[Foundation-l] IYL'08: Moratorium on deleting language projects?

Thu Jan 3 20:21:53 UTC 2008

I am not really sure that I agree with the idea of the moratorium, since
the projects nominated for deletion are really those not active for years,
former one-editor projects where the only editor has lost interest. Those
with the slightest activity are not deleted, with the exception of clear
fraud like ru-sib.

I agree though that clear and transparent rules must be established for
the release of the projects from the incubator. I feel that now the rules
are on the harsher side, so that many projects which made it couple of
years ago and can be now considered to be moderately successful, would not
have a chance now. Even worse, the rules seems to change quickly and
without notice, and are applied retroactively. For instance, Sakha
Wikipedia was conditionally approved in 2006, then the rules were changed
and they were told to translate the interface, and when they translated
the interface, the project was still not open since the rules were changed
again to require five active editors. I know that this really makes people
extremely frustrated, and I will not be surprised if the whole project
gets abandoned just because it stays in the Incubator for years.

Cheers,
Yaroslav

> Greetings and Happy New Year 2008 to all!
>
>
>
> This year has been declared by the UN as "International Year of
> Languages."*
> What exactly that will mean depends in part on what UNESCO - which is
> charged with coordinating the Year - and in part on what various groups
> and
> individuals dealing with languages and linguistics decide to make of it.
>
>
>
> I would like to propose that Wikimedia - which is in many ways on the
> cutting edge of multilingual exploitation of the potential of the web, but
> which has some language projects slated for deletion after a period of
> being
> "closed" (which I understand also means being placed in an "incubator"
> status) - declare for the duration of the IYL (2008) a moratorium on
> deletion of language projects.
>
>
>
> The moratorium period would also be used to discuss (and implement) new
> means to save and develop projects in incubator status, which may involve
> any of the following and more:
>
> * A "mentor" or "champion" for each project that is "closed"/"in the
> incubator"
>
> ** This person would advocate for the project within Wikimedia and
> outside,
> and coordinate efforts on its behalf
>
> * Developing a methodology or set of guidelines for searching for relevant
> experts and language bodies that might help with the project in question
>
> * An "incubator" period longer than the currently typical (as I understand
> it) one year for languages that meet certain criteria
>
> ** The criteria would probably involve the number of speakers
>
> * Develop a project proposal for outside funding to support development of
> Wikimedia projects in less-widely spoken languages
>
>
>
> A permanent change might also be considered:
>
> * Change in terminology since "close" and "delete" sound equally final to
> average users, when in fact a "closed" project still lives
>
>
>
> I'm particularly concerned about this issue because some African language
> projects are at risk, and I think that part of the problem is that there
> needs to be new ways of proactively identifying people and resources to
> save
> and develop such editions. I would mention that for example the Afar
> Wikipedia is slated for closure (which I understand means it is on the
> "incubator" and not deleted), but at the same time Afar has a locale and
> there is a project to localize AbiWord in it. That's an interesting
> juxtaposition of facts, which is probably not unusual, but is not always
> (or
> perhaps almost never?) noted in discussions on closure/deletion.
>
>
>
> Part of the problem is successfully reaching people who are activists or
> "mavens" (per Gladwell's Tipping Point) for/in the language who simply are
> not connected with Wikipedia or perhaps not even really aware of it or how
> it could be useful in their efforts. Setting up a system with something
> like
> a mentor and a longer stay of execution for inactive projects could pay
> off
> with more active projects in more languages sooner - beginning with the
> ones
> that exist but are not yet active.
>
>
>
> Part of the problem with closing a project while saying that "well, when
> there's a community, they can apply for a new project" is that the bar is
> also raised. It is much easier to work with the fact that the Wikipedia
> space is already there and get a handful of individuals involved to get it
> started than to have to prove the concept and get a group organized to
> apply
> for a new project. Much easier to push start a car with the key in the
> ignition than to take away the key until they get a proper repair job
> done.
>
>
>
> Anyway I put this forth for discussion in the spirit of IYL 2008. All the
> best.
>
>
>
> Don Osborn
>
> Bisharat.net
>
> PanAfriL10n.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>