Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Lars Aronsson]

On 08/27/2010 11:26 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Two of the biggest remaining problems (of which there are, naturally,
> many many many others):
>
> 1) Transparency. ...
> 2) Eurocentrism. ...

Mark, if you post more than one message per day, reiterating how
irritated you are with Gerard, then the only effect is that other
people get irritated with you, instead of Gerard. You try so hard
to solve the problem you perceive, that you become the problem.

Again, the Foundation fails to moderate this list, so I have to
remind you. Or perhaps I should just shut up and unsubscribe again.
Why am I wasting my time on foundation-l? Unbelievable! Bye!


-- 
   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

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mark Williamson]

I hope nobody gets the impression that I'm just an American sniping at
Europeans. I wouldn't be much happier if it was half Americans and
half Europeans, or even all Americans. The majority of the world's
non-endangered languages are spoken in Asia and Africa, so on a
committee that deals with languages it strikes me as absurd that there
would be 0 representation from these places.

As far as applauding the fact that there is a single person on the
committee who spent most of his life in Israel, I hope you'll excuse
me if I'm not clapping. Having a single member out of 13 that lives
outside Europe/US is not especially encouraging to me, it seems more
like tokenism.

Yaroslav, Europe does have dozens of languages, but it lags behind
literally other continent:

Continent - # of languages - % of world's languages
Africa - 2110 - 30.5%
Americas - 993 - 14.4%
Asia - 2,322 - 33.6%
Europe - 234 - 3.4%
Pacific - 1,250 - 18.1%

Let's keep that in mind here.

-m.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>>> 2) Eurocentrism. Not an accusation to be made lightly, but look at the
>>> geographic composition of the langcom. 9/13 members currently reside
>>> in Europe, another is originally from Europe, 2 from Canada and 1 from
>>> California. Hmm... so the population of Europe is 10% of the Earth's
>>> population, but (nearly) 100% of the population of the LangCom? This
>>> is a huge bias and should not be tolerated within an organization such
>>> as ours which pretends to have an international scope.
>>>
>>> -m.
>>>
>>
>> I guess if 75% of the members were from the US nobody would ever complain.
>>
> Hardly. It's not as if there have been no complaints ever about a
> majority of the board being from the US. It would be better if both the
> Americans and the Europeans would cut back on sniping at each other,
> acknowledge that it's unhealthy for either of them to be so
> disproportionately represented, and focus their energies on recruiting
> more people who add real cognitive diversity. That's part of what the
> board and the foundation are trying to do in the context of the
> strategic plan.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Milos Rancic]

I want to remind participants of this discussion that the subject of
this thread is "Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles". Whenever you
want to talk about LangCom, please fork the thread with the subject
which makes sense.

I didn't read this thread up to yesterday afternoon, when Amir told me
that something is going on.

Before a longer email, whoever has any question related to some
LangCom's decision -- public or private -- let it ask here or myself
privately. I'll give explanation for any reasoning behind our
decisions if it is not clear for the summary and archived discussions,
or if it is not archived at all [yet].

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Michael Snow]

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> 2) Eurocentrism. Not an accusation to be made lightly, but look at the
>> geographic composition of the langcom. 9/13 members currently reside
>> in Europe, another is originally from Europe, 2 from Canada and 1 from
>> California. Hmm... so the population of Europe is 10% of the Earth's
>> population, but (nearly) 100% of the population of the LangCom? This
>> is a huge bias and should not be tolerated within an organization such
>> as ours which pretends to have an international scope.
>>
>> -m.
>> 
>
> I guess if 75% of the members were from the US nobody would ever complain.
>   
Hardly. It's not as if there have been no complaints ever about a 
majority of the board being from the US. It would be better if both the 
Americans and the Europeans would cut back on sniping at each other, 
acknowledge that it's unhealthy for either of them to be so 
disproportionately represented, and focus their energies on recruiting 
more people who add real cognitive diversity. That's part of what the 
board and the foundation are trying to do in the context of the 
strategic plan.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> 2) Eurocentrism. Not an accusation to be made lightly, but look at the
> geographic composition of the langcom. 9/13 members currently reside
> in Europe, another is originally from Europe, 2 from Canada and 1 from
> California. Hmm... so the population of Europe is 10% of the Earth's
> population, but (nearly) 100% of the population of the LangCom? This
> is a huge bias and should not be tolerated within an organization such
> as ours which pretends to have an international scope.
> 
> -m.
> 

I guess if 75% of the members were from the US nobody would ever complain.

Europe still has several dozens of languages.

Cheers
Yaroslav



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Casey Brown]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:
> 2) Eurocentrism.

[snip]

> another is originally from Europe,

The one "originally from Europe" still spent most of his life in the
Middle East which we should be applauding as a departure from the
"Eurocentrism" that you mention and not lumping it in with the others.

> should not be tolerated within an organization such
> as ours which pretends to have an international scope.

Sofixit?  Encourage people you know in our organization who are from
other areas of the world to apply to the committee.

Come to think of it, it would be a great idea for the Language
committee to reach out to Wikimedian experts from Asia/India, Africa,
and South America and get them included.  Membership drive, maybe? :-)

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mark Williamson]

Two of the biggest remaining problems (of which there are, naturally,
many many many others):

1) Transparency. Maybe some experts fear retaliation - okay, use
pseudonyms or contribute anonymously. Just have someone summarize your
opinion for public archives. Does Gerard fear retaliation? From whom?
Why else does he keep his non-expert opinions hidden?
2) Eurocentrism. Not an accusation to be made lightly, but look at the
geographic composition of the langcom. 9/13 members currently reside
in Europe, another is originally from Europe, 2 from Canada and 1 from
California. Hmm... so the population of Europe is 10% of the Earth's
population, but (nearly) 100% of the population of the LangCom? This
is a huge bias and should not be tolerated within an organization such
as ours which pretends to have an international scope.

-m.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> Let us have a sense of history here. When the language committee started,
> there were no linguists or other experts members on the committee. We were
> really happy when we got someone who is part of the standard bodies that are
> relevant to what we do. It meant that we had a way to assess what the
> likelihood was for requests to the standard bodies. The only problem was
> that for professional reasons it is not possible to publish the point of
> views expressed publicly. As this may affect the employability, this is not
> a trivial matter and confidentiality is the only way got relevant and
> significant contributions.
>
> As a consequence, the mailing list for the language committee became
> confidential. At a later date, some members were not happy with a
> confidential list and wanted to make *their* contributions public. I opposed
> this  because it is not that hard to deduce what someone said by the answers
> from others. As a consequence I keep my contributions private to the members
> of the committee.
>
> At a later date we started to seek expert opinion about the contributions in
> the incubator to ensure that contributions were in the language that goes
> with the ISO-639-3 code. The comments of these experts are in some cases
> best kept private. We seek assurances for ourselves so that we can honestly
> inform the WMF board that in our opinion a project in a new language can
> start.
>
> The policy allows for only one Wikipedia per language and, requests by
> people that seek to force one orthography or one script do not find
> acceptance in the policy and by the committee. At that we deliberately keep
> such deliberations outside of the WMF LC and leave it to the standard bodies
> to define what makes a specific language.
>
> If this gives you the impression that there is not that much to discuss, you
> are completely correct.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 27.08.2010 00:00, hett David Gerard schreven:
> On 26 August 2010 22:48, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
>
>> I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic
>> employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee.
>> And even if there is a great need for this person's expertise, other
>> arrangements could be made so that the 95% of discussions (based on the
>> current participation level of that person) where he/she is not involved can
>> be public.
>
> A tricky bit appears to be when expertise is offered on the basis that
> it is confidential, due to fear of attacks on the expert in question
> from aggrieved nationalists. It's not clear how to work around that
> one.
Not that tricky. Instead of publishing their name and censoring their 
message, they could censor their name and publish the message.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 26.08.2010 23:21, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> Hoi,
> Let us have a sense of history here. When the language committee started,
> there were no linguists or other experts members on the committee. We were
> really happy when we got someone who is part of the standard bodies that are
> relevant to what we do. It meant that we had a way to assess what the
> likelihood was for requests to the standard bodies. The only problem was
> that for professional reasons it is not possible to publish the point of
> views expressed publicly. As this may affect the employability, this is not
> a trivial matter and confidentiality is the only way got relevant and
> significant contributions.
>
> As a consequence, the mailing list for the language committee became
> confidential. At a later date, some members were not happy with a
> confidential list and wanted to make *their* contributions public. I opposed
> this  because it is not that hard to deduce what someone said by the answers
> from others. As a consequence I keep my contributions private to the members
> of the committee.
>
> At a later date we started to seek expert opinion about the contributions in
> the incubator to ensure that contributions were in the language that goes
> with the ISO-639-3 code. The comments of these experts are in some cases
> best kept private. We seek assurances for ourselves so that we can honestly
> inform the WMF board that in our opinion a project in a new language can
> start.
>
> The policy allows for only one Wikipedia per language and, requests by
> people that seek to force one orthography or one script do not find
> acceptance in the policy and by the committee. At that we deliberately keep
> such deliberations outside of the WMF LC and leave it to the standard bodies
> to define what makes a specific language.
>
> If this gives you the impression that there is not that much to discuss, you
> are completely correct.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
In other words: most of the members of the committee agree that 
transparency is useful for the list and you are boycotting their move 
towards more transparency.

As I have said in reply to Jesse, I do not object to confidentiality if 
experts from conflict regions choose to not make public their opinions. 
I do not consider reasons related to employment a valid reason. I cannot 
really imagine any situation where an employer would say "ZOMG, you 
supported a wikipedia in X?!? that'll have consequences!" but if it's 
like that and the person cannot give information then search another 
expert. If Karen is in a situation like this: Well, delete the history 
of her userpage and let her contribute pseudonymously. The employer 
won't know. Just use pseudonyms! Even the experts from conflict regions 
will be safe with pseudonyms. Better than publishing the names without 
the content.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

> A tricky bit appears to be when expertise is offered on the basis that
> it is confidential, due to fear of attacks on the expert in question
> from aggrieved nationalists. It's not clear how to work around that
> one.
>
>
>
But is that the case with committee members? I totally understand and agree
about the situation with outside experts feeling retaliation, and I said I
was perfectly ok with hiding those threads at the discretion of the
committee (the archive is manual anyway so it's not that hard to do). I am
asking why this has to be the case with committee members (or rather,
expressing my disagreement with such a setup).
-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 26 August 2010 22:48, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:

> I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic
> employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee.
> And even if there is a great need for this person's expertise, other
> arrangements could be made so that the 95% of discussions (based on the
> current participation level of that person) where he/she is not involved can
> be public.


A tricky bit appears to be when expertise is offered on the basis that
it is confidential, due to fear of attacks on the expert in question
from aggrieved nationalists. It's not clear how to work around that
one.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

I finally understand. User:Karen (I am assuming, based on other ppl's
remarks) opinions might affect her employment, and in an effort to conceal
her opinions, Gerard is keeping his contribution confidential. Thus
rendering it very hard for anyone to follow the threads and deduce what she
may have said. I have a question here: Why would it be one of the new
member's tasks to update the archives, when it is the explicit desire of
some of the committee members to render them as unreadable as possible to
conceal someone's opinions?

I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic
employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee.
And even if there is a great need for this person's expertise, other
arrangements could be made so that the 95% of discussions (based on the
current participation level of that person) where he/she is not involved can
be public.

Oh and regarding:


> If this gives you the impression that there is not that much to discuss,
> you
> are completely correct.
>

I disagree with this statement too, I have been trying to follow what's
there from the archive and the discussions are not simple 'x: pass, y: fail'
application of a set of rules. That is based on partial conversations I can
read.


-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Let us have a sense of history here. When the language committee started,
there were no linguists or other experts members on the committee. We were
really happy when we got someone who is part of the standard bodies that are
relevant to what we do. It meant that we had a way to assess what the
likelihood was for requests to the standard bodies. The only problem was
that for professional reasons it is not possible to publish the point of
views expressed publicly. As this may affect the employability, this is not
a trivial matter and confidentiality is the only way got relevant and
significant contributions.

As a consequence, the mailing list for the language committee became
confidential. At a later date, some members were not happy with a
confidential list and wanted to make *their* contributions public. I opposed
this  because it is not that hard to deduce what someone said by the answers
from others. As a consequence I keep my contributions private to the members
of the committee.

At a later date we started to seek expert opinion about the contributions in
the incubator to ensure that contributions were in the language that goes
with the ISO-639-3 code. The comments of these experts are in some cases
best kept private. We seek assurances for ourselves so that we can honestly
inform the WMF board that in our opinion a project in a new language can
start.

The policy allows for only one Wikipedia per language and, requests by
people that seek to force one orthography or one script do not find
acceptance in the policy and by the committee. At that we deliberately keep
such deliberations outside of the WMF LC and leave it to the standard bodies
to define what makes a specific language.

If this gives you the impression that there is not that much to discuss, you
are completely correct.
Thanks,
GerardM
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

I've just been chatting with Gerard about this issue. He explained in
some detail the concerns for confidentiality - the situation is far
from ideal, but is the present workable solution to getting accurate
quality information without possible retribution drected at those
giving the information from nationalist cranks for giving an opinion
they wouldn't like.

It's not a good situation, but my concerns are alleviated, for what
that's worth.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 26.08.2010 21:29, hett Jesse (Pathoschild) schreven:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
>> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
>> is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.
> Hello David,
>
> There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
> ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
> before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
> discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
> speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
> nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
> professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
> confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
> opinion.

Thanks for your comment. In the years I had occasional contact with the 
language committee I always found your answers to questions helpful. 
Although sometimes I didn't agree with them you at least always tried to 
address the actual topic while Gerard often tends to evade questions and 
spin them into something different.

If external experts indeed personally fear repercussions for their 
comments in individual cases I would accept that as a reason to not 
archive their comments. But this certainly does not apply to Gerard or 
Karen.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Bence Damokos]

-Original Message- 
From: Jesse (Pathoschild)
Date: 2010. augusztus 26. 21:29
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
> is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.

Hello David,

There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
opinion.

However, most content can be safely made public and is published to
the public archives if the email authors agree. These have not been
updated recently, but only because I have not had time to do so; they
should be updated in the coming months, now that someone has joined
with public archival as one of their goals.

By the way, the language committee never makes official statements.
Any comments from Gerard or I are our personal comments.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)


Thanks Jesse for this explanation.
I am a still bit confused as to what is the reasoning for those members who 
chose not to disclose their messages publicly at all – not even on a case by 
case basis or at least on a summary level that would make the archives 
readable?
(One of them apparently chose so out of a conflict with their academic 
career, but what is the reason behind the other person's decision: does he 
only quote the outside experts or does he fulfill such inside expert role 
where he routinely has to trample on nationalistic or cultural feelings?)

Best regards,
Bence 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

Hi Jesse,


> There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
> ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
> before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
> discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
> speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
> nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
> professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
> confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
> opinion.
>

This was not Gerard's argument about why members of the committee do not
disclose their discussions. I personally totally understand that need but I
also think this is a case-by-case thing. Disclosing these interactions or
not based on the discretion of the committee is perfectly fine by me.


>
> However, most content can be safely made public and is published to
> the public archives if the email authors agree. These have not been
> updated recently, but only because I have not had time to do so; they
> should be updated in the coming months, now that someone has joined
> with public archival as one of their goals.
>
>
This is a repeat of your position earlier. It does not address my concern. I
personally was not able to follow the discussion threads with all the
censored messages from committee members, not outside sources.

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Jesse (Pathoschild)]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
> is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.

Hello David,

There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
opinion.

However, most content can be safely made public and is published to
the public archives if the email authors agree. These have not been
updated recently, but only because I have not had time to do so; they
should be updated in the coming months, now that someone has joined
with public archival as one of their goals.

By the way, the language committee never makes official statements.
Any comments from Gerard or I are our personal comments.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Blatant: without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious (Wordnet). I
do not need an excuse, I did better; I provided an explanation. An
explanation that you care not to accept. I have also pointed out that I am
unwilling to drop people who have helped out for opportunistic reasons.

It would be opportunistic if I give in just to appease you. There is another
meaning for blatant: conspicuously and offensively loud (also Wordnet).
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 August 2010 21:15, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> >> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
> >> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
> >> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
> >> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
> >> single person, it's you and one more committee member.
>
> > That is an argument I do not agree with.
>
>
> The language committee is behaving in a blatantly closed manner. You
> are not even pretending to offer an excuse for this.
>
> This is not adequate behaviour.
>
> Are you really unable to justify why you don't want your messages to be
> read?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  Gerard, would you be so kind and post a message on your mailing list 
informing your co-members about this discussion and inviting them to 
join in with their opinions? Would be especially nice to hear from Karen!

Is that okay?

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

>> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
>> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
>> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
>> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
>> single person, it's you and one more committee member.

> That is an argument I do not agree with.


The language committee is behaving in a blatantly closed manner. You
are not even pretending to offer an excuse for this.

This is not adequate behaviour.

Are you really unable to justify why you don't want your messages to be read?


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That is an argument I do not agree with.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 26 August 2010 19:59, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
> > because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely
> > bad
> > form.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
>
> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
>
> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
>
> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
>
> single person, it's you and one more committee member.
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Yahia
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
> because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely
> bad
> form.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:

You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not

about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be

transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a

single person, it's you and one more committee member.


-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely bad
form.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 August 2010 15:50, Marcus Buck  wrote:

>  An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> > Hoi,
> > Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
> > discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
> If it's boring there is no reason to keep it secret. So no argument for
> your position.
> > When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
> > the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its
> qualifications.
> > I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
> > really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group.
> As
> > there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion
> not
> > fair to filter only one person out.
> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
> single person, it's you and one more committee member. I don't like
> speaking in mysteries. The second, so far unnamed member whose posts are
> secret is User:Karen. She seems to be solely active on the mailing list
> and has zero edits in the wiki. Some info about her is in the edit
> history of her user page on Meta. I have no specific reason to doubt
> that she is a competent contributor to the committee's discussions, but
> on the other hand there seems to be not a single word from her mouth
> publicly documented on the committee's home wiki Meta and not a single
> bit of information available about her qualifications or the reasons and
> circumstances she became a member of the committee.
>
> I have no idea why you put the word 'opportunistic' in your comment.
> According to Wikipedia "opportunism" is:
> "[..] the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of
> circumstances, with little regard for principles."
>
> "Making decisions that affect the public (like the creation of new
> Wikimedia projects) public and transparent" is a principle (a very
> important principle). That's the exact opposite of opportunism.
> > The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
> > things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence
> there
> > is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on.
> Any decision of the committee should be based on facts and the language
> proposal policy defines which facts are to be considered. So if you
> abstain from personal judgements in your decisions there is just no
> reason that could cause external criticism. And if it should be the case
> that you and Karen make statements in the discussions (the others do
> not, as I can check in the archives) that would make mandatory the
> application of double talk to be acceptable when uttered in public, I'd
> find that worrying.
> > The language committee is not
> > the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
> > with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential
> often
> > for reasons that are as appropriate.
> What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
> your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
> lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
> object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
> understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
> Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
> purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
> reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
> topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists. I don't
> know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
> not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
> a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
> transparent.
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck  wrote:

> What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
> your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
> lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
> object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
> understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
> Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
> purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
> reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
> topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists.


Pretty much. (Most recent exception was personal congratulations on
the birth of a child.) There's a principle that anything that doesn't
need to be confidential should go to foundation-l as well. (Some
people read internal-l but not foundation-l.)


>I don't
> know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
> not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
> a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
> transparent.


+1

Gerard has offered *no* substantive reason the language committee list
needs such provisions, and instead has offered spurious
counter-attacks and claimed it's an attempt to push people off for
"opportunistic reasons".

It's not. Gerard, it's asking you why on earth you need a secrecy
provision no-one else has, and for you - or anyone else on the
language committee - to explain precisely why this is required, and
why it should be allowed to stand.

Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> Hoi,
> Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
> discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
If it's boring there is no reason to keep it secret. So no argument for 
your position.
> When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
> the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its qualifications.
> I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
> really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group. As
> there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion not
> fair to filter only one person out.
You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not 
about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be 
transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a 
single person, it's you and one more committee member. I don't like 
speaking in mysteries. The second, so far unnamed member whose posts are 
secret is User:Karen. She seems to be solely active on the mailing list 
and has zero edits in the wiki. Some info about her is in the edit 
history of her user page on Meta. I have no specific reason to doubt 
that she is a competent contributor to the committee's discussions, but 
on the other hand there seems to be not a single word from her mouth 
publicly documented on the committee's home wiki Meta and not a single 
bit of information available about her qualifications or the reasons and 
circumstances she became a member of the committee.

I have no idea why you put the word 'opportunistic' in your comment. 
According to Wikipedia "opportunism" is:
"[..] the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of 
circumstances, with little regard for principles."

"Making decisions that affect the public (like the creation of new 
Wikimedia projects) public and transparent" is a principle (a very 
important principle). That's the exact opposite of opportunism.
> The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
> things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence there
> is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on.
Any decision of the committee should be based on facts and the language 
proposal policy defines which facts are to be considered. So if you 
abstain from personal judgements in your decisions there is just no 
reason that could cause external criticism. And if it should be the case 
that you and Karen make statements in the discussions (the others do 
not, as I can check in the archives) that would make mandatory the 
application of double talk to be acceptable when uttered in public, I'd 
find that worrying.
> The language committee is not
> the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
> with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential often
> for reasons that are as appropriate.
What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in 
your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing 
lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to 
object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to 
understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency. 
Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on 
purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal 
reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all 
topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists. I don't 
know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have 
not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is 
a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and 
transparent.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.

When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its qualifications.
I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group. As
there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion not
fair to filter only one person out.

The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence there
is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on. The language committee is not
the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential often
for reasons that are as appropriate.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 26 August 2010 09:44, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> > another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> > contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> > repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> > past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would
> be
> > best to have a confidential list.
>
>
> This is in no way whatsoever an explanation or justification.
>
> What sort of things are *you* saying that you don't want anyone else
> to hear? If not personal information that should be kept confidential,
> then what sort of things are you actually saying that will
> professionally damage you or someone else?
>
> No, your deliberations should *not* be secret unless there is an
> overwhelmingly good reason. You are not providing one.
>
>
> > In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
> > understood within the committee.
>
>
> Then I'm sure you can explain it in terms that make it obviously clear
> why this is.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
> best to have a confidential list.


This is in no way whatsoever an explanation or justification.

What sort of things are *you* saying that you don't want anyone else
to hear? If not personal information that should be kept confidential,
then what sort of things are you actually saying that will
professionally damage you or someone else?

No, your deliberations should *not* be secret unless there is an
overwhelmingly good reason. You are not providing one.


> In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
> understood within the committee.


Then I'm sure you can explain it in terms that make it obviously clear
why this is.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:

> The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
> language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
> policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
> the flow of new Wikipedias now down to a trickle, the new Wikipedias prove
> that the policy functions. We do not have people clamouring for the end of
> new projects.

It may be proof in your definition, it is not in mine. The first
measure of success should be the *number* of succesful starts, not the
percentage. If you bring success from 50% to 100% by accepting only
1/4 of what would have been accepted before (note that these are just
an example - I have not researched any of these numbers), the
*percentage* of succeeded new projects may have doubled, but the
*number* has halved.

> The language
> committee is not a talking shop, we implement an agreed policy.

Agreed by whom? Is there any way to influence this policy and/or its
implementation?

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Nathan, 26/08/2010 00:01:
> It's true that the work of the Language Community stands out as one of
> the few areas of community participation (in that the LangCom members
> are not employees of the WMF) closed to public or community
> observation. 

Few? There are some ten private "community" wikis 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_wikis#Private_wikis with 
associated mailing list and an unknown number of private lists (cf. 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Standardization#Privacy_options 
). Sometimes it makes sense; I don't have an opinion on LangCom.

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

Hello,


> I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
> best to have a confidential list.
>
>
This is not really saying much (if anything at all). It just translates to
"a member who we will not tell you anything about has his own reasons which
you cannot know".


   - "repercussions in the professional sphere' is a really vague reason.
   Helping wikipedia choose what languages to create sites for will have
   'repercussions' that are that harmful to a scholar?
   - How useful is that scholar anyway? I see most of the 'censored'
   contributions are yours, if this person is not that active to begin with,
   why should we accomodate such a peculiar situation? Does he/she provide such
   a unique view that no one else out there can provide that input and we need
   to accomodate him?
   - I don't want to make this about you, but since as you said you are one
   of the most active, and therefore I personally can hardly understand most of
   the discussions with you censored out. I have to ask, If I somehow swallow
   that this person has sound personal reasons and we need him, yet this person
   may make one or two contributions per year, why do the rest of the
   discussions have to be private? His/her contributions do not preclude
   transparency as much as the other censored replies.


-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
best to have a confidential list.

Some members were of the opinion that this was not what they wanted for
their contributions, they decided to disregard the agreed need for
confidentiality and opt out. It just so happens that I am the most prolific
member of the list.

As to the reason for the language committee, at the time there was a growing
backlash against the growing list of Wikipedias. They were effectively dead
and many still are moribund. They were created using the premisse "if we
create it, they will come". As a result we have Wikipedias where the
language will not be recognised by people who *know* the language as being
properly written in that language. They are written by people who have a
1923 dictionary while others have a 19th century grammar book..

The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
the flow of new Wikipedias now down to a trickle, the new Wikipedias prove
that the policy functions. We do not have people clamouring for the end of
new projects.

The language policy requires a certain level of localisation before it
considers any new project. A new language requires that the "most used"
messages (some 500 messages) are localised. Subsequent projects currently
require the full localisation of MediaWiki core and the localisation of the
messages that belong to the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation.
These requirements have had a profound beneficial effect on the usability
for these languages. There are people who bemoan the fact that the
requirement for subsequent projects is tough, the rationale is that
localisation of MediaWiki requires continuous effort. This effort is
supported by the LocalisationUpdate extension that I asked a friend of mine
to develop. LocalisationUpdate ensures that new localisations coming into
SVN will go live within 24 hours.

In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
understood within the committee. The language policy does what it is
designed to do. We actively support languages and have been instrumental in
getting languages registered in the ISO-639-3 standard. The language
committee is not a talking shop, we implement an agreed policy.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 26 August 2010 00:41, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck  wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
> > the discussions secret
>
>
> Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
> sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Ray Saintonge]

Muhammad Yahia wrote:
>> Exactly what I thought first. But he's from ar.wp, so I guess he's
>> referring to arz.wp,
>> 
> I hope you realize there are two different ppl in that quote above (it's
> mis-attributing it to me, and it seems like I am agreeing with myself :) ).
> I personally dont have any current issues with arz.wp and I hope the
> discussion does not go into that direction, because really my points were
> not about a certain project.
>
>   
The problem with "I guess he's referring to ..." is that it's entirely 
speculative.  It adds a dimension that may or may not be supported by 
facts.  If the issue is about the general operational procedures of the 
language committee, their decision in regards to a single language 
should not become the focus.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mark Williamson]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> Erm ... huh?
>
> 1) If you're interested in helping, and have experience/knowledge of 
> languages, then get involved with the committee.

I have wanted to be part of the committee since before its inception,
but back then I felt I would probably not be welcome. Now, I'm not
sure what the process is and I'm also unsure as to whether or not I'm
wanted there.

> 2) They're getting things achieved - they're fostering the development of new 
> language projects, making decisions, getting the projects started, and doing 
> this in a very effective way. Compare this with the ineffectual procedure for 
> starting an entirely new project in any language, which hasn't gotten 
> anywhere in the last 3(?) years.

Let's see how many successful language versions of Wikipedia were
started before the language committee was created... hundreds. Now
let's see how many have been created in the last year:

North Frisian (1 speakers in a wealthy Western European country)
Karachay-Balkar (40 speakers in the Caucasus, again, as far as I
can tell, Europe)
Picard (perhaps 50 speakers in another wealthy Western European country)

That's three. It is my firm belief that some of the requirements of
the language committee set the bar too high for new language editions,
requiring infrastructure to be built, interface translated and content
created, all to degrees that seem unnecessary to me. Yes, these
measures often ensure that a new Wiki will be successful within a very
short period of time, but at what cost? The exclusion of dozens of
requests in languages that already have content and community dying to
get started.

> 3) Please point to _recent_ examples where they've made a bad choice (i.e. 
> Klingon doesn't count, as that was before their time). I'm not aware of any.

Inaction and setting the bar too high, as well as excluding Ancient
Greek WP against what seemed at the time to be community consensus
against such exclusion, count as bad decisions for me. Overregulation
of the Incubator, including deletion of painstakingly created content
(for example, the Riverense Portuñol test WP) just because there is no
valid ISO code yet also strikes me as not only counterproductive but
also cruel, although I'm not sure this is within the remit of the
language committee.

> I agree that it's not good that they have a hidden discussion forum; as much 
> as possible of the discussion leading up to a new project should be public, 
> and i can't see a reason for secrecy. Apart from that, though, I don't 
> understand these (somewhat bitchy) comments at all...

Debates about languages have been going on since nearly the beginning
of Wikipedia. This is just a continuation of the same old stuff.

-m.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:46 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> Gerard, do you have anything to say about this? I really don't see how
> this is considered acceptable. Perhaps you can explain.

Rather than focusing on one specific person who didn't opt in, it
would be more helpful imho to reconsider the "private vs public
archives" question. If the community feels the content of the list
should be disclosed publicly to increase transparency, then a decision
should be taken to make the archives public. If this decision is taken
and some committee members are unhappy with it, they're free to
resign. We can hardly criticize someone for not opting in to disclose
publicly what they write on a private mailing list.

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.gpaumier.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 26 August 2010 00:39, Marcus Buck  wrote:
>  An'n 26.08.2010 00:41, hett David Gerard schreven:
>> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck  wrote:

>>> Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
>>> the discussions secret

>> Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
>> sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.

> Well, the latest archive (June 2009) is here:
> 
> The other committee members' posts are shown, but Gerard's are all
> replaced with: 
> Somewhere on Meta there is a discussion years ago (I cannot recall
> whether I asked him or whether it was somebody else who asked) where
> Gerard explains his decision. I am unable to find it (perhaps it was
> removed from the public archives? ;-) ). But if I remember correctly his
> answer was not that helpful. It was something along the lines of "I have
> my reasons, but I cannot disclose them in public".


Gerard, do you have anything to say about this? I really don't see how
this is considered acceptable. Perhaps you can explain.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 26.08.2010 00:41, hett David Gerard schreven:
> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck  wrote:
>> Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
>> the discussions secret
> Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
> sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.
Well, the latest archive (June 2009) is here: 

The other committee members' posts are shown, but Gerard's are all 
replaced with: 

Somewhere on Meta there is a discussion years ago (I cannot recall 
whether I asked him or whether it was somebody else who asked) where 
Gerard explains his decision. I am unable to find it (perhaps it was 
removed from the public archives? ;-) ). But if I remember correctly his 
answer was not that helpful. It was something along the lines of "I have 
my reasons, but I cannot disclose them in public".

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 26.08.2010 01:02, hett Muhammad Yahia schreven:
>>> On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia   wrote:
 I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
 it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
 controlled like this..
 resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host
>> for
 childish projects that's
 written in a funny language never seen written before in
 any respectable scientific book, website, etc..

 --
 - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
>>> Erm ... huh?
>> Exactly what I thought first. But he's from ar.wp, so I guess he's
>> referring to arz.wp,
>
> I hope you realize there are two different ppl in that quote above (it's
> mis-attributing it to me, and it seems like I am agreeing with myself :) ).
> I personally dont have any current issues with arz.wp and I hope the
> discussion does not go into that direction, because really my points were
> not about a certain project.
Sorry for the misattribution and sorry for making false assumptions. 
Well, so I second Michael Peel:

Erm ... huh?

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

>> On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
> >> I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
> >> it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
> >> controlled like this..
> >> resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host
> for
> >> childish projects that's
> >> written in a funny language never seen written before in
> >> any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
> > Erm ... huh?
> Exactly what I thought first. But he's from ar.wp, so I guess he's
> referring to arz.wp,


I hope you realize there are two different ppl in that quote above (it's
mis-attributing it to me, and it seems like I am agreeing with myself :) ).
I personally dont have any current issues with arz.wp and I hope the
discussion does not go into that direction, because really my points were
not about a certain project.

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[David Gerard]

On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck  wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
> the discussions secret


Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 25.08.2010 22:42, hett Michael Peel schreven:
>> On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
>> I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
>> it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
>> controlled like this..
>> resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for
>> childish projects that's
>> written in a funny language never seen written before in
>> any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
>>
>> -- 
>> - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
> Erm ... huh?
Exactly what I thought first. But he's from ar.wp, so I guess he's 
referring to arz.wp, the Egyptian Arabic version of Wikipedia. Arabic 
(similar to Chinese) is actually a big group of languages which are 
arched by a common standard. Supporters of the standard consider the 
different Arabic languages as dialects and their use in written form as 
an assault on the common Arabic culture.

Although I don't share his view on arz.wp I do share his negative view 
on the Language Committee. Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to 
the discussions secret and even for the more-willing-to-share committee 
members there are no archives since June 2009.

The committee claims success for the fact that none of the projects 
approved by them has failed ("failed" in the sense like Herero and 
Kanuri have failed, not producing any articles in years). That claim is 
correct, but it also came with a significant decline in approval 
numbers. When the language approval policy was created in 2006 we had 
about 250 wikipedias (that's 50 per year since 2001). Now we have 270 
wikipedias. 20 new wikipedias in almost 4 years... (that's 5 per year.)

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Nathan]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> It's true that the work of the Language Community

That should be Language Committee, of course.

~Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Nathan]

It's true that the work of the Language Community stands out as one of
the few areas of community participation (in that the LangCom members
are not employees of the WMF) closed to public or community
observation. Certain other groups do this (the English Wikipedia
Arbitration Committee comes to mind, as do checkuser lists, because of
the private information potentially disclosed to these groups) but the
reasoning used to censor the LangCom records is... quirky, to say the
least. I think most everyone would be more comfortable if the
committee performed its work in the open -- aside, I suppose, from
those committee members who prefer to be protected from scrutiny.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

Hello,

Nearly every email posted
> to the private list is copied to the public archives, unless the
> poster asks to be excluded. Discussions are summarized, to ensure that
> censored messages don't reduce transparency.


To illustrate my point: I did try to follow the discussions for some time
when it was being archived, I had a very hard time doing that with the
'censored' messages and replies.

The following link is from the last archive out there (June 2009). It's
pretty hard (at least for me) to follow the discussion, it gets especially
hard on messages 14-16. The summary is just one line that doesn't really say
much.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Archives/2009-06#Compendium_projects


I still don't understand why would a participant in a committee in an openly
public institution like the WMF would want/be allowed to  have his input
'censored' this way. I dont see anything in there that would warrant
censorship, they are certainly not making life-or-death decisions about the
future of the world :) .

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mohamed Ibrahim]

On 25 August 2010 23:42, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Erm ... huh?
>
> 1) If you're interested in helping, and have experience/knowledge of
> languages, then get involved with the committee.
>
> 2) They're getting things achieved - they're fostering the development of
> new language projects, making decisions, getting the projects started, and
> doing this in a very effective way. Compare this with the ineffectual
> procedure for starting an entirely new project in any language, which hasn't
> gotten anywhere in the last 3(?) years.
>
>
I agree the committee did a good job in their mission and I'm not
generalizing my critique, I misworded my comment.

3) Please point to _recent_ examples where they've made a bad choice (i.e.
> Klingon doesn't count, as that was before their time). I'm not aware of any.
>
>
I'm not willing to open a long discussion on something that most people are
not willing to reconsider and I respected that and left the newly-opened
project to see what will happen.
However, the main point that triggered my comment was that I was just
browsing through and found really a poor standard of language and articles
that I even felt uncomfortable that the Wikipedia logo was over there.
I just hope that in the future the process will be more transparent and
considers all sides of the matter. I hope no one were offended as I didn't
mean it this way, and if in anyway I could help I won't hesitate to step in.

I agree that it's not good that they have a hidden discussion forum; as much
> as possible of the discussion leading up to a new project should be public,
> and i can't see a reason for secrecy. Apart from that, though, I don't
> understand these (somewhat bitchy) comments at all...
>
> Mike
>
> On 25 Aug 2010, at 21:21, Mohamed Ibrahim wrote:
>
> > On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Williamson 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
> >>> Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
> >>> oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
> >>> "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
> >>> judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
> >>> overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
> >>> people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
> >>> the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
> >>> community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
> >>> what they please.
> >>>
> >>> -m.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Add to that the fact that a portion of their discussion archives is
> >> deliberately hidden from the public as if they are debating state
> security
> >> issues. So even after a decision is taken, we only have a patchy view of
> >> the
> >> process that led to that decision.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Muhammad Yahia
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
> > it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
> > controlled like this..
> > resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host
> for
> > childish projects that's
> > written in a funny language never seen written before in
> > any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
> >
> > --
> > - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
- Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Jesse (Pathoschild)]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Mark Williamson  wrote:
> I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
> Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
> oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
> "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
> judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
> overwhelmingly European ivory tower.


Hello again Mark,

The language committee does not work in mysterious ways; it has a
defined charter and strictly applies a public policy which defines the
reasons requests are approved or rejected. Nearly every email posted
to the private list is copied to the public archives, unless the
poster asks to be excluded. Discussions are summarized, to ensure that
censored messages don't reduce transparency. These archives have
fallen out of date recently, so a new member has recently joined the
committee to help with archival.

If you have any concrete suggestions such as changes to the policy,
we're always looking to improve.

-- 
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

>
>
> resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for
> childish projects that's
> written in a funny language never seen written before in
> any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
>
> I do not necessarily agree with that. I think the majority of the projects
approved are doing fine. My problem is with the closed process that does not
lend itself to improvement:


   - Members are appointed by the committee itself (self-appointed as Mark
   says), this doesn't lend itself to diversity or difference in opinion.
   - The archives are not totally public (some messages are, some messages
   are not), leaving a patchy history , so we cannot go back and discuss with
   the committee something we think needs improvement, because we simply will
   not know how the decision was taken.

So I don't know how transparency has increased? if the community has no say
in choosing members and does not have access to the deliberation archive,
what exactly has become more transparent?


-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Michael Peel]

Erm ... huh?

1) If you're interested in helping, and have experience/knowledge of languages, 
then get involved with the committee.

2) They're getting things achieved - they're fostering the development of new 
language projects, making decisions, getting the projects started, and doing 
this in a very effective way. Compare this with the ineffectual procedure for 
starting an entirely new project in any language, which hasn't gotten anywhere 
in the last 3(?) years.

3) Please point to _recent_ examples where they've made a bad choice (i.e. 
Klingon doesn't count, as that was before their time). I'm not aware of any.

I agree that it's not good that they have a hidden discussion forum; as much as 
possible of the discussion leading up to a new project should be public, and i 
can't see a reason for secrecy. Apart from that, though, I don't understand 
these (somewhat bitchy) comments at all...

Mike

On 25 Aug 2010, at 21:21, Mohamed Ibrahim wrote:

> On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Williamson 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
>>> Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
>>> oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
>>> "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
>>> judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
>>> overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
>>> people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
>>> the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
>>> community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
>>> what they please.
>>> 
>>> -m.
>>> 
>>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Add to that the fact that a portion of their discussion archives is
>> deliberately hidden from the public as if they are debating state security
>> issues. So even after a decision is taken, we only have a patchy view of
>> the
>> process that led to that decision.
>> 
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Muhammad Yahia
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> 
> 
> I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
> it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
> controlled like this..
> resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for
> childish projects that's
> written in a funny language never seen written before in
> any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
> 
> -- 
> - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mohamed Ibrahim]

On 25 August 2010 23:01, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Williamson 
> wrote:
>
> > I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
> > Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
> > oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
> > "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
> > judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
> > overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
> > people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
> > the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
> > community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
> > what they please.
> >
> > -m.
> >
> >
> +1
>
> Add to that the fact that a portion of their discussion archives is
> deliberately hidden from the public as if they are debating state security
> issues. So even after a decision is taken, we only have a patchy view of
> the
> process that led to that decision.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Yahia
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I agree with what Muhammad and Mark has said
it's a pity that such resolutions that affect the whole community is
controlled like this..
resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for
childish projects that's
written in a funny language never seen written before in
any respectable scientific book, website, etc..

-- 
- Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/  "Share your knowledge"
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:48:25 -0700, Mark Williamson 
wrote:
> I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
> Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
> oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
> "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
> judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
> overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
> people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
> the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
> community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
> what they please.
> 
> -m.
> 

I do not think it is fair. Things have become much more transparent. 

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
> Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
> oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
> "experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
> judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
> overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
> people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
> the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
> community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
> what they please.
>
> -m.
>
>
+1

Add to that the fact that a portion of their discussion archives is
deliberately hidden from the public as if they are debating state security
issues. So even after a decision is taken, we only have a patchy view of the
process that led to that decision.

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Mark Williamson]

I think it has been proven many times over now that the Language
Committee works in mysterious ways with little or no community
oversight or input, essentially a self-appointed committee of
"experts", mostly from similar linguistic backgrounds, handing down
judgements about the rest of the world's languages from their
overwhelmingly European ivory tower. It seems we as a community of
people who care deeply about the future of potential new languages and
the success of existing language versions within our Wikimedia
community have no choice but to watch from the sidelines as they do
what they please.

-m.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:29:01 +0300, "Amir E. Aharoni"
>  wrote:
>> Some good news: The Sakha Wiki community keeps being surprisingly
>> active. I don't know this language, but i read the mailing list of
>> that community, which is mostly written in Russian, and often
>> contribute to it (i also asked to migrate that list to Wikimedia
>> servers and it will probably happen soon [1]).
>>
>
> Now it may sound like a joke, but the opening of Sakha Wikipedia had been
> delayed some two years ago because the Language Committee did not believe
> that the Incubator pages have actually been written in Sakha. Now this is
> one of the most dynamic Turkic language projects, and I am proud to be a
> regular editor of this Wiki.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The language committee has had the sad experience that people suggested that
a Wikipedia was in a particular language while it was not. There are still
Wikipedias where people native to a language object to it because they do
not recognise it as properly written in their language. We have tried to end
such projects and there was no consensus to be had. As a consequence we are
looking for external confirmation that what is written in a language is
indeed written in that language. This can only be done ahead of the creation
of a new project.

Finding an external expert who is willing to provide us with such
confirmation is not always easy. As to Sakha I am really happy with this
project it is one of the best examples of why new Wikipedias make sense.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 24 August 2010 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:29:01 +0300, "Amir E. Aharoni"
>  wrote:
> > Some good news: The Sakha Wiki community keeps being surprisingly
> > active. I don't know this language, but i read the mailing list of
> > that community, which is mostly written in Russian, and often
> > contribute to it (i also asked to migrate that list to Wikimedia
> > servers and it will probably happen soon [1]).
> >
>
> Now it may sound like a joke, but the opening of Sakha Wikipedia had been
> delayed some two years ago because the Language Committee did not believe
> that the Incubator pages have actually been written in Sakha. Now this is
> one of the most dynamic Turkic language projects, and I am proud to be a
> regular editor of this Wiki.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> 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] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Ting Chen]

  Congratulations.

Am 24.08.2010 08:29, wrote Amir E. Aharoni:
> Some good news: The Sakha Wiki community keeps being surprisingly
> active. I don't know this language, but i read the mailing list of
> that community, which is mostly written in Russian, and often
> contribute to it (i also asked to migrate that list to Wikimedia
> servers and it will probably happen soon [1]).
>
> Unlike many other minor-language communities that created a few
> articles and stalled, this one is somewhat slowly, but very surely,
> going on for years. Their Wikipedia is properly localized and they
> recently passed the 7000 article mark. There are many short stubs, but
> they are written by people and not just bots, which is quite
> promising.
>
> To celebrate the 7000th article, HalanTul, one of the prominent
> community members, wrote a blog post about it and about the basics of
> editing Wikipedia in general.[2] It is in Russian and a little Sakha,
> but you may find the illustrations interesting. It shows what to do
> with red links (make them blue!), how to use basic markup (bold,
> heading) and how to work with links and categories. Note that the
> screenshots use the new Vector skin.
>
> HalanTul is also quite active in cultural organizations: He goes to
> meetings of organizations that promote regional languages -
> governmental and NGO's, Russian and international, including UNESCO
> and blogs about it, too.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24676
> [2] http://dnevniki.ykt.ru/viewcomment.aspx?uid=7781&mid=412622
>


-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:29:01 +0300, "Amir E. Aharoni"
 wrote:
> Some good news: The Sakha Wiki community keeps being surprisingly
> active. I don't know this language, but i read the mailing list of
> that community, which is mostly written in Russian, and often
> contribute to it (i also asked to migrate that list to Wikimedia
> servers and it will probably happen soon [1]).
> 

Now it may sound like a joke, but the opening of Sakha Wikipedia had been
delayed some two years ago because the Language Committee did not believe
that the Incubator pages have actually been written in Sakha. Now this is
one of the most dynamic Turkic language projects, and I am proud to be a
regular editor of this Wiki. 

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Some good news: The Sakha Wiki community keeps being surprisingly
active. I don't know this language, but i read the mailing list of
that community, which is mostly written in Russian, and often
contribute to it (i also asked to migrate that list to Wikimedia
servers and it will probably happen soon [1]).

Unlike many other minor-language communities that created a few
articles and stalled, this one is somewhat slowly, but very surely,
going on for years. Their Wikipedia is properly localized and they
recently passed the 7000 article mark. There are many short stubs, but
they are written by people and not just bots, which is quite
promising.

To celebrate the 7000th article, HalanTul, one of the prominent
community members, wrote a blog post about it and about the basics of
editing Wikipedia in general.[2] It is in Russian and a little Sakha,
but you may find the illustrations interesting. It shows what to do
with red links (make them blue!), how to use basic markup (bold,
heading) and how to work with links and categories. Note that the
screenshots use the new Vector skin.

HalanTul is also quite active in cultural organizations: He goes to
meetings of organizations that promote regional languages -
governmental and NGO's, Russian and international, including UNESCO
and blogs about it, too.

[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24676
[2] http://dnevniki.ykt.ru/viewcomment.aspx?uid=7781&mid=412622

-- 
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni

http://aharoni.wordpress.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