Nabble - WikiMedia Foundation

Re: Strategy document?

2008-10-10T07:14:28Z

--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:

> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Strategy document?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@...>
> Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:59 AM
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Nikola Smolenski
> <smolensk@...> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 October 2008 01:07:28 Gregory Maxwell
> wrote:
> >> How do you draw slurs in abc? (Trick question...)
> Saying abc is a
> >> replacement for lilypond is like saying that plain
> text is a
> >> replacement for LaTeX math, strictly correct but
> with significant
> >> compromises.
> >>
> >> The right thing to do is to offer a limited subset
> of the language
> >> just as we don't allow SVG+js.
> >
> > However, for years, no one is able to offer that
> limited subset.
>
> I don't know that anyone has bothered trying, or at
> least I know that
> I haven't. I had been under the impression that the
> blocker was the
> general architecture of the WikiTeX stuff which had nothing
> to do with
> lilypond. The scheme stuff should be relatively straight
> forward to
> disallow.
>

Are you saying that you now plan to bother trying?

I am sure that there are tons of cool things that can be done with different kinds of software if only developers would volunteer the time to work on the issues. Nikola is volunteering to work on abc and other developers seem to respond with "but Lilypond is cooler" All I know is Wikisource has been getting requests for music for years. After my prodding, I had been told that it is up to Lilypond to fix their issues before WMF will consider enabling the software. None of our devs seem willing to make Lilypond work. The bug has been open for 4 years. If we have someone volunteering to get abc working for Wikisource, what is the issue? Whatever the defects, it is a great improvement over page scans.

Birgitte SB

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

Re: Strategy document?

2008-10-09T22:59:40Z

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wrote:

> On Friday 10 October 2008 01:07:28 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> How do you draw slurs in abc? (Trick question...) Saying abc is a
>> replacement for lilypond is like saying that plain text is a
>> replacement for LaTeX math, strictly correct but with significant
>> compromises.
>>
>> The right thing to do is to offer a limited subset of the language
>> just as we don't allow SVG+js.
>
> However, for years, no one is able to offer that limited subset.

I don't know that anyone has bothered trying, or at least I know that
I haven't. I had been under the impression that the blocker was the
general architecture of the WikiTeX stuff which had nothing to do with
lilypond. The scheme stuff should be relatively straight forward to
disallow.

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

Re: Strategy document?

2008-10-09T19:03:58Z

On Friday 10 October 2008 01:07:28 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> How do you draw slurs in abc? (Trick question...) Saying abc is a
> replacement for lilypond is like saying that plain text is a
> replacement for LaTeX math, strictly correct but with significant
> compromises.
>
> The right thing to do is to offer a limited subset of the language
> just as we don't allow SVG+js.

However, for years, no one is able to offer that limited subset.

> On 10/3/08, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wrote:
> > On Friday 03 October 2008 18:56:17 Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > 2008/10/3 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> >> >> 2008/10/3 geni <geniice@...>:
> >> >>> 2008/10/3 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...>:
> >> >>>> Birgitte SB wrote:
> >> >>>>> Ability to transcribe musical scores in wikitext.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Easily doable.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Close. It's been done but with security issues.
> >> >>
> >> >> o_0 Dare I ask?
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't aware that music could be used as a dangerous weapon
> >> > either... surely it's just putting lots of pictures together?
> >>
> >> The problem is that the solution people have proposed, LilyPond,
> >> includes a scripting language. There's a safe mode to disable some of
> >> the more unpleasant features, but apparently that's not safe enough:
> >> it can still easily be DoS'd by infinite loops. Info on LilyPond's
> >> safe mode:
> >
> > There is the other solution, ABC notation. To my knowledge, it is fully
> > adequate for our needs, and there are no security problems.

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

Re: Strategy document?

2008-10-09T16:07:28Z

How do you draw slurs in abc? (Trick question...) Saying abc is a
replacement for lilypond is like saying that plain text is a
replacement for LaTeX math, strictly correct but with significant
compromises.

The right thing to do is to offer a limited subset of the language
just as we don't allow SVG+js.

On 10/3/08, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wrote:

> On Friday 03 October 2008 18:56:17 Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>
> wrote:
>> > 2008/10/3 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
>> >> 2008/10/3 geni <geniice@...>:
>> >>> 2008/10/3 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...>:
>> >>>> Birgitte SB wrote:
>> >>>>> Ability to transcribe musical scores in wikitext.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Easily doable.
>> >>>
>> >>> Close. It's been done but with security issues.
>> >>
>> >> o_0 Dare I ask?
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware that music could be used as a dangerous weapon
>> > either... surely it's just putting lots of pictures together?
>>
>> The problem is that the solution people have proposed, LilyPond,
>> includes a scripting language. There's a safe mode to disable some of
>> the more unpleasant features, but apparently that's not safe enough:
>> it can still easily be DoS'd by infinite loops. Info on LilyPond's
>> safe mode:
>
> There is the other solution, ABC notation. To my knowledge, it is fully
> adequate for our needs, and there are no security problems.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T12:06:55Z

Hi Ziko,

I am definitely interested in proofreading. It's one of my favorite tasks :)

Mark

2008/10/9 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@...>:

> By the way, fellows, I am preparing a paper on Wikipedias in lesser
> resourced languages, and who is interested in proof reading, is
> welcome to contact me.
> Ziko van Dijk
>
> 2008/10/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...>:
>> Muhammad Alsebaey schrieb:
>>> The other 2 were those dialects being mostly spoken with no stable
>>> orthography, and the third to requote here was:
>>>
>> For me this is the only relevant argument. Is it meaningful to create a
>> wikipedia version in a language, which doesn't have a standard writing
>> system, what means that only few people can really use it to write or
>> read. Would such a wikipedia version really purposeful for gathering
>> knowledge, would it really useful for the native speakers.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@...
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T09:21:24Z

By the way, fellows, I am preparing a paper on Wikipedias in lesser
resourced languages, and who is interested in proof reading, is
welcome to contact me.
Ziko van Dijk

2008/10/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...>:

> Muhammad Alsebaey schrieb:
>> The other 2 were those dialects being mostly spoken with no stable
>> orthography, and the third to requote here was:
>>
> For me this is the only relevant argument. Is it meaningful to create a
> wikipedia version in a language, which doesn't have a standard writing
> system, what means that only few people can really use it to write or
> read. Would such a wikipedia version really purposeful for gathering
> knowledge, would it really useful for the native speakers.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T08:51:00Z

Muhammad Alsebaey schrieb:
> The other 2 were those dialects being mostly spoken with no stable
> orthography, and the third to requote here was:
>
For me this is the only relevant argument. Is it meaningful to create a
wikipedia version in a language, which doesn't have a standard writing
system, what means that only few people can really use it to write or
read. Would such a wikipedia version really purposeful for gathering
knowledge, would it really useful for the native speakers.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T08:37:56Z

Muhammad Alsebaey schrieb:
> It wont be hard to imagine groups interested in promoting this canvassing
> just to prove their point, do we want to get involved in such an argument?
> is it wikipedia's place to? isnt such a statement already made by Wikimedia
> creating one of the first bodies of written text in the language?
>
No, it is not. If someone think they can use Wikipedia as a political
argument, they are wrong, and it can very simply be pointed out that it
is wrong. If someone do try it, he would find out very quickly, how fast
this would be a boomeran for himself.

And for me to be the first is never an argument against doing something.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T08:36:42Z

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster@...>wrote:

> [snip]

In my mind, the best way to go about those languages is wait and see if
> their
> actual speakers adopt them as written and THEN grant them wikipedias. i.e,
> have one of the rules (beside having the sacred ISO code) be ' The
> proposers
> should point to a substantial body of written literature' or something like
> that.
>

Good luck getting everyone to decide what is "substantial." Some would
consider a single long-running magazine to be evidence, others would
require a library of books.

I mean hell, we can't even come to an agreement on what's considered
"notable," much less what is considered "substantial."

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T08:25:01Z

I had 3 concerns (per my original email). One of them was duplication of
efforts which is not a concern anymore for me.

The other 2 were those dialects being mostly spoken with no stable
orthography, and the third to requote here was:

It wont be hard to imagine groups interested in promoting this canvassing
just to prove their point, do we want to get involved in such an argument?
is it wikipedia's place to? isnt such a statement already made by Wikimedia
creating one of the first bodies of written text in the language?

I dont care whether the argument in my country goes whichever way, my
concern is *NOT* political as such (if you meant by that whether If I am on
either side of this fence), I have been called by Gerard 'a champion of
standard Arabic' , which is not true, I dont oppose Masry or the others
because I think Arabic is 'best'. I just dont think WMF should take a
stance. and *changing* the status quo is doing so. Why do we claim we are a
secondary source of information? for the exact same reasons IMHO. In my
mind, the best way to go about those languages is wait and see if their
actual speakers adopt them as written and THEN grant them wikipedias. i.e,
have one of the rules (beside having the sacred ISO code) be ' The proposers
should point to a substantial body of written literature' or something like
that.

Also, the canvassing goes back to Aphaia's point, If people will be writing
on this wp just to prove a point, there is bound to be heavy systemic bias
created not just by the normal bias of the population of editor, but rather,
by the fact that the language itself is in the middle of reforming.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...> wrote:

> Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> > It is not a political stand that the first body of written non-fiction
> work
> > published in Egyptian Arabic will be on Wikipedia? I said before that
> there
> > is an ongoing debate in Egypt about the adoption of Egyptian Arabic as
> > written in addition to being spoken in order to bolster the national
> > identity of Egypt. This debate is currently dead in the water AFAIK, with
> a
> > lot of argument going for and against. Wikipedia hosting the first
> > non-fiction written work *is* a political stand in this debate IMHO.
> >
> >
> No, in no way. You must simply understand that we do not make decisions
> because one politiker want something is true or another politiker want
> something to be wrong. If your concern is a political, then I give
> Gerard right. We follow international standards. If you have a problem.
> Go to ISO and complain there.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T01:40:19Z

Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> It is not a political stand that the first body of written non-fiction work
> published in Egyptian Arabic will be on Wikipedia? I said before that there
> is an ongoing debate in Egypt about the adoption of Egyptian Arabic as
> written in addition to being spoken in order to bolster the national
> identity of Egypt. This debate is currently dead in the water AFAIK, with a
> lot of argument going for and against. Wikipedia hosting the first
> non-fiction written work *is* a political stand in this debate IMHO.
>
>
No, in no way. You must simply understand that we do not make decisions
because one politiker want something is true or another politiker want
something to be wrong. If your concern is a political, then I give
Gerard right. We follow international standards. If you have a problem.
Go to ISO and complain there.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T01:37:16Z

It no more a political stand to grant Egyptian Arabic speakers a platform than it would be to deny them a platform. Remember people actually solicited WMF for this Wikipedia to exist. Making a decision either way on such a request is not a political stand.

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster@...> wrote:

> From: Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster@...>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On Arabic and sub-language proposals.
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@...>
> Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 2:01 AM
> It is not a political stand that the first body of written
> non-fiction work
> published in Egyptian Arabic will be on Wikipedia? I said
> before that there
> is an ongoing debate in Egypt about the adoption of
> Egyptian Arabic as
> written in addition to being spoken in order to bolster the
> national
> identity of Egypt. This debate is currently dead in the
> water AFAIK, with a
> lot of argument going for and against. Wikipedia hosting
> the first
> non-fiction written work *is* a political stand in this
> debate IMHO.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Ting Chen
> <wing.philopp@...> wrote:
>
> > Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> > > Hi Ting,
> > >
> > > In the days since I have first sent my email, I
> talked to several people,
> > > and due to their arguments, I am less worried now
> about division of
> > effort,
> > > however, I still strongly believe that my
> arguments about the language
> > being
> > > mostly a spoken one with no stable orthography
> and that by WMF approving
> > any
> > > of those dialects/language, it will be
> essentially making a political
> > stand,
> > > still hold.
> > >
> > No, I don't think that we make any political
> stand. For me politics is
> > neither an argument for nor against anything. If you
> are saying that the
> > LangCom is political insensitive, for me it is not a
> failure. For me it
> > is a merit.
> >
> > Ting
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@...
> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Alsebaey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-09T00:01:41Z

It is not a political stand that the first body of written non-fiction work
published in Egyptian Arabic will be on Wikipedia? I said before that there
is an ongoing debate in Egypt about the adoption of Egyptian Arabic as
written in addition to being spoken in order to bolster the national
identity of Egypt. This debate is currently dead in the water AFAIK, with a
lot of argument going for and against. Wikipedia hosting the first
non-fiction written work *is* a political stand in this debate IMHO.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...> wrote:

> Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> > Hi Ting,
> >
> > In the days since I have first sent my email, I talked to several people,
> > and due to their arguments, I am less worried now about division of
> effort,
> > however, I still strongly believe that my arguments about the language
> being
> > mostly a spoken one with no stable orthography and that by WMF approving
> any
> > of those dialects/language, it will be essentially making a political
> stand,
> > still hold.
> >
> No, I don't think that we make any political stand. For me politics is
> neither an argument for nor against anything. If you are saying that the
> LangCom is political insensitive, for me it is not a failure. For me it
> is a merit.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T23:24:42Z

Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> Hi Ting,
>
> In the days since I have first sent my email, I talked to several people,
> and due to their arguments, I am less worried now about division of effort,
> however, I still strongly believe that my arguments about the language being
> mostly a spoken one with no stable orthography and that by WMF approving any
> of those dialects/language, it will be essentially making a political stand,
> still hold.
>
No, I don't think that we make any political stand. For me politics is
neither an argument for nor against anything. If you are saying that the
LangCom is political insensitive, for me it is not a failure. For me it
is a merit.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T19:19:45Z

Mark Williamson wrote:
> A good, comprehensive study is needed (and probably already exists) to
> better classify the varieties of Arabic, because SIL has done a
> piss-poor job. It's shameful, considering just how many people speak
> one or another variety of Arabic.
>
It does exist, but the problem is that dozens of such studies exist,
arriving at different results. =] There is also disagreement over the
extent to which it even makes sense to classify Arabic into distinct
varieties, given the complex varieties of diglossia (to the point of
"multiglossia"), continuums along multiple axes of variation, and
discrepancies between speakers' reported dialect/language and actual
grammatical features.

A decent survey can be found in the editor's introduction to the
collection _Understanding Arabic_ (1996, ed. A. Elgibali, ISBN
9774243722), and in more details in some of the papers therein.

Of course, I'm no expert in the field; have just read a small amount of
what's written by people who are. It's a complex enough area that it's
basically an entire field of research.

-Mark

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T12:27:07Z

I am particularly curious about the status of Egyptian. How different
would an Egyptian Wikipedia actually be from a Modern Standard Arabic
Wikipedia? Of course, there are lots of differences, but many of them
are with short vowels, which aren't regularly transcribed in Arabic
anyhow.

I think it would make more sense to have a Moroccan Wikipedia than an
Egyptian Wikipedia. Egyptian and Modern Standard Arabic aren't hugely
different on paper. Moroccan (a dialect of Derija, the North African
Arabic, according to some), on the other hand, is hardly intelligible,
although again in writing it is easier than in speaking.

Of course, the Langcom trusts ISO singularly, and doesn't actually
seem to debate things like whether or not a separate Wikipedia is
actually necessary or a good idea. I think, personally, that the wrong
decision was made in the case of Egyptian (I realize the decision is
"final" and "cannot" be rescinded).

If we get proposals for other Arabic varieties, such as North
Levantine Arabic or Gulf Arabic or something along those lines, I
think we need to evaluate it more carefully.

While I am of the opinion that Arabic is certainly a macrolanguage
with different languages encompassed by it, I don't think the
Ethnologue (and by extension, ISO) makes more than the most arbitrary
distinctions between varieties, often based on political rather than
linguistic borders. Some of them should probably be combined based on
the rubric of mutual intelligibility, or at least somebody should have
looked into that idea. Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, and Moroccan
shouldn't be divided based on country as they currently are.

A good, comprehensive study is needed (and probably already exists) to
better classify the varieties of Arabic, because SIL has done a
piss-poor job. It's shameful, considering just how many people speak
one or another variety of Arabic.

Mark

2008/10/8 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster@...>:

> Hi Ting,
>
> In the days since I have first sent my email, I talked to several people,
> and due to their arguments, I am less worried now about division of effort,
> however, I still strongly believe that my arguments about the language being
> mostly a spoken one with no stable orthography and that by WMF approving any
> of those dialects/language, it will be essentially making a political stand,
> still hold.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello Muhammad,
>>
>> as I first heard about the discussion of the establishment of an
>> egyptian arabic wikipedia I find the situation is quite similar to the
>> discussion two years ago, as the first minor chinase language wikipedia
>> was about to start. So I think maybe the experience we had in the
>> chinese language wikipedias can help you a little. Though, this is my
>> personnal impression, it is not representative and if surely do not
>> match the standards of an academic research (indeed I would find such a
>> research helpful and interesting).
>>
>> Before the first minor chinese language wikipedia was started there was
>> a long during (I believe at least one year or more) discussion inside
>> the by that time chinese community. The arguments exchanged by that time
>> (for or against) are very similar to the arguments that are now put up
>> in the arabic community. I personnaly took at that time a skeptic view
>> against a new chinese wikipedia. My concern at that time was mainly of
>> the division of the community.
>>
>> Now, after more than two and a half years, we have seven chinese
>> language wikipedias, these are zh (the standard chinese, mandarin),
>> zh-yue (cantonese the first minor chinese language wikipedia established
>> in march 2006), wuu, cdo (min-dong-language), gan, hak (hak-ka language)
>> and the zh-classic (the classic language). Except the zh-classic all
>> other languages have native speakers, some have established writing
>> system, some not.
>>
>> For me personally, after two and half a year of experience, the most
>> important conclusion is that my original faer of a splitting of the
>> community proved to be wrong. Especially the yue-language wikipedia
>> developped well. It is a small (far more smaller than zh) community, but
>> it is a vivid and sustainable community, with a lot of interchanges
>> between zh and zh-yue communities. I find this interchange very
>> fruitful. We have articles originally in zh-wp transfered to zh-yue-wp
>> and vice versa. I think the creation of this language version very
>> beneficial.
>>
>> Not so well do the wuu and gan wp develop. Both languages suffer from
>> being endangered, their native speakers diminishing rapidly and they
>> have no really established writing system. Also after the lifting of the
>> ban on mainland-china these two versions remain crankly.
>>
>> Personnally I am especially disappointed by the hak-ka version wp. I
>> think it should do better as it is now. But naturally, the number of
>> Hak-ka native speakers are less than yue, wuu and gan.
>>
>> So, I think that a writing system, especially a used writing system is
>> also important. Yue has such a system and the system is very popularly
>> used in BBSes, blogs and chatrooms in Hongkong. I think this is a vital
>> point for the success of the yue-wk.
>>
>> My friend Theodoranian said while the discussion two or three years ago,
>> the big community should not be afraid that the minor community would
>> splitt it. Contrary, the big community should help the minor
>> communities. I am very happy that the time proved him right.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@...
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Alsebaey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T09:45:29Z

Hi Ting,

In the days since I have first sent my email, I talked to several people,
and due to their arguments, I am less worried now about division of effort,
however, I still strongly believe that my arguments about the language being
mostly a spoken one with no stable orthography and that by WMF approving any
of those dialects/language, it will be essentially making a political stand,
still hold.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...> wrote:

> Hello Muhammad,
>
> as I first heard about the discussion of the establishment of an
> egyptian arabic wikipedia I find the situation is quite similar to the
> discussion two years ago, as the first minor chinase language wikipedia
> was about to start. So I think maybe the experience we had in the
> chinese language wikipedias can help you a little. Though, this is my
> personnal impression, it is not representative and if surely do not
> match the standards of an academic research (indeed I would find such a
> research helpful and interesting).
>
> Before the first minor chinese language wikipedia was started there was
> a long during (I believe at least one year or more) discussion inside
> the by that time chinese community. The arguments exchanged by that time
> (for or against) are very similar to the arguments that are now put up
> in the arabic community. I personnaly took at that time a skeptic view
> against a new chinese wikipedia. My concern at that time was mainly of
> the division of the community.
>
> Now, after more than two and a half years, we have seven chinese
> language wikipedias, these are zh (the standard chinese, mandarin),
> zh-yue (cantonese the first minor chinese language wikipedia established
> in march 2006), wuu, cdo (min-dong-language), gan, hak (hak-ka language)
> and the zh-classic (the classic language). Except the zh-classic all
> other languages have native speakers, some have established writing
> system, some not.
>
> For me personally, after two and half a year of experience, the most
> important conclusion is that my original faer of a splitting of the
> community proved to be wrong. Especially the yue-language wikipedia
> developped well. It is a small (far more smaller than zh) community, but
> it is a vivid and sustainable community, with a lot of interchanges
> between zh and zh-yue communities. I find this interchange very
> fruitful. We have articles originally in zh-wp transfered to zh-yue-wp
> and vice versa. I think the creation of this language version very
> beneficial.
>
> Not so well do the wuu and gan wp develop. Both languages suffer from
> being endangered, their native speakers diminishing rapidly and they
> have no really established writing system. Also after the lifting of the
> ban on mainland-china these two versions remain crankly.
>
> Personnally I am especially disappointed by the hak-ka version wp. I
> think it should do better as it is now. But naturally, the number of
> Hak-ka native speakers are less than yue, wuu and gan.
>
> So, I think that a writing system, especially a used writing system is
> also important. Yue has such a system and the system is very popularly
> used in BBSes, blogs and chatrooms in Hongkong. I think this is a vital
> point for the success of the yue-wk.
>
> My friend Theodoranian said while the discussion two or three years ago,
> the big community should not be afraid that the minor community would
> splitt it. Contrary, the big community should help the minor
> communities. I am very happy that the time proved him right.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T08:31:07Z

Hello

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@...>wrote:

> Hoi,
> The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we
> do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been
> published. There is nothing more.
>
>
Can you provide links to where they have been published? When I go to the
proposals I find only the basic stuff (there is an ISO code, there is people
willing to work on it and there are speakers of the language). You said lang
com considered the concerns I have put forward but yet I dont see what is
their argument about them anywhere. In essence, what I see is like an AfD,
people go in , talk it out, with little involvment from lang com, and then
you guys come in and with little reasoning other than the existing rules,
you approve. If there are expanded arguments to the decision, I would like
to see them and this is transparency IMHO.

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T07:03:53Z

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@...>wrote:

> Hoi,
> The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we
> do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been
> published. There is nothing more.
>
> You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it
> is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This
> is
> what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in
> further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument
> to get their way.
>

Yet LangCom is also to be held at fault. Some members of said committee
have adopted a stance of "those are the rules, no exceptions. If you don't
like
the rules, get consensus to change them."

Sometimes rules can be bent, sometimes they should be broken entirely.
It all comes down to using common sense.

>
> I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have
> no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the
> implementation of the policy proves this.

Sometimes I think you care more for minority languages than the speakers
do themselves. This is a good thing! We need more people caring about
languages.

> People who oppose have their
> special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does
> not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.
>

God forbid we show some empathy...

>
> In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The
> people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.
>

Of course. Complainers are always louder than those grateful. Fact of
human nature.

>
> In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days
> ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language
> policy,
> it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.
> I
> think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not
> specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects
> created.
>

As you said above, the LangCom is volunteers. So are most of the
developers and systems administrators. They have lives too :-)

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T06:02:29Z

Hoi,
The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we
do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been
published. There is nothing more.

You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it
is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This is
what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in
further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument
to get their way.

I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have
no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the
implementation of the policy proves this. People who oppose have their
special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does
not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.

In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The
people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.

In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days
ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language policy,
it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. I
think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not
specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects
created.

NB the language policy is an policy endorsed by the board.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that
> > the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we
> > considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status
> > to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the
> > Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already...
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...
> > <mailto:wing.philopp@...>> wrote:
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and
> > done. You do not need the exact text and you do not need to
> > know every detail. All relevant details have been made public.
> > You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I
> > would have been corrected.
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen
> > <wing.philopp@... <mailto:wing.philopp@...>
> > <mailto:wing.philopp@... <mailto:wing.philopp@...>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
> > >
> > > As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the
> > one we
> > have. Your
> > > proposal that we say something along the lines you
> > indicate is not
> > > practical. For your information, you do work also in a
> > non-observable way.
> > > Why should your work be different ?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerard
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board
> > that
> > cannot
> > be made transparent. Sorry.
> >
> > Ting
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@...
> > <mailto:foundation-l@...>
> > <mailto:foundation-l@...
> > <mailto:foundation-l@...>>
> >
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish
> > names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that
> > this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the
> > arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately
> > resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not
> > intransparent I don't know what is.
> >
> > Ting
> >
> >
> Well, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one
> more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a
> statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons.
> The members of the committee accepted this statement without
> argumentation and the decision is made.
>
> Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside
> the community, I find the decision process described above not very
> reassuring.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T05:47:49Z

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that
> the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we
> considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status
> to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the
> Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already...
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@...
> <mailto:wing.philopp@...>> wrote:
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and
> done. You do not need the exact text and you do not need to
> know every detail. All relevant details have been made public.
> You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I
> would have been corrected.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen
> <wing.philopp@... <mailto:wing.philopp@...>
> <mailto:wing.philopp@... <mailto:wing.philopp@...>>> wrote:
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
> >
> > As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the
> one we
> have. Your
> > proposal that we say something along the lines you
> indicate is not
> > practical. For your information, you do work also in a
> non-observable way.
> > Why should your work be different ?
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
> >
> >
>
> Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board
> that
> cannot
> be made transparent. Sorry.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> <mailto:foundation-l@...>
> <mailto:foundation-l@...
> <mailto:foundation-l@...>>
>
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish
> names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that
> this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the
> arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately
> resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not
> intransparent I don't know what is.
>
> Ting
>
>

Well, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one
more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a
statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons.
The members of the committee accepted this statement without
argumentation and the decision is made.

Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside
the community, I find the decision process described above not very
reassuring.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T05:29:20Z

Hello Muhammad,

as I first heard about the discussion of the establishment of an
egyptian arabic wikipedia I find the situation is quite similar to the
discussion two years ago, as the first minor chinase language wikipedia
was about to start. So I think maybe the experience we had in the
chinese language wikipedias can help you a little. Though, this is my
personnal impression, it is not representative and if surely do not
match the standards of an academic research (indeed I would find such a
research helpful and interesting).

Before the first minor chinese language wikipedia was started there was
a long during (I believe at least one year or more) discussion inside
the by that time chinese community. The arguments exchanged by that time
(for or against) are very similar to the arguments that are now put up
in the arabic community. I personnaly took at that time a skeptic view
against a new chinese wikipedia. My concern at that time was mainly of
the division of the community.

Now, after more than two and a half years, we have seven chinese
language wikipedias, these are zh (the standard chinese, mandarin),
zh-yue (cantonese the first minor chinese language wikipedia established
in march 2006), wuu, cdo (min-dong-language), gan, hak (hak-ka language)
and the zh-classic (the classic language). Except the zh-classic all
other languages have native speakers, some have established writing
system, some not.

For me personally, after two and half a year of experience, the most
important conclusion is that my original faer of a splitting of the
community proved to be wrong. Especially the yue-language wikipedia
developped well. It is a small (far more smaller than zh) community, but
it is a vivid and sustainable community, with a lot of interchanges
between zh and zh-yue communities. I find this interchange very
fruitful. We have articles originally in zh-wp transfered to zh-yue-wp
and vice versa. I think the creation of this language version very
beneficial.

Not so well do the wuu and gan wp develop. Both languages suffer from
being endangered, their native speakers diminishing rapidly and they
have no really established writing system. Also after the lifting of the
ban on mainland-china these two versions remain crankly.

Personnally I am especially disappointed by the hak-ka version wp. I
think it should do better as it is now. But naturally, the number of
Hak-ka native speakers are less than yue, wuu and gan.

So, I think that a writing system, especially a used writing system is
also important. Yue has such a system and the system is very popularly
used in BBSes, blogs and chatrooms in Hongkong. I think this is a vital
point for the success of the yue-wk.

My friend Theodoranian said while the discussion two or three years ago,
the big community should not be afraid that the minor community would
splitt it. Contrary, the big community should help the minor
communities. I am very happy that the time proved him right.

Ting

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-08T02:28:13Z

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
>
> As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the one we have. Your
> proposal that we say something along the lines you indicate is not
> practical. For your information, you do work also in a non-observable way.
> Why should your work be different ?
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
>

Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board that cannot
be made transparent. Sorry.

Ting

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

Re: Freedom, standards, and file formats

2008-10-07T18:32:30Z

I will quickly weigh in on this thread:

First context: (I developed metavid.org (a wiki congress video archive)
and presently working with kaltura & wikimeida on the early stages of a
ogg theora html5 collaborative video editing solution)

We at the (much much smaller) metavid project faced a similar issue of
accessibility vs free/freedom a few months ago. As an explicitly free &
patented unencumbered software project for the first 2 years we had
exclusively used ogg Theora for our video archive.
There was subsequently a strong push to improve accessibility and
support flash. The solution was to do a fall back distribution of the
flash codec decoupled from the player.

Presently on the metavid site you can play back the flash video streams
with either VLC or the flash plugin. If your client supports it you can
play the ogg stream with vlc, native browser support, or cortado. Key to
this fall back solution is the user interface is identical regardless of
whatever method your playing back the content with.
All the play head controls, scripted interactions with transcript
editing, remote embed scripts, transcript playback are abstracted away
from the player. This is in some ways comparable to canvas emulation in
flash that brion mentioned.

I think if the fullback approach is properly implemented it facilitates
larger accessibility and hence entices much more wide scale usage of the
video functionality. Ultimately allowing you to more actively promote
free software solutions as an experience with identical or improved
quality without the costs of proprietary codecs.

As Erik mentioned in this thread more data about playback would be
helpfull and by request I have hacked up a simple video player data
collector and survey on the ogg / flash playback support situation.
Should be ready to deploy shortly.

--michael

Michael Snow wrote:

> I mentioned earlier that I wanted to discuss open standards and file
> formats in advance of the next board meeting. I'd especially like to
> look at how these issues relate to our mission. There are a variety of
> questions involved, which I'll summarize in terms of freedom - the
> freedom that providing access to knowledge can give the recipient, and
> the freedom that avoiding intellectual property restrictions can give
> our culture generally. I trust we'd all agree both of these are positive
> things in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's mission, which is what
> makes it difficult if we have to choose between them.
>
> The more we move beyond simple text, the more intellectual property
> restrictions expand beyond simple copyright to increasing complexity
> (multiple rightsholders, patents, DRM, trademarks, database rights).
> Sometimes these things can be fairly benign, to the extent of being at
> least gratis-free, especially at the "consumer" level. Perhaps in terms
> of our effort to provide access to knowledge, they might not impose any
> real restrictions, except in extreme edge cases. But so far, we have a
> pretty strong commitment to absolute freedom, even with respect to areas
> that don't directly impact our work.
>
> To illustrate this with an example, maybe not the best but one that
> comes up often enough, consider video file formats. (Some of this is
> beyond my technical expertise, so please forgive any misstatements.)
> Adobe Flash has widespread adoption to the point of being
> near-universal. The company has also been moving to make it more open
> for people watching, distributing, and working on content in this
> environment. It's close to free, but I understand there are still some
> issues like patent "encumbrances" around Flash. Meanwhile, there are
> pure free software formats that do similar things but have pretty
> limited adoption.
>
> This brings up a number of questions. First of all, how important is
> multimedia content to us in general? Considering both the investment to
> create it and the environment in which it's produced, historically it's
> a lot less amenable to free licensing. It's still useful, no doubt, but
> what measures should we take to promote it?
>
> Back to the two manifestations of freedom I mentioned, how should we
> balance those? One possibility that's been raised is to allow Flash
> content so long as we require that it be encoded and distributed in a
> truly free format as well. Is that sort of approach an acceptable
> compromise? It would make it much easier to achieve wide distribution of
> free content, while still making sure that it's also available
> completely without restrictions, for those who find that important. Are
> there situations in which this compromise doesn't work out for some
> reason? Why? (And none of this has to be limited to the Flash video
> example, discussion of other formats and standards is welcome.)
>
> In dealing with the limited adoption of certain free formats, some
> people have advocated a more evangelistic approach, if you will. Given
> the reach of Wikipedia in particular, it's suggested that our policy
> could push wider adoption of these formats. That may be, but the
> question is, how much is that push worth? What are the prospects for
> making those formats readable in the average reader's environment, and
> encouraging wider use as a standard? Does an uncompromising approach
> result in significant progress, or would we simply be marginalizing the
> impact of our work? And is it worth the "sacrifice" of the many people
> who would miss out on some of the knowledge we're sharing, because the
> free format isn't accessible to them? (That's also partly a problem of
> disseminating knowledge, of course.) If we adopt a compromise position
> as described earlier, how much do we lose in terms of promoting the
> freer formats?
>
> Before I joined the board, I understand the board considered a
> resolution to create a file format policy. These are the kinds of
> questions we need to consider before we can set such a policy. We're not
> going to be passing anything at next week's meeting, though, the
> discussion isn't far enough along and it wouldn't be right to push it
> through with so little consultation. But we need to have the
> conversation, so I would like the community's feedback on this list,
> both now and feel free to continue during and after our meeting.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-07T14:14:26Z

As you're aware better than I am, I'm sure, we have no effective way to
ensure at any point that most communities share the core principles of
Wikimedia. Those most invested in designing these principles simply don't
represent ability in enough languages, and even the diversity that do we
have is limited by the relatively small number of people involved in
multiple projects and Foundation issues at the same time. Case in point is
the Russian Wikibooks from not long ago, or any of a number of complaints
lodged at the metapub which seem to demonstrate a disconnect between some
projects and core Wikimedia values.

Since our ability to measure and police such things as adherence to core
values is so limited, and obviously controversial, the lang com has I think
reasonably restricted itself to other considerations - notably:

1) is there an active community, sufficient to give the project a good
chance of long term progress
2) has the community demonstrated its ability to manage and maintain a
project in its language
3) is there a sufficient audience for the language such that the project may
conceivably contribute to the core goal of Wikimedia by reaching a
significant segment of humanity

(describing these restrictions based on my reading of Gerard and Pathoschild
on this list over the last year, as opposed to the direct wording of the
policy or actual practice of which I have little experience)

There are obviously other considerations that could be applied, as
demonstrated by Alsebaey and Aphaia, but the language committee doesn't seem
to have the expertise or the mandate to make decisions based on such
criteria. The Board may, but it seems like they have avoided becoming
involved at that level. Again, probably reasonable from their perspective.
There seems to be no perfectly suited forum for treating these potential
objections that are outside the remit of the lang com - many have noted that
it could be the role of a Wikimedia Council, but I personally haven't seen a
proposal for such a thing that I could support.

Nathan

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Aphaia <aphaia@...> wrote:

> While I am not so much worried to see a Wikimedia project helping a
> minority language promotion. I rather am concerned about political
> view promotion using a Wikimedia project.
>
> In the discussion of Masry Wikipedia, I saw one of the proposers
> complain the current Arabic Wikipedia uses the ugly language the
> normal Egyptian cannot bear, ant another Arabic editor pointed out his
> claim meant that arwiki community had refused to move [[Muhammad
> Ibn-Abdullah]] to [[The Prophet (May piece be upon him)]] (or
> precisely its equivalent in Arabic).
>
> I am worry about that unestablished editors who don't share our core
> principles are let start their Wikipedia whose content may not be
> understood by anyone else and thus not noticed and corrected their
> systematic biases.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:
> > Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> >> However, let me
> >> stress again my point, is it the WMF place to take a stand as to
> accelerate
> >> such an adoption of the spoken language as written? I dont think so.
> > This seems to be the point on which the language committee, as currently
> > constituted, disagrees. I fear it is somewhat run by
> > minority-language-promotion advocates, who are most interested in using
> > Wikimedia to push their pet ideas about how language and society ought
> > to work, shared by few other people.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@...
> > 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@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-07T13:38:10Z

While I am not so much worried to see a Wikimedia project helping a
minority language promotion. I rather am concerned about political
view promotion using a Wikimedia project.

In the discussion of Masry Wikipedia, I saw one of the proposers
complain the current Arabic Wikipedia uses the ugly language the
normal Egyptian cannot bear, ant another Arabic editor pointed out his
claim meant that arwiki community had refused to move [[Muhammad
Ibn-Abdullah]] to [[The Prophet (May piece be upon him)]] (or
precisely its equivalent in Arabic).

I am worry about that unestablished editors who don't share our core
principles are let start their Wikipedia whose content may not be
understood by anyone else and thus not noticed and corrected their
systematic biases.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:

> Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
>> However, let me
>> stress again my point, is it the WMF place to take a stand as to accelerate
>> such an adoption of the spoken language as written? I dont think so.
> This seems to be the point on which the language committee, as currently
> constituted, disagrees. I fear it is somewhat run by
> minority-language-promotion advocates, who are most interested in using
> Wikimedia to push their pet ideas about how language and society ought
> to work, shared by few other people.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> 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@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-07T12:58:21Z

Hoi,
It is sometimes great to be piggy in the middle; there are plenty people who
accuse the language committee of stifling any and all new projects. I am
happy that some consider us "minority-language-promotion advocates", it
means that we are somewhere in the middle.. It is only sad that nobody is
completely happy :)
Thanks,
GerardM

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:

> Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> > However, let me
> > stress again my point, is it the WMF place to take a stand as to
> accelerate
> > such an adoption of the spoken language as written? I dont think so.
> This seems to be the point on which the language committee, as currently
> constituted, disagrees. I fear it is somewhat run by
> minority-language-promotion advocates, who are most interested in using
> Wikimedia to push their pet ideas about how language and society ought
> to work, shared by few other people.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

2008-10-07T10:11:21Z

Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> However, let me
> stress again my point, is it the WMF place to take a stand as to accelerate
> such an adoption of the spoken language as written? I dont think so.
This seems to be the point on which the language committee, as currently
constituted, disagrees. I fear it is somewhat run by
minority-language-promotion advocates, who are most interested in using
Wikimedia to push their pet ideas about how language and society ought
to work, shared by few other people.

-Mark

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