[Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

Tue Jun 28 00:45:20 UTC 2005

While I am in general against imposing restrictions on the creation of
new Wikipedias, from what I have observed so far those with test
Wikipedias seem to be more successful: Cebuano and Kapampangan are
growing very very slowly (didn't have test Wikipedias), while Scots
and Võro are growing very quickly. Though, to be fair, those requests
were around longer as well and so had more of a chance to develop a
wider support base.

Re artificial languages. While I agree that artificial languages (save
international auxiliary languages with at least a minimal following,
such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Interlingue [note the e;
interlingua and interlinguE are different language]) have no place in
Wikipedia, and that they shouldn't get test Wikipedias, the majority
doesnt agree (cf
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages_equal_rights ,
where it was voted 30 to 17 that artificial languages should be
treated equally by Wikimedia). I think that, in this regard, unless
they have been explicitly denied, we really should allow them.

This is indeed a problem, that the board (not in an official opinion,
but in individual comments from Angela, Jimbo, and Anthere) seems to
feel that most artificial languages should not qualify for Wikimedia
projects, while the community seems to disagree. I'm not sure about my
feelings here because while I believe that we should mostly limit
projects to natural languages, I also respect the democratic process.

I also think that in some cases, the Board should make explicit
decisions regarding creation of specific new Wikipedias to establish
precedent. I would feel uncomfortable just removing an old request
altogether, especially if it garnered support (ie Quenya), but at the
same time I feel that it is unlikely to ever come to fruitition so
long as those in power seem opposed to the existance of Wikipedias for
"recreational languages". Thus, I think that in cases like Quenya and
Sindarin, the board should vote about whether we can automatically
deny these requests based on a specific set of criteria.

Also an issue are "play languages", cants, languages that aren't fully
documented, and other requests. I think there needs to be a final
decision to tell us for sure, finally, and forever that there will not
be a Pig Latin Wikipedia, a Nadsat Wikipedia, or a Parseltongue
Wikipedia (Pig Latin is a play language, Nadsat is on top of being a
fictional language a sort of "cant" not suitable for more than the
most basic communication, and all that has been said ever about
Parseltongue is that the language consists, in written form, entirely
of "ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss")

Mark

On 27/06/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Imo, a test
> > wiki is desirable, but should not be obligatory for the creation of a new
> > Wikipedia. And while a test wiki in a language that has no request yet
> > should not be deleted at once, I think someone willing to create a new
> > Wikipedia should always request it properly, so if he/she makes a test wiki
> > he should put a request on the page immediately. Finally, it seems to me
> > nothing but logical that test wikis are removed when the real wikipedia has
> > been created. The moderators should bother to transfer the articles.
> 
> I agree with Wouter. In addition, I think there should be some sort of
> policy on what is allowed a test wiki. It shouldn't be a place for
> wikis to start up in languages that have been completely rejected by
> the community. For example, if there's no consensus on Sindarin, it
> shouldn't be able to get around that decision by setting up on Meta.
> The test wiki area needs to be strictly for wikis which do have a real
> possibility of becoming Wikipedia languages. It also needs to be made
> clear that the test area is only for new languages, not for new wiki
> ideas, or we'll end up with content like
> http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/Bevelheads:Home and the other
> pages at Scratchpad all over Meta, which I don't think would be useful
> or appropriate.
> 
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 

-- 
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE