Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/9 Erik Moeller : > > My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the > context of a wiki is as follows: > > * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work; > * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms > of use of the wiki, made available under CC-BY-SA; > * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for > the wiki, the person submitting it is its "Original Author" (while the > combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA). > > A wiki page would therefore have multiple "Original Authors" per > CC-BY-SA. For the record, this interpretation has been confirmed by Creative Commons General Counsel. The application of an edit results in an Adaptation with multiple Original Authors. They've also confirmed that an attribution regime where edits are attributed via reference to the history page is fully consistent with CC-BY-SA. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/12 Anthony : > It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your > weasel-word of "direct" is supposed to mean). The GFDL requires crediting principal authors, and it requires change tracking. Given the obvious intent of the principal authors clause to limit inflating bylines, and given the way these clauses have always been interpreted, specified and implemented, you really have no case that simplifying the change tracking requirements through CC-BY-SA constitutes an unreasonable change. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
> As we know, all wikimedia sites used to be completely blocked in mainland > China since 2005 (temporary blocking started in 2004). When they started to > unblock the wikimedia sites in 2006, they unblocked all the non-Chinese > sites first and later some Chinese projects, such as Chinese Wikitionary. > The Chinese Wikipedia is only unblocked in 2008 due to the international > pressure before the Olympics, yet the content of the site is still censored > and some sensitive keywords will trigger a temporary IP block lasting > approx. 1~2 minutes. Nah, reviewing my one edit to en.wikinews would probably earn you a lifetime ban if you are in the PRC. Let me know if it loads. :P http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CharlotteWebb —C.W. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/1/11 Anthony : > > That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you > > haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the > history > > section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors. > > It does so, in the context of Wikipedia.org, because change tracking > and attribution are served by the same software function. That a > listing of all authors would always be included directly (as opposed > to by reference) with any copy of a Wikipedia article is not a > reasonable inference from this fact, especially given that the > language in GFDL which clearly exists for purpose of giving credit > includes reasonable limitations (principal authors). I fail to see how you can follow the GFDL without crediting all authors. After all, even > you yourself agree that including the full change history with each > copy is overkill. I don't think you understand what I meant by that. I don't think the GFDL should require including a full change history, but I do think it should require every author to be credited directly in the document, and it should ensure that these authors are credited in a way that they are not considered responsible for modifications made by others. Hence, we are having a practical debate about what is and isn't > reasonable. I base my argument on the language of the GFDL when it > comes to author credit, which includes limitations, as well as > established guidelines and practices on Wikipedia. Why? > Your argument, on the other hand, appears to be pulled out of thin air. I assure you that the concept of the right to attribution is not something I pulled out of thin air. It is neither a > direct requirement of the GFDL, nor an established practice, nor a > reasonable expectation of a volunteer contributor. I can only conclude > that it is your personal preference. It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your weasel-word of "direct" is supposed to mean). It most certainly is an established practice (it's part of the Berne Convention, though it's a part which the United States has failed to implement). And it most certainly is a reasonable expectation of a volunteer contribution (plagiarism is a violation of a natural right which even a five-year old would recognize). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/12 Anthony : > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > >> If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask >> contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain >> circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and >> is consistent with the attribution requirements of GFDL. > Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made? Yes, because it's consistent with the past licensing terms (attribution/credit requirements of the GFDL) and, to the extent that terms of service have been published through pages like Wikipedia:Copyrights, with those terms as well. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/12 Anthony : > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > >> If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask >> contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain >> circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and >> is consistent with the attribution requirements of GFDL. > > > Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made? > That's horrible. Yeah, you have a point there... It can't be done via terms of service since that requires getting people to agree to them and it's too late for that. Another method is required. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask > contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain > circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and > is consistent with the attribution requirements of GFDL. Even if the terms of service are modified *after* the contribution is made? That's horrible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/11 Anthony : > That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you > haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the history > section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors. It does so, in the context of Wikipedia.org, because change tracking and attribution are served by the same software function. That a listing of all authors would always be included directly (as opposed to by reference) with any copy of a Wikipedia article is not a reasonable inference from this fact, especially given that the language in GFDL which clearly exists for purpose of giving credit includes reasonable limitations (principal authors). After all, even you yourself agree that including the full change history with each copy is overkill. Hence, we are having a practical debate about what is and isn't reasonable. I base my argument on the language of the GFDL when it comes to author credit, which includes limitations, as well as established guidelines and practices on Wikipedia. Your argument, on the other hand, appears to be pulled out of thin air. It is neither a direct requirement of the GFDL, nor an established practice, nor a reasonable expectation of a volunteer contributor. I can only conclude that it is your personal preference. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question
2009/1/11 geni : > The critical term is "reasonable to the medium or means" for mediawiki > our current method of crediting is probably reasonable to the medium > or means. For other applications different forms of crediting are > required. Any 5 author stuff is completely irrelevant. I never said that CC-BY-SA makes reference to principal authors in a similar fashion as the GFDL does. Of course it does not. However, it allows attribution by name and/or by URI, and also states that "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner". If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and is consistent with the attribution requirements of GFDL. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
As another historical note from Wikimania 2008 ... In our session (of mine and Arria Belli) which focused on translation, a girl who seemed to be Arabic but not known to me from where she came asked me if there would be a possibility of āmmiyya Wikipedias. I don't know which āmmiyya she cared for and don't know if she has joined the Egyptian Arabic. But it could be a sign some literal people thought it serious ... despites of other folks' questionable attitude. I am rather inclined to Alsebaey's position. If they think it the best aim they could achive, just give them a chance and blessings. It won't ruin other projects at worst, hopefully. On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > Mohamed Magdy wrote: >> (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?) >> because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people >> there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!). > > I was sitting next to an Egyptian VIP in the front row when the > announcement was made, and he laughed and indicated that he thought this > was stupid. > > It is not up to me to make any decisions nor have any particular opinion > about Egyptian, but this is one of many data points that suggest to me > that the current process is widely regarded as being broken. > > --Jimbo > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Michael Bimmler hett schreven: > I must say, I find this a bit of a difficult claim to make just out of > the air. What is your supporting evidence for US and Canada having > "the same mindset" and "the same mentality", other than the mindset > which both states also share with Germany, France, Britain, > Switzerland, Norway, Sweden etc.? > > Michael I didn't state they have any particular shared mindset that sets them off from the countries you named. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote: >what i meant to say is. at least the english site is still accessible, >which is odd (i mis-read the subject line) because the latter site has >quite a bit more anti-PRC content. weird... Indeed there is a bit more stuff there in en.wikinews, but blocking the Chinese site only is the usual way they do. As we know, all wikimedia sites used to be completely blocked in mainland China since 2005 (temporary blocking started in 2004). When they started to unblock the wikimedia sites in 2006, they unblocked all the non-Chinese sites first and later some Chinese projects, such as Chinese Wikitionary. The Chinese Wikipedia is only unblocked in 2008 due to the international pressure before the Olympics, yet the content of the site is still censored and some sensitive keywords will trigger a temporary IP block lasting approx. 1~2 minutes. On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote: > what i meant to say is. at least the english site is still accessible, > which is odd (i mis-read the subject line) because the latter site has > quite a bit more anti-PRC content. weird... > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > Ray Saintonge hett schreven: >> That's an outrageous assumption. Canadians who attend an international >> sporting event between Americans and any other country will most often >> cheer for the other country. Since 1959 Canada has never broken >> diplomatic relations with Cuba, and has not participated in the US >> adventures against Vietnam and Iraq. >> >> Ec >> > Rivalry in sports is a good example of what I spoke of: animosities > between neighbors. There can even be outspoken rivalries between > neighboring villages or towns, although both places share every single > value or custom or mentality. The mindset is identical and still they > can be engaged in contention. But if their basic values or customs are > threatened by a third party, they will forget their little animosities I must say, I find this a bit of a difficult claim to make just out of the air. What is your supporting evidence for US and Canada having "the same mindset" and "the same mentality", other than the mindset which both states also share with Germany, France, Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden etc.? Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Ray Saintonge hett schreven: > That's an outrageous assumption. Canadians who attend an international > sporting event between Americans and any other country will most often > cheer for the other country. Since 1959 Canada has never broken > diplomatic relations with Cuba, and has not participated in the US > adventures against Vietnam and Iraq. > > Ec > Rivalry in sports is a good example of what I spoke of: animosities between neighbors. There can even be outspoken rivalries between neighboring villages or towns, although both places share every single value or custom or mentality. The mindset is identical and still they can be engaged in contention. But if their basic values or customs are threatened by a third party, they will forget their little animosities and stand side by side. Cuba is just a little Communist island off the coast of America. There's no reason for Canada to show aggression towards Cuba cause Cuba does not threaten anybody. If Cuba would threaten common values of the USA and Canada, Canada would join the USA in its anti-Cuban actions. But we are rapidly degressing from the topic... Identity has layers. Some layers are very emotional, but still unimportant. Sports for example. People can get very hot about sports, but they won't fight wars about it (the Football War being no counter-example). Other layers seem to be less hot-blooded, cause they emerge only rarely, but they can be existential and thus lead to embittered enmities. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Hoi, It is tragic to learn that the two Wikipedias cannot find it in themselves to cooperate. The two projects did not merge because at the time the position was taken that the standard orthography was not accepted. It would be really cool if a sense of sanity and friendship would prevail and have the two projects merge.. My question remains; what could an expert do more ?? In the end it is about what we accept in our projects and we do allow for this sad situation to persist Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/12 Amir E. Aharoni > 2009/1/12 Gerard Meijssen : > > We only accept one Wikipedia for one language. The fact that we still > have > > what is called the be-tarask.wikipedia.org is only because people were > of > > the opinion that we should retain the work that was done. Now I wonder > what > > more experts could add to this. > > I am not an *expert* in Belarusian, but i know a little more about > this language than the average Russian speaker does. > > Both projects are OK. Both have several dedicated and caring people > working on them. Both have certain problems. But their biggest problem > is shared: the duplication of effort hurts them all. > > Merging them will benefit Wikipedia as a whole and its Belarusian > edition in particular and there should be free choice of orthography, > as it is in the Wikipedias in English, Portuguese and Catalan. > > -- > Amir Elisha Aharoni > > heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com > cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com > > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
2009/1/12 Gerard Meijssen : > We only accept one Wikipedia for one language. The fact that we still have > what is called the be-tarask.wikipedia.org is only because people were of > the opinion that we should retain the work that was done. Now I wonder what > more experts could add to this. I am not an *expert* in Belarusian, but i know a little more about this language than the average Russian speaker does. Both projects are OK. Both have several dedicated and caring people working on them. Both have certain problems. But their biggest problem is shared: the duplication of effort hurts them all. Merging them will benefit Wikipedia as a whole and its Belarusian edition in particular and there should be free choice of orthography, as it is in the Wikipedias in English, Portuguese and Catalan. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Hoi, At the time there was a request for the STANDARD orthography of the Belarus language to be supported, The then be.wp community refused *any *content in that orthography with the argument that the current orthography is Stalinist and, that they reject it because of this. Given that Wikipedia is intended to be educational, it is important that it connects to people who are taught in the Belarus educational system. This makes the political and exclusive choice for the old orthography unacceptable. We only accept one Wikipedia for one language. The fact that we still have what is called the be-tarask.wikipedia.org is only because people were of the opinion that we should retain the work that was done. Now I wonder what more experts could add to this. This does however not mean that the be-tarask.wp is a bad project. There are other projects that are way more problematic. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/12 Tomasz Ganicz > 2009/1/11 Milos Rancic : > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tomasz Ganicz > wrote: > >>> Well, I think there should be not only computer-linguists experts like > >>> Evertype in LangCom, but you desperately need people who have good > >>> knowledge about culture, sociology and history of the main language > >>> groups, or at least you should be ready to ask relevant outside > >>> experts. I have a feeling that current LangCom completely ignores > >>> historical and cultural background related to language problems which > >>> is quite often a key to make resonable decissions. > >> > >> Actually, it is a misunderstanding of Michael's knowledge. His > >> expertise is, for example, making an orthography for a random language > >> [without orthography]. In fact, we need exactly his kind of linguists. > >> As I mentioned, we are working on raising expertise quality inside of > >> LangCom. > > > > And just to be more precise. After a couple of years of interacting > > with people in relation to Wikimedia projects, I realized that it is > > not so possible to get a random academician and put them into some > > Wikimedian working body. Usually, those persons are not so interested. > > > > I see that we have two more options for finding persons with relevant > > level of expertise: > > * to find Wikimedians with this kind of expertise; or > > * that some interested academician contacts us. > > Well, > > I did't want to come back to Belarus Wikipedia case, but at that time > I have found quite easily 2 good experts. One from Univ. of Warsaw, > vice-head o Belaruss literature department and one from Univ of Oxford > (an emeritus professor, specializing in Belaruss politics and > history). It wasn't very difficulit to ask them and get the answers - > quite long and IMHO quite professional.I asked at that time if there > is any interst for LangComm in reading this. The answer was "no", as > at that time the decission was already taken, the situation was quite > hot and arguments showing that the decission wasn't so clever were not > listen simply by default. The stinky egg was already broken and > members of LangComm were simply trying not to smell it :-) > > I don't think that such kind of experts good in one case only should > be members of LangComm. It probably doesn't make sense. But it does > make sense to find them for specific purposes and then ask questions > before making final decission. It can be done. Most of them give you > an answer or at least point you to the places you can find it itself. > LangComm should consist of the people who are clever enough to ask > relevant questions and be able to understand and analyse the asnwers. > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > I'm really sorry about the harshness, but Mr. "Moldovan Citizen" is > either completely clueless, or - more likely - a troll. From this > point i am stopping to feed him, and i suggest the whole list to do > the same. > And I am sure that you are perfectly able to make your argument without resorting to personal insults. And if not, I will enforce that. Thank you, Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Marcus Buck wrote: > Tim Starling hett schreven: > >> Marcus Buck wrote: >> >>> In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation >>> united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic >>> is something like Latin. With the difference, that Latin fell out of use >>> to make place for the Romance languages. So Egyptian Arabic vs. Standard >>> Arabic is like French vs. Latin. >>> >> I have heard this before, but I am not convinced, because I have heard >> conflicting things from Egyptian people. I don't suppose you have a >> credible reference where I can read more about this, and which supports >> these claims? >> > There's no obvious or agreed-upon measure for the proximity of dialects > or languages nor for identity attitudes. All findings are inherently vague. > What did you hear conflicting things about? About the big differences > and problems with mutual intelligibility of Arabic dialects or about the > notion of "one Arabic nation"? > As one attended Wikimania in Alexandria I found that Egyptians were quite proud to let it be known that they are not Arabs. The notion of "one Arabic nation" seems more like an imperial Saudi attitude. > Well, that Arabic has a wide variety of different dialects, is obvious, > if we look at the basic facts. Arabic is spoken over an area that spans > thousands of kilometers. Arabic spread from its central area in Arabia > in the 7th century due to the spread of Islam. Islam as a religion, or as a political force? > Since then the dialects > developed different from the standard that didn't change much since then > due to it's liturgical character (just like Latin). Latin was in vulgar > use since about the 1st century. So Latin Vulgar had 2000 years to > change and Arabic Vulgar only 1300 years. Therefore Latin Vulgar should > be roughly 50% more diverse than Arabic Vulgar (Please put the emphasis > on "roughly" cause language change is of course not linear). In Egypt Latin only had about 700 years beginning in the first century BC, and even then it had to compete with Greek and Coptic. The introduction of Latin in Egypt was also more imperial than religious. Similarly the roots of Latin in Europe were with the Roman conquests. Ecclesiastical Latin only became a factor after the fall of the Roman Empire, and in more countries than the ones who now speak Romance languages. Islam succeeded in Turkey and Persia, yet these countries retained their languages. It could very well be that Islam conquered Egypt at a time of linguistic instability. In the rest of sparsely populated North Africa there wasn't much of a literate environment to put up any resistance. With all the foreign invaders wanting a piece of Egypt over the centuries, with the British meddling in Egyptian affairs as late as 1956, they deserve credit for their efforts to distill their own language from a very noisy background. > [English is > spread over a very wide area too and does not show that much variation. > But English spread from England only 400 years ago and most of the > speakers shifted to English only in very recent times. So outside of > England there are no real dialects (and even England is no country with > a pronounced dialectal landscape). Therefore the whole subject of > "dialects" is a very obscure thing to many speakers of English.] > Dialects don't need so much as 400 years to develop. In the US there can be remarkable differences between the way of speaking in the eastern and western parts of Tennessee. Ebonics is viewed by some as a separate language. In the some parts of the US the influence of Spanish causes a great deal of concern. In French visitors from France can find it difficult to understand some Québécois, and it is only 250 years since the Conquest. > The notion of the "one Arabic nation" is even more vague. We have to > keep in mind, that mentalities do not necessarily differentiate between > different identity-building elements. Identity can be based on > ethnicity, on language, on religion, on common history, on citizenship > or on arbitrary mixtures of these aspects. The most important connecting > element for people in the Middle East is religion. The Islam. The Islam > connects them to people with entirely different languages too. But the > Standard Arabic language is connected to the Islam also, cause it's the > liturgical language of the Islam. Saying, that Arabic is a macrolanguage > can easily touch religious feelings. That's irrational, but happens. So > there are many different levels of identity and interconnections between > those levels of identity. It's possible, that you talked to Egyptians > and they said "those damned Syrians" or otherwise showed few "Panarabic > loyalty". But that doesn't mean there is no common identity. What common identity? Just because both speak a form of Arabic, and both are predominantly Muslim
Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
2009/1/11 geni : > 2009/1/11 Amir E. Aharoni : >> 2009/1/11 Jon Harald Søby : > Also, I'd like to know what's the progress of renaming the subdomain "mo" to > "mo-cyrl" mo.wikipedia.org -> mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org, as was stated in > november last year, an important issue for us. For whom? >> >> Did they have an election and chose Mr. Cetateanu Moldovanu as their >> representative? > > This issue has been discussed in great length previously on the > mailing lists. If you do not think mo.wikipedia.org with cyclic in it > does not upset non-Transnistrian Moldovans then you could probably do > with reading up on the politics and 20th century history of the > relevant area. I know all that very well. Mr. Moldovanu says "us", so he claims to represent someone. Let's suppose that he claims to represent all non-Transnistrian Moldovans. Is there a history book that proves these things: * That all non-Transnistrian Moldovans are upset about Cyrillic Moldovan? * That all non-Transnistrian Moldovans are upset about Cyrillic Moldovan Wikipedia? I'm really sorry about the harshness, but Mr. "Moldovan Citizen" is either completely clueless, or - more likely - a troll. From this point i am stopping to feed him, and i suggest the whole list to do the same. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?
James Rigg wrote: > does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the > running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now > exist seem to be a departure from this. Departure from what? From your original imagination, or from some policy that was posted (where? when? citation needed!). Do you publish every private e-mail and phone call you receive? That is what "total" transparency would mean, and nobody wants that. It would block every kind of communication. The employees and board members of the foundation can send private e-mail between themselves, and they can use the internal mailing list. Both are closed forms of communication, and if the list wasn't there, private e-mail would be used instead. You're not making that information more open by closing the internal mailing list. If you want improved transparency from the Wikimedia Foundation, you need to provide real examples of types of information that you want access to, that you fail to find today. You will never be able to get "everything". -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
