clear the wikipedia is viable)
- then, if the test passes:
1. change in the DNS and web server so that a normal domain
name is used (eg:
tlh.wikipedia.org ),
2. and make the old domain display a warning about the change for some
10-15 segonds then redirect. (the old domain could be dropped after
some time)
3. enable interwiki links to the new domain
- if the test doesn't pass:
1. some weeks before the time limit, print red warnings about it
(in the same way as messages for shutdowns etc)
2. then disactivate the wiki, and make for all urls on that domain
display a page explaining it failed the test and the wiki was
shutdown (maybe with a link to an sql dump of the data and
to a meta: page with infos on how to run one own's mediawiki site)
The decision would then be very easy: a new wikipedia will pass or fail
solely on its own merits.
A failed one could not reapply for some time (2 years maybe? more?).
And I'm for applying that to any language.
Note that I did something similar for Walloon language; yes I created
it on my own server also because there was no
wa.wikipedia.org back
then; but also I didn't request for the creation of one because I was
not sure it would work or not, I wanted to try it and see if that
interested other people.
There were problems when migrating to
wikipedia.org, but they were due
to the fact that different program versions and environment were
involved; in the above proposal mechanism the environment and programs
will be exactly the same.
Everyone working on Wikimedia is affected once we open
the
floodgates. The isolation which you suggest does not exist.
I propose to isolate during test period (so if the test fails it
doesn"t have consequences on others).
The risk to our reputation is increased by the fact
that many people
*know* what the Klingon language is.
Do they know what "thlinqan" (or whatever it is written, but
definitively not "klingon") is?
And a lot of people also know the word "Volapuk" and see it exactly
the same way as you see klingon; yet
vo.wikipedia.org is there.
Without clear, *NEUTRAL*, and previously decided rules, there will
be disputes forever; doing an exception for Klingon is not neutral at
all, and it is even against the spirit of wikipedia (it's NPOV,
remember?)
I do, however, recognize that there's a difference
between the goal of
creating a *useful*, multilingual encyclopedia and the goal of personal
entertainment.
And that is the *ONLY* criterium that should be used.
So, stop arguing about how much you dislike klingon and how much
you think it is futile, and start arguing on the usefulness of a Klingon
wikipedia.
If people are willing to use a tlh wikipedia, then it is usefull,
period.
If there is not enough tlh speakers to care about it, it is not usefull.
My proposal above would allow to test just that.
And you know what? I don't think tlh would pass the test, simply because
there courrently seems not to be any real world exemple of communication
in Klingon language (no weblog sites exclusively in Klingon, no personal
pages written in Klingon about any kind of topics, etc).
Yes, there are things available in the language, but most often they are
proof of concept, not anything "real"; some people may be thrilled about
the possibility to use tlh to translate something, but after a while
they lost interest, simply because they don't usually use the language
to communicate, to live their everydays life.
Google is translated in Klingon while the native language of Wallonia
is not (just because Google decided to freeze any developpement on the
translation of their interface at a time when people from the US where
years long accostumed with the internet while on my own land internet
for the common people was just starting...); but Google is easy, it is
a quite small thing to translate, and need no following to keep it
up to date (well, not much).
I don't know of any people using a klingon localized operating system,
nor of any people using klingon to speak with their childre, companions
and relatives (well, there has been one (*1*) try, and it more or less
failed, the fact that the language seems to be quite poor on vocabulary
for human's life was a reason, and it is poor on that because people
don't use it to communicate).
So, to summarize:
# decision should be based on objective criteria, not on personal
likings or dislikings
# using a test framework would allow easily and objectively to see
if a given language can have a wikipedia or not
# I don't think tlh would be able to make a living wikipedia
I find it regrettable that many people seem to be
unable to
make that distinction.
But you are failing to make the distinction between the utility
for *you* and the utility for the community of speakers of a given language.
If it is usefull for tlh-speakers, it should be allows; it if itsn"t
useful for them, then not.
That it is not useful for you and for me is totally irrelevant.
This notwithstanding, I have offered compromise
solutions and a vote. It seems quite clear to me who in this debate is
acting tyrannically.
A very bad idea to cast a vote on the current situation, as
the vote is more like "pro or agains xxxx language" and opens
a very bad precedent.
The best would be to set a test framework and let the xxxx language
speaker community decide by themselves, by their work or lack thereof,
if it is worth or not to support it on wikipedia.
Whithout the possibility to carry such test it is impossible to know,
and in doubt I will vote in favor, despite the fact that I have no
special interest on tlh at all, and despite the fact that I believe
it doesn't desserve a wikipedia; becuase currently I only *belive*
tlh wikipedia won't be useful, I'm not *sure* about it.
Regards,
Erik
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Ki ça vos våye bén,
Pablo Saratxaga
http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466
[you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto]
[min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]