No subject

Sun Jul 1 19:24:19 UTC 2007

political arguments. The argument that a likelyhood is very small is exactly
the kind of argument that would still allow a language to be accepted. The
aim of our foundation is to provide information to all people, not just the
people that you care for.

The arguments for closure for Moldovan are not shared by the language
committee and it was a VOTE that closed the mo.wikipedia it was definetly
not consensus. It was also not done with permission of the board. The notion
that you or anybody else feels that a language code is given out in error is
politics. It is personal while I agree that you can have this opinion, it is
an opinion you are entitled to it. I do not share your sentiments.

Also when you use these arguments and you insist that they are to be WMF
policy, you do provide arguments to deny languages that are being
considered. This is not a zero sum game.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Nov 9, 2007 12:21 AM, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:18:26 +0100, GerardM wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the
> > Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your
> > argument. Thanks,
>
> While it is theoretically possible that there are individual speakers of
> Romanian/Moldovan in Transnistria who, due to the pro-Russian policy of
> the Transnistrian authorities read only Cyrillic Romanian, the likelihood
> is extremely small. As I understand, the contemporary use of Cyrillic for
> Moldovan/Romanian is a product of continued coercion in Transnistria.
>
> In my view, the main argument against the Moldovan Wikipedia is that it
> never had a native community. There is simply no demand from the side of
> Moldovans from either side of the Dniester river for such a wiki.
>
> Apart from that, I feel that the use of the mo language code is a misuse,
> as the standard alphabeth in Moldova is Latin, not Cyrillic.
>
> Apart from that, I am well aware, that Romanian has a history of being
> written in Cyrillic. I would even dare say, that the Latin script is a
> relatively new invention, as the Romanian ortodox church has historically
> used the cyrillic alphabeth well into the 19th centure, IIRC.
>
> However, I don't think that this warrants a separate Wikipedia edition,
> else we could also have a separate German editon in Fraktur script...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>