[Foundation-l] Re: new language policy

Mon Nov 21 18:31:01 UTC 2005

GerardM wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>Hi
>>
>>I was asked yesterday if it was mandatory that during votes for new
>>languages creation, the editor
>>* has an account on meta
>>* has an account on any already existing project
>>
>>I do not know what the current policy is.
>>I am hesitant to be in favor of one or another.
>>I would rather say the voter should be at least a participant to another
>>language, because this would imply he at least know the concept.
>>However, I am not sure this should be mandatory... except that....
>>
>>Someone raised a complaint about the current vote here :
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Murcian_.28Murciano.29_.2825_support.3B_12_oppose.29
>>
>>On this new languages, we have
>>* anon ips voting
>>* accounts on meta with no edits voting
>>* accounts on meta with just a user page on meta voting
>>* accounts on other projects voting.
>>
>>Fact is, I made a bunch of quick semi-random checks (in short, on red
>>meta accounts in particular), and admittedly, many of them are probably
>>sharing the same living-room...
>>
>>I fear the editor who complained is probably right in mentionning sock
>>puppetry... though we can not entirely prove it of course.
>>Which raise the question of how fair is a vote on a controversial
>>language, when half voters are not current participants and may not even
>>be different poeple ?
>>
>>
>>What should we do ?
>>
>>Ant
> 
> 
> 
> Hoi,
> When you read many of the nay-sayers, you can read in many of their remarks
> that this many of these language problems are really political. Not only is
> it denied that many of these languages are languages, it is also suggested
> that people who ask for some recognition are extremists that should make do
> with the one and only language that suffices for all.
> 
> When you know about these languages, I often wonder what a good reason is
> for supporting a language. One of the languages that is voted down because
> it 'does not exist' is Stellingwerfs. Stellingwerfs has a very active
> language community; a dictionary has been published the bible is being
> translated into Stellingwerfs and now there are these people who think it
> does not need its own wikipedia. Now Stellingwerfs is not as politicial as
> the Spanish languages. Then again take an other infamous example; the nds-nl
> is denied because people consider that it should be part of the nds-de. What
> people do not mention is that the nds-de has a vocal community that insists
> on an orthography that is German oriented. This is a great example of a
> language where there is NO standard orthography. The same can be said for
> Limburgs, there is something of a 'standard' orthography but it does not
> match the language that is actually spoken. The Limburg wikipedia is alive
> and well. It gets mentioned in the press I am really happy with it. However
> if a good example needs to be found of a WIkipedia that also does not have a
> 'standardised' spelling have a look at Neapolitan or Sicilian. The Napolitan
> WIkipedia for instance has already more than 3000 articles.. the amount of
> local involvement is great. It is there because local people are
> entheausiastic about this project.
> 
> From my perspective I do not mind to have many wikipedias. I do want
> wikipedias by local people who are interested in doing this. I would welcome
> many projects. We will see what works and what does not. If people who start
> a project steal a page out of the Neapolitan book we will do exceedingly
> well. The argument that we do not need to revive languages is problematic in
> my opinion. The problem is that WE do not revive these languages, it is the
> people wo are the community of this wikipedia who do that. When they do well
> they will become us as well. My point is, do we want to be inclusionist or
> do we want to exclusionists. There is always a reason why we should not do
> something. The point is that it is not you who is doing it, it is you who is
> denying someone else.

Thanks for your long and detailed answer Gerard.... but it is not the 
point I really raise. I absolutely do not want right now to enter into 
issues of whether a language should or should not exist, but only in the 
issue of "if we make a vote, this vote must be fair. If not, then let us 
not do any vote at all". And "if we choose the vote option, how to make 
a vote fair" ?

> As to anonymous people voting, might it be possible that they are actually
> be people speaking that language that say they want to get involved? (assume
> good faith) And given all these people who are NOT going to involve
> themselve in a language why would they vote against, what is it to them?
> 
> Thanks,
> GerardM

I assume good faith up to a certain point. After some point, this is not 
good faith, this is innocence :-)

My problem is that if we start a project because there are 10 
supporters, we sort of hope that a certain momentum will exist from the 
very beginning. When it actually turns out that only 1 person is behind 
10 supports... errrrr.... there is no momentum.

And if a language is started with 10 supports and 5 oppose. And the 10 
supports are only one person... is there sense in making a vote at all ?

Ant