[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs

Wed May 26 12:12:00 UTC 2004

Michael-

> Yes, but until today, every time I've looked at the list of subscribers,
> Jimbo's email was marked as having list delivery disabled.

I didn't know that and I didn't change the settings, maybe Jimbo did.

> our behavior gives the impression of Jimbo as a
> MeatBall:GodKing.

.. which he effectively is. He has, however, gradually relinquished power  
to open decision making processes. Until all the necessary processes exist  
and are sanctioned by the Board, we should continue to bring important  
developments to the attention of Jimbo/the Board to assure at least some  
basic legitimacy.

>> foundation-l and wikipedia-l are multilingual to allow people to
>> communicate who otherwise could not

> Now that I look closely I see you added something similar to
> [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]] a couple months ago, and apparently nobody
> objected. That seems like a pretty restrictive formulation to me, as if
> we're only allowing multilingual discussion as a sort of concession, and
> you _must_ use English unless you cannot.

The point of language is to communicate. When we use language, we should  
use the one which allows us to communicate best. If a plausible argument  
can be made that in this instance, and in others, French was a better way  
to communicate than English, then I'm open to hearing it. It seems to me  
that the much more realistic explanation is that some people prefer to  
switch  to a language which they think other people won't understand when  
they want to make comments which they don't want other people to read. And  
that, it also seems to me, is clearly against the spirit of open  
communication.

It's like when you're in a cafe with a bunch of friends, and suddenly two  
of them start having a conversation in Russian. Notably, only one of the  
people involved in the conversation is actually Russian. You don't speak  
Russian, nor do most of your friends, and the couple provides no  
explanation for switching languages; you only hear a few words you know  
and can deduce that the conversation is a direct continuation of the  
earlier English one.

Is such an unexplained switch courteous? Is it useful as a "demonstration  
of the multilingual nature of the meeting"? Or is it irritating, perhaps  
even hostile, to others? Using English as our language of choice is not  
some imperialist dictate. It is a choice that is made purely for pragmatic  
reasons. I am not a native English speaker, but I support this choice  
because I want *open* *communication*. I would appreciate it if we could  
all agree to make our conversations as open as possible. When that is not  
desired, there is always e-mail.

Regards,

Erik