On the Moldavian Wikipedia it says for over a month "This wiki has been closed for now." Is there any outlook on whether 'for now' means 'for ever' or that it will be re-opened at some time? I am asking because I want to know what to do with the interwiki for the bot. If the wiki is closed down for good, I intend to remove them silently; if it will be opened up again some time soon, I want to keep them in the same way as to 'normal' Wikipedias.
Andre Engels schreef:
On the Moldavian Wikipedia it says for over a month "This wiki has been closed for now." Is there any outlook on whether 'for now' means 'for ever' or that it will be re-opened at some time? I am asking because I want to know what to do with the interwiki for the bot. If the wiki is closed down for good, I intend to remove them silently; if it will be opened up again some time soon, I want to keep them in the same way as to 'normal' Wikipedias.
Hoi, The closure was done without the consent of the board. The language committee was asked to formulate an opinion, it is not of the opinion that the current situation is good. We proposed that this wiki would be reopened and that discussions would start on how the Moldovan and the Romanian Wikipedia can work together. An essential part of the time frame that will exist before this merger is that any vandalism will result in a ban for all the projects that such a person is involved in.
It is particularly the vandalism that made the huha around the Moldovan Wikipedia so unpalatable.
Thanks, GerardM
Hello,
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Andre Engels schreef:
On the Moldavian Wikipedia it says for over a month "This wiki has been closed for now." Is there any outlook on whether 'for now' means 'for ever' or that it will be re-opened at some time? I am asking because I want to know what to do with the interwiki for the bot. If the wiki is closed down for good, I intend to remove them silently; if it will be opened up again some time soon, I want to keep them in the same way as to 'normal' Wikipedias.
Hoi, The closure was done without the consent of the board. The language
I think that part of the problem is that the mess exists *because* the power-to-be (board, language committee, whatever...) let the situation deteriorates untill it got unmanageable. I hope that we will learn from this.
committee was asked to formulate an opinion, it is not of the opinion that the current situation is good. We proposed that this wiki would be reopened and that discussions would start on how the Moldovan and the Romanian Wikipedia can work together. An essential part of the time frame that will exist before this merger is that any vandalism will result in a ban for all the projects that such a person is involved in.
It is particularly the vandalism that made the huha around the Moldovan Wikipedia so unpalatable.
An agreement has to be found *before* the project to re-open. Some procedures, some admins / bureaucrats (I would suggest at least two native speakers, one using Latin script and one using Cyrillic script) and a mediation committee are needed before reopening.
I don't want to play Wikipedia task force again on a working project.
Thanks, GerardM
Regards,
Yann
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
On 1/31/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Not that simple see:
[[Transnistria]]
geni wrote:
On 1/31/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Not that simple see:
[[Transnistria]]
At the very least it's a problematic name. The Republic of Moldova decrees that Latin is the official script of Moldovan, while their breakaway republic of Transnitria decrees that it's Cyrillic. If we're hosting one in Cyrillic and giving it the "Moldovan" ISO language code, we seem to be taking sides in that dispute---and what's more, taking sides with the unrecognized breakaway republic and against the internationally recognized nation. That seems like an awkard position to be taking.
-Mark
On 2/1/07, Delirium [email protected] wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/31/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Not that simple see:
[[Transnistria]]
At the very least it's a problematic name. The Republic of Moldova decrees that Latin is the official script of Moldovan, while their breakaway republic of Transnitria decrees that it's Cyrillic. If we're hosting one in Cyrillic and giving it the "Moldovan" ISO language code, we seem to be taking sides in that dispute---and what's more, taking sides with the unrecognized breakaway republic and against the internationally recognized nation. That seems like an awkard position to be taking.
Indeed. I would say that the wiki should probably be taken down completely while things get straightened out. What became of the proposal to make mo: a dual-character set mirror of ro:?
Michael Noda wrote:
On 2/1/07, Delirium [email protected] wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/31/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Not that simple see:
[[Transnistria]]
At the very least it's a problematic name. The Republic of Moldova decrees that Latin is the official script of Moldovan, while their breakaway republic of Transnitria decrees that it's Cyrillic. If we're hosting one in Cyrillic and giving it the "Moldovan" ISO language code, we seem to be taking sides in that dispute---and what's more, taking sides with the unrecognized breakaway republic and against the internationally recognized nation. That seems like an awkard position to be taking.
Indeed. I would say that the wiki should probably be taken down completely while things get straightened out. What became of the proposal to make mo: a dual-character set mirror of ro:?
It didn't have the political will to make it happen, since neither side wanted it. As I understand it, the ro: community does not consider the Cyrillic script to be a valid script for the Romanian language, and the mo: supporters do not consider Moldovan to be a form of the Romanian language, but a distinct entity in its own right.
Given that neither side wants a dual-script solution, it's not worth undertaking the technical work to add the transliteration support, which would have needed the cooperation of both groups to make it work.
-- Neil
Hoi, There are those that want words like "irregardless" not to be included in dictionaries because from their puristic point of view it is an abomination. The Romanian wikipedians can not have their cake and eat it. Either they allow for the existence of a resource that is the http://mo.wikipedia.org or they allow for content in Cyrillic in the http://ro.wikipedia.org. When people argue that because of historical reasons Romanian is written in Cyrillic, the only correct reaction is: "Yes, right. So what?". The point being the existence of something cannot be denied because of this argument that they do not agree on political grounds and wish for it to not be there.
The language commission would welcome a program that would convert from Latin to Cyrillic for the content of both the mo and ro wikipedia. In our opinion it would help and not hinder bringing the communities and it would probably isolate political bigots and their POV..
Thanks, GerardM
Neil Harris schreef:
Michael Noda wrote:
On 2/1/07, Delirium [email protected] wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/31/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Not that simple see:
[[Transnistria]]
At the very least it's a problematic name. The Republic of Moldova decrees that Latin is the official script of Moldovan, while their breakaway republic of Transnitria decrees that it's Cyrillic. If we're hosting one in Cyrillic and giving it the "Moldovan" ISO language code, we seem to be taking sides in that dispute---and what's more, taking sides with the unrecognized breakaway republic and against the internationally recognized nation. That seems like an awkard position to be taking.
Indeed. I would say that the wiki should probably be taken down completely while things get straightened out. What became of the proposal to make mo: a dual-character set mirror of ro:?
It didn't have the political will to make it happen, since neither side wanted it. As I understand it, the ro: community does not consider the Cyrillic script to be a valid script for the Romanian language, and the mo: supporters do not consider Moldovan to be a form of the Romanian language, but a distinct entity in its own right.
Given that neither side wants a dual-script solution, it's not worth undertaking the technical work to add the transliteration support, which would have needed the cooperation of both groups to make it work.
-- Neil
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, There are those that want words like "irregardless" not to be included in dictionaries because from their puristic point of view it is an abomination. The Romanian wikipedians can not have their cake and eat it. Either they allow for the existence of a resource that is the http://mo.wikipedia.org or they allow for content in Cyrillic in the http://ro.wikipedia.org. When people argue that because of historical reasons Romanian is written in Cyrillic, the only correct reaction is: "Yes, right. So what?". The point being the existence of something cannot be denied because of this argument that they do not agree on political grounds and wish for it to not be there.
The language commission would welcome a program that would convert from Latin to Cyrillic for the content of both the mo and ro wikipedia. In our opinion it would help and not hinder bringing the communities and it would probably isolate political bigots and their POV..
Thanks, GerardM
I suggested this several iterations earlier in the ro:/mo: debate. As I said in my previous E-mail, no-one was interested in it.
For this to work, _all_ of the following have to happen:
* the ro: community has to agree to work with mo: proponents * the mo: proponents have to agree to work with the ro: community * both sides have to agree on the ro:/mo: integration as a desired solution * both have to collaborate to create a _fully round-trippable_ transliteration mapping that both can be happy will not mangle text in either script (this is hard, not least because several transliteration standards already exist that do not seem to fulfil this criterion, and it will be difficult to explain to people with a primarily cultural agenda the technical reasons why their favourite transliteration cannot be used) In the worst case, this might require a significantly complex technical solution to resolve the possible ambiguities. In any case, it will certainly need both sides to collaborate in extensive testing of the system. * the Foundation needs to be convinced that this solution is acceptable * someone needs to integrate the transliteration method into the current dual-script system * special skins and virtual-hosting configuration will need to be set up for the new ro:/mo: wiki * both sides than need to get on with one another after the merge
Based on past observation of this debate, I think the chances of all of the above happening are pretty close to zero.
Has anything happened to change this?
-- Neil
On 31/01/07, David Monniaux [email protected] wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
As of the time I stopped replying to them, we had had six identical copy-and-pasted ones today. (I gave them an identical copy-and-pasted reply.) I assume someone is astroturfing us.
David Monniaux schreef:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
Hoi, This argument is totally irrelevant. There is no place for politics in answering the question if a language is used and if so in which way. What is relevant is that there are people still writing in Cyrillic. This has been expressed before. On previous occasions we have expressed quite strongly that political arguments have no place in deciding if a language in one of its manifestations is used or not. This is the point of view of the language committee.
Thanks, GerardM for the language committee
Hi everyone,
the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked for almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying, this Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.
In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a number of reasons, the discussion is available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Mol...
To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:
- Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different name for the same language; - The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not used in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm) - The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition, - While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors, the main author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.
Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.
I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.
Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).
If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.
Thanks,
Johannes
Since it doesn't have content different from the Romanian wiki (probably with some exceptions but anyway), it can easily be deleted. (Maybe interested people should get time to make a copy if they haven't yet done.)
Regards, Thogo. ---------- 2007/11/8, Johannes Rohr [email protected]:
Hi everyone,
the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked for almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying, this Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.
In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a number of reasons, the discussion is available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Mol...
To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:
- Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different name for
the same language;
- The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not used
in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm)
- The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most
articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition,
- While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors, the main
author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.
Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.
I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.
Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).
If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.
Thanks,
Johannes
On 08/11/2007, Thomas Goldammer [email protected] wrote:
Since it doesn't have content different from the Romanian wiki (probably with some exceptions but anyway), it can easily be deleted. (Maybe interested people should get time to make a copy if they haven't yet done.)
Certainly, before we delete it, we should produce a full database dump (and verify that it works!). Even if we ourselves no longer host the wiki, I can't see any reason we shouldn't continue to keep a copy of the database dump available, since it wasn't killed off for copyright reasons and the material is still potentially useful to someone.
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks, Gerard
On Nov 8, 2007 6:54 PM, Thomas Goldammer [email protected] wrote:
Since it doesn't have content different from the Romanian wiki (probably with some exceptions but anyway), it can easily be deleted. (Maybe interested people should get time to make a copy if they haven't yet done.)
Regards, Thogo.
2007/11/8, Johannes Rohr [email protected]:
Hi everyone,
the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked
for
almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying,
this
Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.
In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a
number
of reasons, the discussion is available at
To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:
- Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different name for
the same language;
- The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not used
in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm)
- The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most
articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition,
- While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors, the main
author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.
Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.
I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.
Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).
If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And that makes is conclusion wrong how? If the content is not actually different....
-Dan Rosenthal On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:18 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks, Gerard
On Nov 8, 2007 6:54 PM, Thomas Goldammer [email protected] wrote:
Since it doesn't have content different from the Romanian wiki (probably with some exceptions but anyway), it can easily be deleted. (Maybe interested people should get time to make a copy if they haven't yet done.)
Regards, Thogo.
2007/11/8, Johannes Rohr [email protected]:
Hi everyone,
the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked
for
almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying,
this
Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.
In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a
number
of reasons, the discussion is available at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/ Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia
To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:
- Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different
name for the same language;
- The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not
used in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm)
- The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most
articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition,
- While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors,
the main author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.
Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.
I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.
Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).
If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 08/11/2007, Dan Rosenthal [email protected] wrote:
And that makes is conclusion wrong how? If the content is not actually different....
it is written in a different alphabet.
Hoi, The content is actually different. It is in a different script. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 8, 2007 11:47 PM, Dan Rosenthal [email protected] wrote:
And that makes is conclusion wrong how? If the content is not actually different....
-Dan Rosenthal On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:18 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks, Gerard
On Nov 8, 2007 6:54 PM, Thomas Goldammer [email protected] wrote:
Since it doesn't have content different from the Romanian wiki (probably with some exceptions but anyway), it can easily be deleted. (Maybe interested people should get time to make a copy if they haven't yet done.)
Regards, Thogo.
2007/11/8, Johannes Rohr [email protected]:
Hi everyone,
the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked
for
almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying,
this
Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.
In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a
number
of reasons, the discussion is available at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/ Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia
To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:
- Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different
name for the same language;
- The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not
used in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm)
- The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most
articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition,
- While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors,
the main author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.
Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.
I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.
Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).
If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:18:26 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks,
While it is theoretically possible that there are individual speakers of Romanian/Moldovan in Transnistria who, due to the pro-Russian policy of the Transnistrian authorities read only Cyrillic Romanian, the likelihood is extremely small. As I understand, the contemporary use of Cyrillic for Moldovan/Romanian is a product of continued coercion in Transnistria.
In my view, the main argument against the Moldovan Wikipedia is that it never had a native community. There is simply no demand from the side of Moldovans from either side of the Dniester river for such a wiki.
Apart from that, I feel that the use of the mo language code is a misuse, as the standard alphabeth in Moldova is Latin, not Cyrillic.
Apart from that, I am well aware, that Romanian has a history of being written in Cyrillic. I would even dare say, that the Latin script is a relatively new invention, as the Romanian ortodox church has historically used the cyrillic alphabeth well into the 19th centure, IIRC.
However, I don't think that this warrants a separate Wikipedia edition, else we could also have a separate German editon in Fraktur script...
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi,
From a policy point of view the language committee does not consider
political arguments. The argument that a likelyhood is very small is exactly the kind of argument that would still allow a language to be accepted. The aim of our foundation is to provide information to all people, not just the people that you care for.
The arguments for closure for Moldovan are not shared by the language committee and it was a VOTE that closed the mo.wikipedia it was definetly not consensus. It was also not done with permission of the board. The notion that you or anybody else feels that a language code is given out in error is politics. It is personal while I agree that you can have this opinion, it is an opinion you are entitled to it. I do not share your sentiments.
Also when you use these arguments and you insist that they are to be WMF policy, you do provide arguments to deny languages that are being considered. This is not a zero sum game.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 9, 2007 12:21 AM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:18:26 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks,
While it is theoretically possible that there are individual speakers of Romanian/Moldovan in Transnistria who, due to the pro-Russian policy of the Transnistrian authorities read only Cyrillic Romanian, the likelihood is extremely small. As I understand, the contemporary use of Cyrillic for Moldovan/Romanian is a product of continued coercion in Transnistria.
In my view, the main argument against the Moldovan Wikipedia is that it never had a native community. There is simply no demand from the side of Moldovans from either side of the Dniester river for such a wiki.
Apart from that, I feel that the use of the mo language code is a misuse, as the standard alphabeth in Moldova is Latin, not Cyrillic.
Apart from that, I am well aware, that Romanian has a history of being written in Cyrillic. I would even dare say, that the Latin script is a relatively new invention, as the Romanian ortodox church has historically used the cyrillic alphabeth well into the 19th centure, IIRC.
However, I don't think that this warrants a separate Wikipedia edition, else we could also have a separate German editon in Fraktur script...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:22:05 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, From a policy point of view the language committee does not consider political arguments. The argument that a likelyhood is very small is exactly the kind of argument that would still allow a language to be accepted.
You are successfully confusing me.
1. because at any other occasion you insist that project closures are none of langcom's business and 2. because langcom's policy is exactly: "no community - no wiki". In this case there was, as far as I see, no community.
The aim of our foundation is to provide information to all people, not just the people that you care for.
The only valid purpose of a "Moldavian" Wikipedia would be to serve a Moldavian linguistic community. However, I cannot see that there has been any demand by native Moldavians for such a Wiki, which is not surprising if the observation is correct that the only remaining use of Cyrillic script is in those places where it is enforced by ethnically Russian dominated authorities.
The arguments for closure for Moldovan are not shared by the language committee and it was a VOTE that closed the mo.wikipedia it was definetly not consensus.
Again: Can you name any native Moldavian/Romanian speaker who voted in favour of the continuation of this project?
It was also not done with permission of the board. The notion that you or anybody else feels that a language code is given out in error is politics. It is personal while I agree that you can have this opinion, it is an opinion you are entitled to it. I do not share your sentiments.
Then where exactly is it said that the mo language code is reserved for Moldavian/Romanian /in Cyrillic script/?
Also when you use these arguments and you insist that they are to be WMF policy, you do provide arguments to deny languages that are being considered. This is not a zero sum game.
?!?
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, First of all there were people contributing to the mo.wikipedia. This is conveniently forgotten.
When for political reasons a project is closed, something that I find objectionable in and of itself, and when the language committee does not consider political arguments at all, it makes in my mind perfect sense to at least inform you that the arguments used to close a project down are not accepted at all when considering the start or restart of a project.
Again, the fact of the matter is that a vote does not remove the politics from the issue. When there is an existing state of war, you present the perfect argument why this vote has been a flawed instrument.
Again, the procedure followed is problematic. I disagree utterly with the proposal and the fact that this project was closed at all in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 9, 2007 8:02 AM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:22:05 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, From a policy point of view the language committee does not consider political arguments. The argument that a likelyhood is very small is exactly the kind of argument that would still allow a language to be accepted.
You are successfully confusing me.
- because at any other occasion you insist that project closures are
none of langcom's business and 2. because langcom's policy is exactly: "no community - no wiki". In this case there was, as far as I see, no community.
The aim of our foundation is to provide information to all people, not just the people that you care for.
The only valid purpose of a "Moldavian" Wikipedia would be to serve a Moldavian linguistic community. However, I cannot see that there has been any demand by native Moldavians for such a Wiki, which is not surprising if the observation is correct that the only remaining use of Cyrillic script is in those places where it is enforced by ethnically Russian dominated authorities.
The arguments for closure for Moldovan are not shared by the language committee and it was a VOTE that closed the mo.wikipedia it was definetly not consensus.
Again: Can you name any native Moldavian/Romanian speaker who voted in favour of the continuation of this project?
It was also not done with permission of the board. The notion that you or anybody else feels that a language code is given out in error is politics. It is personal while I agree that you can have this opinion, it is an opinion you are entitled to it. I do not share your sentiments.
Then where exactly is it said that the mo language code is reserved for Moldavian/Romanian /in Cyrillic script/?
Also when you use these arguments and you insist that they are to be WMF policy, you do provide arguments to deny languages that are being considered. This is not a zero sum game.
?!?
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, First of all there were people contributing to the mo.wikipedia. This is conveniently forgotten.
When for political reasons a project is closed, something that I find objectionable in and of itself, and when the language committee does not consider political arguments at all, it makes in my mind perfect sense to at least inform you that the arguments used to close a project down are not accepted at all when considering the start or restart of a project.
Again, the fact of the matter is that a vote does not remove the politics from the issue. When there is an existing state of war, you present the perfect argument why this vote has been a flawed instrument.
Again, the procedure followed is problematic. I disagree utterly with the proposal and the fact that this project was closed at all in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
Wading into this argument (and trying to duck the arrows already flying around), this is a contentious issue in part because most people involved with Wikimedia projects generally want to stay apolitical in terms of the major issues involved.
Most of the issues presented regarding the Moldovan Wikipedia go back to WWII era politics and later Cold War era policies, and it is important to keep that in mind. (I'm trying very hard not to invoke Godwin's law here, but it is tough and strangely applies as an exception in this case!) In addition, it pushes hard on the line in terms of defining what exactly is a language, and at what point does a people distinguish itself with a unique identity.
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
One positive aspect about closing this Wikipedia, as well as the Klingon Wikipedia, is that the process of creating a new language edition has become much more formalized, where some standards regarding what should be dismissed and what would be allowed have been established. Shutting down and cleaning up this Wikipedia edition is really something of trying to clean up mistakes that happened in the past, in spite of some very good intentions, and trying to be wary of those who would take a situation such as an underused Wikipedia language edition (or any other Wikimedia project) and try to turn that project into their own private playground.
IF, and only if, there are some strong native speakers of Moldovan (regardless of political motivations) or those who have a genuine interest in preserving the language from a linguistic viewpoint want to get this going again, they can go through the new project creation process that other languages are currently going through. In this regard, preserving the db dump is a good idea if any future group really desires to get involved, but I fail to see why given the current climate of the supporters that it needs to be preserved, especially when there are significant objections that have been raised by native speakers of the Romanian language, and people who live in Moldovia.
-- Robert Horning
Hoi, The Romanians and Moldovans have let it explicitly known that they, by law, do not accept the Cyrillic expression of the language. Consequently, they denounce what they as a consequence recognise is not theirs. There is an unfinished war going on and this situation is consequently starkly political. The name of a language and the name of a country are not necessarily the same.. an obvious mistake. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 9, 2007 7:53 PM, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, First of all there were people contributing to the mo.wikipedia. This is conveniently forgotten.
When for political reasons a project is closed, something that I find objectionable in and of itself, and when the language committee does not consider political arguments at all, it makes in my mind perfect sense
to at
least inform you that the arguments used to close a project down are not accepted at all when considering the start or restart of a project.
Again, the fact of the matter is that a vote does not remove the
politics
from the issue. When there is an existing state of war, you present the perfect argument why this vote has been a flawed instrument.
Again, the procedure followed is problematic. I disagree utterly with
the
proposal and the fact that this project was closed at all in the first place.
Thanks, GerardM
Wading into this argument (and trying to duck the arrows already flying around), this is a contentious issue in part because most people involved with Wikimedia projects generally want to stay apolitical in terms of the major issues involved.
Most of the issues presented regarding the Moldovan Wikipedia go back to WWII era politics and later Cold War era policies, and it is important to keep that in mind. (I'm trying very hard not to invoke Godwin's law here, but it is tough and strangely applies as an exception in this case!) In addition, it pushes hard on the line in terms of defining what exactly is a language, and at what point does a people distinguish itself with a unique identity.
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
One positive aspect about closing this Wikipedia, as well as the Klingon Wikipedia, is that the process of creating a new language edition has become much more formalized, where some standards regarding what should be dismissed and what would be allowed have been established. Shutting down and cleaning up this Wikipedia edition is really something of trying to clean up mistakes that happened in the past, in spite of some very good intentions, and trying to be wary of those who would take a situation such as an underused Wikipedia language edition (or any other Wikimedia project) and try to turn that project into their own private playground.
IF, and only if, there are some strong native speakers of Moldovan (regardless of political motivations) or those who have a genuine interest in preserving the language from a linguistic viewpoint want to get this going again, they can go through the new project creation process that other languages are currently going through. In this regard, preserving the db dump is a good idea if any future group really desires to get involved, but I fail to see why given the current climate of the supporters that it needs to be preserved, especially when there are significant objections that have been raised by native speakers of the Romanian language, and people who live in Moldovia.
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, The Romanians and Moldovans have let it explicitly known that they, by law, do not accept the Cyrillic expression of the language. Consequently, they denounce what they as a consequence recognise is not theirs. There is an unfinished war going on and this situation is consequently starkly political. The name of a language and the name of a country are not necessarily the same.. an obvious mistake.
[...]
Whatever you mean to say by that, I hope you are not trying to say that Romanian/Moldovan written in Cyrillic script is a different language from Romanian/Moldovan written in Latin script. However, if, as I hope, this is not what you are trying to say, I cannot see any point in arguing about the name of the language.
BTW, I'm by no means opposed to Cyrillic script. I earlier mentioned, that it has been historically used by the Romanian Orthodox church, meaning, that Romanian written in Cyrillic script is not even a Soviet invention.
However, the decisive fact is, that there is, as far as I can see, absolutely zero demand by native Moldovan/Romanian speakers for a mo.wiki or for a multi-script Romanian Wikipedia.
Therefore, I completely fail to see why such a Wiki is necessary at the present moment.
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, What I am saying is that it is immaterial what Romanians say about Moldovan. What I say is that it is immaterial what Moldovans say about Moldovan written in Cyrillic. They have placed themselves outside of this discussion by stating as law what cannot be determined by law. A language and its manifestations are determined by its usage not by what people say and determine for others about it.
The fact that people agitate to close the mo.wikipedia has nothing to do with actual need. There are other projects where it is debatable if there is an actual need. We do not have mechanisms to measure actual need, we hardly measure what the actual usage is of many of our projects.
One argument that you fail to address is that voting is a flawed method for closing projects, particularly for this highly political project.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 9, 2007 11:18 PM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, The Romanians and Moldovans have let it explicitly known that they, by law, do not accept the Cyrillic expression of the language. Consequently, they denounce what they as a consequence recognise is not theirs. There is an unfinished war going on and this situation is consequently starkly political. The name of a language and the name of a country are not necessarily the same.. an obvious mistake.
[...]
Whatever you mean to say by that, I hope you are not trying to say that Romanian/Moldovan written in Cyrillic script is a different language from Romanian/Moldovan written in Latin script. However, if, as I hope, this is not what you are trying to say, I cannot see any point in arguing about the name of the language.
BTW, I'm by no means opposed to Cyrillic script. I earlier mentioned, that it has been historically used by the Romanian Orthodox church, meaning, that Romanian written in Cyrillic script is not even a Soviet invention.
However, the decisive fact is, that there is, as far as I can see, absolutely zero demand by native Moldovan/Romanian speakers for a mo.wiki or for a multi-script Romanian Wikipedia.
Therefore, I completely fail to see why such a Wiki is necessary at the present moment.
Thanks,
Johannes
-- http://www.infoe.de/
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
[I might come back to the other points later. For now, just let me reply to this one:]
One argument that you fail to address is that voting is a flawed method for closing projects, particularly for this highly political project.
[...]
So what? It may be flawed, but it is still better that kind of inaction that all bodies endowed with formal authority display in such situations. You may have guessed it - I'm referring to the "Siberian" Wikipedia, which finally was moved out of the way by community action, not by langcom, not by the board.
For your information: the "Siberian" wiki together with the Russian language "Wikislavia", also initiated by Yaroslav Zolotaryov is now part of the "metapedia" project, which is a playground for nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, holocaust denial etc. If you do not speak Russian, you might try one of the English pages for an impression, e.g. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
In retrospect, I'm absolutely appalled by the fact that Zolotaryov and his folks were allowed to take WMF for a ride for almost a year and despite numerous vocal examples of absolutely intolerable content, the only comment by someone like Erik Möller on this list was "I don't have an opinion."
Therefore, votes may be problematic, but inaction is worse.
Thanks,
Johannes
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
Oh, and with two (three?) exceptions that lasted about a day each, I've never been blocked on en.wp. All blocks with one exception were, I think, actually related to Moldovan issues.
On 09/11/2007, Mark Williamson [email protected] wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
Hoi, As it is likely that there is more to this request, it would be good to give it some background. When the request for closure for closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia is seen as absurd as closing down the Polish Wikipedia, then it is a clear case of "be bold". Also we should be glad that we do not life after the annexation of Poland in september 1939 when this would have made political sense.
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 5:42 AM, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there.
I'm
not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia
as
well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's a little melodramatic to classify every single minor dispute as "There's a war going on"; even by wikipedia standards.
-Dan On Nov 10, 2007, at 2:02 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, As it is likely that there is more to this request, it would be good to give it some background. When the request for closure for closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia is seen as absurd as closing down the Polish Wikipedia, then it is a clear case of "be bold". Also we should be glad that we do not life after the annexation of Poland in september 1939 when this would have made political sense.
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 5:42 AM, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there.
I'm
not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia
as
well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, In this case, check your facts. There is an unresolved conflict about territory where one part has separated itself in a country that has not been recognised as such. Transnistria's continued existence is seen as being helped by Russia. There is no sign of getting some resolution in this so it is an existing conflict that has lead to armed confrontations.. Now you tell me that this is not war. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 8:15 AM, Dan Rosenthal [email protected] wrote:
It's a little melodramatic to classify every single minor dispute as "There's a war going on"; even by wikipedia standards.
-Dan On Nov 10, 2007, at 2:02 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, As it is likely that there is more to this request, it would be good to give it some background. When the request for closure for closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia is seen as absurd as closing down the Polish Wikipedia, then it is a clear case of "be bold". Also we should be glad that we do not life after the annexation of Poland in september 1939 when this would have made political sense.
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 5:42 AM, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there.
I'm
not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia
as
well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
In this case, check your facts. There is an unresolved conflict about territory where one part has separated itself in a country that has not been recognised as such. Transnistria's continued existence is seen as being helped by Russia. There is no sign of getting some resolution in this so it is an existing conflict that has lead to armed confrontations.. Now you tell me that this is not war.
[...]
The current situation in Transnistria is best described as a long-term truce. However, no matter what the best term it, it is certainly not taking place inside Wikimedia and is external to the conflict we are discussing here.
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, We disagree. The arguments used are partisan in this conflict and as a consequence the conflict is no longer external. Thanks, Gerard
On Nov 10, 2007 2:13 PM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
In this case, check your facts. There is an unresolved conflict about territory where one part has separated itself in a country that has not
been
recognised as such. Transnistria's continued existence is seen as being helped by Russia. There is no sign of getting some resolution in this so
it
is an existing conflict that has lead to armed confrontations.. Now you
tell
me that this is not war.
[...]
The current situation in Transnistria is best described as a long-term truce. However, no matter what the best term it, it is certainly not taking place inside Wikimedia and is external to the conflict we are discussing here.
Thanks,
Johannes
-- http://www.infoe.de/
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is melodramatic to classify every single minor dispute that way.
However, there really is a war in Transnistria. Now, it's technically a "frozen conflict zone", and the status quo seems unlikely to change in the very near future and actual fighting is not horribly likely to just resume due to the huge presence of Russian troops in the area, but it is a war nonetheless that was declared and has never formally ended, and there is still no resolution to the issue.
Mark
On 10/11/2007, Dan Rosenthal [email protected] wrote:
It's a little melodramatic to classify every single minor dispute as "There's a war going on"; even by wikipedia standards.
-Dan On Nov 10, 2007, at 2:02 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, As it is likely that there is more to this request, it would be good to give it some background. When the request for closure for closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia is seen as absurd as closing down the Polish Wikipedia, then it is a clear case of "be bold". Also we should be glad that we do not life after the annexation of Poland in september 1939 when this would have made political sense.
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 5:42 AM, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there.
I'm
not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia
as
well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Do you refer to Moldova's banning of Cyrillic or Transnistrias oppression of Roman?
However, I fail to see how external political decisions should decide over the fate of the mo.wiki.
I feel that this decision should be up to the community of native speakers. And this community, as the discussion has shown, unanimously opposes the existance of a separate mo.wiki.
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, People from Moldovan and Romania are partisan to this conflict. From a language point of view the political arguments are irrelevant. It is wrong to insist that this is vote is acceptable. It is also wrong to eventually say there is a consensus. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 2:18 PM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
As such I do not agree with the proposal but the analogy is strong. There is a war going on and one expression of a language is prohibited by law by one of the parties and we fail to appreciate it as such.
Do you refer to Moldova's banning of Cyrillic or Transnistrias oppression of Roman?
However, I fail to see how external political decisions should decide over the fate of the mo.wiki.
I feel that this decision should be up to the community of native speakers. And this community, as the discussion has shown, unanimously opposes the existance of a separate mo.wiki.
Thanks,
Johannes
-- http://www.infoe.de/
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, People from Moldovan and Romania are partisan to this conflict. From a language point of view the political arguments are irrelevant. It is wrong to insist that this is vote is acceptable. It is also wrong to eventually say there is a consensus.
[...]
I'm not judging whether a vote is or is not acceptable (apart from the fact that in the face of continued inaction on the side of the BoT, it may be the only way to overcome an intolerable situation, as seen with the "Siberian" exercise). However, what I clearly find inacceptable is your attempt to exlude all those directly concerned from having their say, i.e. the native speakers of the language in question.
I repeat: When I read through the discussions I haven't spotted a single voice by a Romanian/Moldavian native speaker in favour of a mo.wiki. At the same time there was unanimous support for closing it and differing opinions on whether or not a multi-script interface for ro.wiki would be a good thing.
I haven't read any statement saying e.g.: "I am Moldovan speaker from Tiraspol and I need/would like to have a Cyrillic interface/a separate mo.wiki." Maybe I've overlooked something, but I don't think so.
So please, can you explain where you see the community which in your view needs the continued existance of mo.wikipeda? Do you have any intelligence regarding Wikipedia users on the eastern bank of the Dniester? And if they exist, why didn't they make their voices heard at any point during the disussion?
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, I am quite happy to have anyone have their say. I am equally happy not to have a vote. When you say that there was unanimous support, you are wrong. I have and Mark have expressed our opposition and we both had our own arguments. When I make the point that voting is a flawed instrument, I do not vote. Your suggestion that this equates with no one being against is is wrong given the massive amount of arguments that have been spilled on it.
When your sense of tidiness is offended by blocked projects, you have to realise that opening it up is in this case not unreasonable and it is certainly an alternative to deletion.
Do you assert that every project should have a community that includes native speakers ??
Are you prepared to accept the consequences of this position ?
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 6:45 PM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, People from Moldovan and Romania are partisan to this conflict. From a language point of view the political arguments are irrelevant. It is
wrong
to insist that this is vote is acceptable. It is also wrong to
eventually
say there is a consensus.
[...]
I'm not judging whether a vote is or is not acceptable (apart from the fact that in the face of continued inaction on the side of the BoT, it may be the only way to overcome an intolerable situation, as seen with the "Siberian" exercise). However, what I clearly find inacceptable is your attempt to exlude all those directly concerned from having their say, i.e. the native speakers of the language in question.
I repeat: When I read through the discussions I haven't spotted a single voice by a Romanian/Moldavian native speaker in favour of a mo.wiki. At the same time there was unanimous support for closing it and differing opinions on whether or not a multi-script interface for ro.wiki would be a good thing.
I haven't read any statement saying e.g.: "I am Moldovan speaker from Tiraspol and I need/would like to have a Cyrillic interface/a separate mo.wiki." Maybe I've overlooked something, but I don't think so.
So please, can you explain where you see the community which in your view needs the continued existance of mo.wikipeda? Do you have any intelligence regarding Wikipedia users on the eastern bank of the Dniester? And if they exist, why didn't they make their voices heard at any point during the disussion?
Thanks,
Johannes
-- http://www.infoe.de/
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, I am quite happy to have anyone have their say. I am equally happy not to have a vote. When you say that there was unanimous support, you are wrong. I have and Mark have expressed our opposition and we both had our own arguments.
I said there was, as far as I can see, unanimous support *by native* *speakers*. I think I made that more than clear enough.
You present your position as a defense of a right, i.e. the right to use a specific writing system. Now, a writing system makes only sense in connection with a language. And as the discussions have indicated quite strongly, the potential right-holders, those who do speak the language in question, do not seem to give a damn about this right. So, whose rights are you defending?
When I make the point that voting is a flawed instrument, I do not vote. Your suggestion that this equates with no one being against is is wrong given the massive amount of arguments that have been spilled on it.
So are you saying that you do not oppose the closure of mo.wiki? That you oppose only the process? If so, you are contracting yourself. Else, this is just hair-splitting to me.
When your sense of tidiness is offended by blocked projects,
Not only mine is. The issue with the unfixable interwiki conflicts was actually brought up by folks from the Russian Wikipedia who, while expressing their delight at the deletion of ru-sib, pointed to the fact that mo continues to be a problem in that respect..
you have to realise that opening it up is in this case not unreasonable and it is certainly an alternative to deletion.
Well sure. I just cannot see any use in having it open..
Do you assert that every project should have a community that includes native speakers ??
Well, for Esperanto, Lojban, Old Church Slavonic and Interlingua I wouldn't insist. And there might be cases of African indigenous languages, where there are simply no native speakers with net access and the necessary technical skills, so that non-native speakers may act as stewards until the situation improves. However, in this very case, there is a large online community of speakers of the language in question.
A situation in which all original contributions come from editors who have been attested utterly insufficient command of Romanian/Moldovan by native speaker seems just bizarre to me.
Are you prepared to accept the consequences of this position ?
[...]
I'm certainly not prepared to bear the consequences of a position, which is not mine.
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, Were there any Transnistrians that voted ?
No, I am against both the closure and the deletion of this project. I do not vote when it voting is the wrong instrument. When people vote for a new language the only thing I look at are arguments. The number of them I do not care for. The ratio for or against is equally irrelevant. I do not vote when voting is a flawed instrument.
When you do not insist on native speakers, you can not use it as an argument for Moldovan either.
Again, there are only flawed arguments for closure and it would be adding insult to injury to delete this project.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 10, 2007 8:12 PM, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, I am quite happy to have anyone have their say. I am equally happy not
to
have a vote. When you say that there was unanimous support, you are
wrong. I
have and Mark have expressed our opposition and we both had our own arguments.
I said there was, as far as I can see, unanimous support *by native* *speakers*. I think I made that more than clear enough.
You present your position as a defense of a right, i.e. the right to use a specific writing system. Now, a writing system makes only sense in connection with a language. And as the discussions have indicated quite strongly, the potential right-holders, those who do speak the language in question, do not seem to give a damn about this right. So, whose rights are you defending?
When I make the point that voting is a flawed instrument, I do not vote. Your suggestion that this equates with no one being against is is wrong given the massive amount of arguments that have been spilled on it.
So are you saying that you do not oppose the closure of mo.wiki? That you oppose only the process? If so, you are contracting yourself. Else, this is just hair-splitting to me.
When your sense of tidiness is offended by blocked projects,
Not only mine is. The issue with the unfixable interwiki conflicts was actually brought up by folks from the Russian Wikipedia who, while expressing their delight at the deletion of ru-sib, pointed to the fact that mo continues to be a problem in that respect..
you have to realise that opening it up is in this case not unreasonable and it is certainly an alternative to deletion.
Well sure. I just cannot see any use in having it open..
Do you assert that every project should have a community that includes native speakers ??
Well, for Esperanto, Lojban, Old Church Slavonic and Interlingua I wouldn't insist. And there might be cases of African indigenous languages, where there are simply no native speakers with net access and the necessary technical skills, so that non-native speakers may act as stewards until the situation improves. However, in this very case, there is a large online community of speakers of the language in question.
A situation in which all original contributions come from editors who have been attested utterly insufficient command of Romanian/Moldovan by native speaker seems just bizarre to me.
Are you prepared to accept the consequences of this position ?
[...]
I'm certainly not prepared to bear the consequences of a position, which is not mine.
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, Were there any Transnistrians that voted ?
Without Checkuser access I have no way of determining, where the votes came from. There may have been votes from native speakers in Transnistria (which would mean that they also reject this wikipedia edition) or they may have been none, which would indicate that they are indifferent towards it. Either case would indicate that this Wiki is not met by any consumer demand.
[...]
When you do not insist on native speakers, you can not use it as an argument for Moldovan either.
I do not have a definitive opinion on that matter, and this is really none of my business. I don't think, generalising on what seems to me a pretty unique situation makes an awful lot of sense. Here, this issue is not that there are not enough potential native contributors/readers. The potential audience exists, but it appears to /reject/ this wiki decisively. You simply cannot equate that to the Kanuri, Venda, Inuktitut or Herero Wiki, languages, which have very small online communities if at all.
[...]
Ciao,
Johannes
Au contraire mon ami. The potential audience you cite - Transnistrians - does not have the best internet infrastructure. Even Moldova proper is not that well connected - see how few votes came from actual Moldovans? I can almost guarantee that no Transnistrians voted. I think that in this case your argument about African wikis must be extended... After all Moldova has often been called the Africa of Europe due to poor infrastructure and quality of life, the worst in Europe, and Transnistria isn't exactly better.
Mark
On 10/11/2007, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
GerardM [email protected] writes:
Hoi, Were there any Transnistrians that voted ?
Without Checkuser access I have no way of determining, where the votes came from. There may have been votes from native speakers in Transnistria (which would mean that they also reject this wikipedia edition) or they may have been none, which would indicate that they are indifferent towards it. Either case would indicate that this Wiki is not met by any consumer demand.
[...]
When you do not insist on native speakers, you can not use it as an argument for Moldovan either.
I do not have a definitive opinion on that matter, and this is really none of my business. I don't think, generalising on what seems to me a pretty unique situation makes an awful lot of sense. Here, this issue is not that there are not enough potential native contributors/readers. The potential audience exists, but it appears to /reject/ this wiki decisively. You simply cannot equate that to the Kanuri, Venda, Inuktitut or Herero Wiki, languages, which have very small online communities if at all.
[...]
Ciao,
Johannes
-- http://www.infoe.de/
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm not sure when I made such a request, could you point me to it?
Also, that in no way justifies your libel against me by telling lies about me being banned and whatnot. If you think I am controversial, that's one thing. If you want to say what I have done, that's fine. If you want to make up things you think I've done or that seem reasonable given the reputation I may have, take it somewhere else because this is not the place for you to spout lies about my person.
Mark
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Robert Horning [email protected] wrote:
The primary criticism that I felt was valid in the whole mess was the fact that only non-native speakers were even involved with creating content for the Moldovan Wikipedia, including one particularly argumentative individual who was an American that was blocked from en.wikipedia due to flame and edit wars, and moved on to smaller wikis like the Moldovan Wikipedia because he could be a "big fish" there. I'm not sure where he picked up Romanian or Moldovan as a language, but he was also quite active on several other language editions of Wikipedia as well, and was one of the leading opponents of closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. In short, I don't really consider most of those opposed to closing down this edition of Wikipedia to be all that credible, as has been the general concensus on this issue when brought up on Meta.
I'm curious as to the identity of this individual. I'm guessing you're referring to me; for your information, I'm not blocked on en.wp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue
I also don't enjoy the badmouthing.
Mark
So, you still stand by your request to shut down the Polish Wikipedia?
-- Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM [email protected] writes:
First of all there were people contributing to the mo.wikipedia. This is conveniently forgotten.
Oh, please! Can you name a single native speaker who did? I haven't checked it all, but according to my knowledge, there was not even one contributor proficient enough to write original encyclopaedic content.
When for political reasons a project is closed, something that I find objectionable in and of itself, and when the language committee does not consider political arguments at all, it makes in my mind perfect sense to at least inform you that the arguments used to close a project down are not accepted at all when considering the start or restart of a project.
I highly doubt that the language committee would seriously consider approving a new Wikipedia without a single contributor with native proficiency. In what way is this a "political argument"?
How is it a "political argument", that there is appearantly zero consumer demand for a Cyrillic Moldovan/Romanian wiki? This is a simple statement of facts, (even though the root cause behind this may well be a political one.)
Again, the fact of the matter is that a vote does not remove the politics from the issue. When there is an existing state of war, you present the perfect argument why this vote has been a flawed instrument.
Again, forgive me for not understanding what you are trying to tell me.
Again, the procedure followed is problematic. I disagree utterly with the proposal and the fact that this project was closed at all in the first place.
Well, you have repeated this several time now. Alas, as long as you fail to take on the central argument against mo.wiki (absense of native demand and contributors), your opion is not gaining any strength, at least in my view.
Thanks,
Johannes
This is incorrect. There are three different languages used as an educational medium in *public* schools in Transnistria. It is up to the parents of a child to choose which school to send their kids to - Russian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, or bilingual.
Last I heard, there are also "Romanian" schools, but I am not certain of their status.
To be certain, a majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are in favor of separation/independence from the Republic of Moldova. This is a fact that has been shown numerous times in various polls by several organizations (including Western polling organizations). This fact is often overlooked by people toeing the Moldovan party line of "territorial integrity" and claiming that ethnic Moldovans are oppressed or coerced or somehow unwilling participants in Transnistria. Certainly, emigration has been high from the "country", especially among ethnic Moldavians.
Somehow it seems that the loudest voices about oppression in Transnistria come not from people who are from the area or who have left it, but from Moldovan partisans. The issue of Latin-script schools was certainly huge, but last I heard the schools continue to operate although no longer with government funding. Clearly, if parents object to their children being taught Cyrillic script in school, they could send their kids to a Russian-medium school and teach them Latin script Moldovan at home, or send them to a Romanian-medium school (but I think they are overcrowded already), or even leave the country.
But I think for the majority of parents of pupils in such schools (of which there are many, many, many), script is simply not an issue, they are more worried about putting food on the table than having petty fights over how to write their language.
To be clear, my position would be to allow for the closing of mo.wp if and ONLY if good read-write automatic conversion is implemented on ro.wp _first_.
Mark
On 08/11/2007, Johannes Rohr [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:18:26 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong, the Romanian Wikipedia is in the Latin script.. the Moldovan is not, consequently your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Thanks,
While it is theoretically possible that there are individual speakers of Romanian/Moldovan in Transnistria who, due to the pro-Russian policy of the Transnistrian authorities read only Cyrillic Romanian, the likelihood is extremely small. As I understand, the contemporary use of Cyrillic for Moldovan/Romanian is a product of continued coercion in Transnistria.
In my view, the main argument against the Moldovan Wikipedia is that it never had a native community. There is simply no demand from the side of Moldovans from either side of the Dniester river for such a wiki.
Apart from that, I feel that the use of the mo language code is a misuse, as the standard alphabeth in Moldova is Latin, not Cyrillic.
Apart from that, I am well aware, that Romanian has a history of being written in Cyrillic. I would even dare say, that the Latin script is a relatively new invention, as the Romanian ortodox church has historically used the cyrillic alphabeth well into the 19th centure, IIRC.
However, I don't think that this warrants a separate Wikipedia edition, else we could also have a separate German editon in Fraktur script...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Monniaux wrote:
OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)
In fact, there seems to be an organized campaign, with a form letter.