from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
I disagree with your advocacy.

You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the
community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board
languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in
new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.

Mark

On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
> incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
> that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
> can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
> follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
> established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
> do advocate to use these established ways.
>
> My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
> speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
> are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
> allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
> that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
> two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> ScottL wrote:
> >    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
> > an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
> > actually a language?
> >
> >    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
> > new wikipedia to be formed.
> >
> >    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> > activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> > body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I
> > think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
> >
> > SKL
> >
> > GerardM wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
> >> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
> >> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
> >> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
> >> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
> >> difference and that we can do as we like.
> >>
> >> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
> >> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
> >> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
> >>
> >> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
> >> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
> >> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
> >> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
> >>
> >> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
> >> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
> >> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
> >> and work on amending the practices where needed.
> >>
> >> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
> >> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
> >> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> >> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
> >> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>    GerardM
> >>
> >> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
> >>>
> >>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
> >>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
> >>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
> >>>
> >>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
> >>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
> >>>
> >>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
> >>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
> >>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
> >>>
> >>> We are not perfect.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
> >>>>
> >>> have
> >>>
> >>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
> >>>>
> >>> iso,
> >>>
> >>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
> >>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
> >>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
> >>>>
> >>> proposer.
> >>>
> >>>> I'll tell him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Arns
> >>>>
> >>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>> There are two issues.
> >>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
> >>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
> >>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
> >>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
> >>>>>
> >>> have
> >>>
> >>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
> >>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
> >>>>>
> >>> become
> >>>
> >>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
> >>>>>
> >>> am
> >>>
> >>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
> >>>>>
> >>> Latvian.
> >>>
> >>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
> >>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
> >>>>>
> >>> what
> >>>
> >>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
> >>>>>
> >>> around.
> >>>
> >>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
> >>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
> >>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
> >>>>>
> >>> Florentine.
> >>>
> >>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
> >>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
> >>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
> >>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
> >>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
> >>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
> >>>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
> >>>>>
> >>> Latgalian
> >>>
> >>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
> >>>>>
> >>> literature
> >>>
> >>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
> >>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
> >>>>>
> >>> used
> >>>
> >>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
> >>>>>
> >>> it
> >>>
> >>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
> >>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
> >>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
> >>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
> >>>>>
> >>> not
> >>>
> >>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
> >>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
> >>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
> >>>>>
> >>> imho
> >>>
> >>>>> is a complete misnomer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>    GerardM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> second
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
> >>>>>>
> >>> there
> >>>
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
> >>>>>>
> >>> It's
> >>>
> >>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Arns
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> however
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
> >>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>    GerardM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> my
> >>>
> >>>>>>> point
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> proposed
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Angela
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: ScottL

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
   Fair enough.

SKL

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
> incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
> that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
> can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
> follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
> established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
> do advocate to use these established ways.
>
> My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
> speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
> are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
> allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
> that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
> two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> ScottL wrote:
>>    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
>> an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
>> actually a language?
>>
>>    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
>> new wikipedia to be formed.
>>
>>    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
>> activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
>> body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I
>> think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
>>
>> SKL
>>
>> GerardM wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
>>> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
>>> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
>>> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
>>> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
>>> difference and that we can do as we like.
>>>
>>> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
>>> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
>>> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
>>>
>>> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
>>> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
>>> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
>>> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
>>> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
>>> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
>>> and work on amending the practices where needed.
>>>
>>> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
>>> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
>>> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
>>> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>    GerardM
>>>
>>> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>>>
>>>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>>>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>>>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>>>
>>>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>>>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>>>
>>>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>>>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>>>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>>>
>>>> We are not perfect.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
>>>>>
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
>>>>>
>>>> iso,
>>>>
>>>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
>>>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
>>>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
>>>>>
>>>> proposer.
>>>>
>>>>> I'll tell him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arns
>>>>>
>>>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> There are two issues.
>>>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
>>>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
>>>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
>>>>>>
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>>>>>>
>>>> become
>>>>
>>>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
>>>>>>
>>>> am
>>>>
>>>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>>>>>>
>>>> Latvian.
>>>>
>>>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
>>>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
>>>>>>
>>>> what
>>>>
>>>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>>>>>>
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
>>>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
>>>>>>
>>>> Florentine.
>>>>
>>>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
>>>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
>>>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
>>>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
>>>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
>>>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
>>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>>>>>>
>>>> Latgalian
>>>>
>>>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>>>>>>
>>>> literature
>>>>
>>>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
>>>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>>>>>>
>>>> used
>>>>
>>>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
>>>>>>
>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
>>>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
>>>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
>>>>>>
>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
>>>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
>>>>>>
>>>> imho
>>>>
>>>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> second
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
>>>>>>>
>>>> there
>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
>>>>>>>
>>>> It's
>>>>
>>>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arns
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> however
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> proposed
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Angela
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 10/17/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using primary
> sources like this.

That a new TV episode, once shown, almost immediately has a first
summary on WP is in itself a good thing. It's a beautiful cultural
process where the writable encyclopedia becomes a natural part of
people's everyday lives.

As others have stated, the problems really begin when personal
interpretations and observations come into play. In my opinion,
unsourced trivia lists are the worst, followed by personal critique
mixed with summary. That kind of material should be removed. I'm still
thinking that a separate WikiTrivia might be a good idea since a lot
of people seem very reluctant to delete trivia.

Some summaries are also simply poorly written, but then again, that's
true for a lot of Wikipedia. To me, this does not itself justify
deletion, just labeling and tagging (as well as positive tagging of
good articles and revisions).
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

body:
On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, review and compare
>
> http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ma/Masturbation
>
> and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation

Having shorter, instructional texts about sexual behavior that are
written specifically for adolescents would actually be a good thing.
But that is perhaps something for Wikibooks/Wikijunior to work on. Sex
ed is not something we should stay away from because it could ruffle
some feathers. It is in fact (referring to broader sexual practices)
critically important in areas where AIDS is widespread and sexual
activity among teens is common. Well-illustrated free content safe sex
guides in all languages could make a real difference.

As for masturbation, it's of course exactly the kind of thing you
should learn when you're still young. ;-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Foundation-l] Where to propose new features for MediaWiki?

body:
Couldn't there be set up a better place than the MediaWiki-l mailing list,
where feature proposals can be made? A page on Meta with a structure like
the project proposals page?


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Kristian Menchaca]] - link to video

body:
On 10/18/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> I notice now that you also removed a similar external link to a video
> from the Memory Hole website from [[Nick Berg]] with the same "RS, NOR"
> reason. You should add a more detailed rationale there too, especially
> considering there appears to be a lot of past discussion of the matter
> in talk already. I believe I've also used Memory Hole myself as a source
> of information in the past, so I'd be interested to hear of problems
> with its reliability. The homepage claims it's won the Project on
> Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005.

I've restored that link. The Memory Hole is a reliable source.
(Also a regular editor action, of course.)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community.
When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to
act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you
advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community
believes to be reasonable.

You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the
code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from
the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia
projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such
as "lat-ltg",  which community and requester deemed unacceptable due
to its political implications,  of which the current proposed code has
none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or
language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more
inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it
needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about
the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably
and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the
larger community which they serve.

The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and
imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out
minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a
solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.

Mark

On 18/10/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Please understand that I raise a technical point that does not in any way
> prevent projects to be started. It does prevent the unfortunate creation of
> a project like als.wikipedia.org where als in ISO-639-3 is Albanian, the
> main language .. Fortunately, on WiktionaryZ we have already reached
> agreement that the als code can be replaced for Schwyzerd?tsch (gsw). When
> this is a good solution for the als.wikipedia folks, this would help a lot.
>
> Please let me know what is problematic with my view point. The fact that
> this is not yet shared does not negate the merit of the point of view.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM <http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:gsw>
>
> On 10/18/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your advocacy.
> >
> > You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the
> > community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board
> > languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in
> > new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
> > > incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
> > > that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
> > > can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
> > > follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
> > > established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
> > > do advocate to use these established ways.
> > >
> > > My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
> > > speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
> > > are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
> > > allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
> > > that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
> > > two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     GerardM
> > >
> > > ScottL wrote:
> > > >    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not
> > have
> > > > an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
> > > > actually a language?
> > > >
> > > >    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow
> > a
> > > > new wikipedia to be formed.
> > > >
> > > >    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> > > > activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> > > > body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though
> > I
> > > > think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
> > > >
> > > > SKL
> > > >
> > > > GerardM wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have
> > on the
> > > >> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with
> > indicating
> > > >> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard
> > and
> > > >> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
> > considered
> > > >> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make
> > a
> > > >> difference and that we can do as we like.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
> > the
> > > >> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these
> > things
> > > >> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
> > > >>
> > > >> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
> > use
> > > >> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed
> > to do
> > > >> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are
> > patently
> > > >> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code.
> > When this
> > > >> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable.
> > It is
> > > >> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current
> > practices
> > > >> and work on amending the practices where needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a
> > problematic one.
> > > >> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to
> > "recognize"
> > > >> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> > > >> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through
> > ISO and
> > > >> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>    GerardM
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
> > > >>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
> > > >>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
> > > >>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
> > > >>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
> > > >>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We are not perfect.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mark
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian
> > will
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will
> > have
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> iso,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
> > When
> > > >>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
> > best
> > > >>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> proposer.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I'll tell him.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Arns
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hoi,
> > > >>>>> There are two issues.
> > > >>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
> > > >>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect
> > of
> > > >>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
> > because
> > > >>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
> > > >>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> become
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet.
> > I
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> am
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> Latvian.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
> > are
> > > >>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> what
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> around.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
> > > >>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was
> > constructed
> > > >>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> Florentine.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there
> > is a
> > > >>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
> > for
> > > >>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open
> > to us
> > > >>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO.
> > We
> > > >>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to
> > that
> > > >>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these
> > is
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> Latgalian
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> literature
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would
> > be a
> > > >>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> used
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a
> > grammar
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> it
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
> > > >>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are
> > revival
> > > >>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some
> > stage I
> > > >>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I
> > would
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> not
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make
> > the
> > > >>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
> > > >>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian ..
> > which
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> imho
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> is a complete misnomer.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>    GerardM
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in
> > 1918-1944
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> second
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political.
> > And
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>> there
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> are
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>> It's
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Arns
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hoi,
> > > >>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other).
> > Latgalian
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> however
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
> > > >>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>    GerardM
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hoi,
> > > >>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian.
> > From
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>> my
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>> point
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>> proposed
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be
> > something
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> like
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Angela
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
On 10/17/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I did that basic fact checking earlier and provided a link
> to the page that has thumbnails and the video:
> http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_video_Jul_10_2006.html

There's a very big difference between Ogrish and The Memory Hole.
Ogrish is designed to shock. It includes official blog postings signed
with "Murder & Mayhem", and unofficial commentary in  the forum that
makes it very clear that for most people using the site, their
motivation comes from a fascination with death and gore. I would also
not be surprised that, given this general motive, the standards of
verification are rather low -- but I cannot say either way.

We are generally careful to distinguish between articles and external
links when it comes to the neutral point of view. However, even links
have never been entirely exempt from the policy. Certainly, when the
purpose of the link is to purely _document_ an article, a more neutral
source than one like Ogrish.com should be found -- especially when
dealing with a subject that is so obviously emotional.

Reliability is not the only issue here. Good editorial judgment also is.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
Perhaps it makes sense to follow up with a bit of personal background:
I'm operating a scientific archive called "The Origins of Peace and
Violence". On that site, we have an article that documents child abuse
in the United States:

http://www.violence.de/prescott/hustler/article.html

The article is illustrated with police photographs showing children
who have been beaten or mutilated. I find it very important to have
these photographs, because people have very strange ideas about what
child abuse is (and in general, anything sexual receives a lot more
attention than the everyday incidents of murder, abuse and neglect).

The reason I mention this is that I've received quite a few complaints
about this website, including one from the same institution that
contacted ogrish.com, the German agency for the protection of minors.
They actually sent me a several page analysis why this page would have
to be placed behind a child protection (adult check) system.

I responded in detail to this complaint, and altered the page
(originally there was a  separate page that included only the
pictures), and the complaint was withdrawn. To me this is an example
how a complex subject like violence against children can be handled in
a responsible manner. I see this in sharp contrast to sites whose
reason for existence seems to be the mere fascination with brutality.

In my opinion, Wikipedia should be very careful when linking to such
sites -- it reflects poorly on us, because the information is
contextualized in a manner that is considered inappropriate by most
people. We are an encyclopedia and it is part of our editorial
responsibility to contextualize information neutrally and
appropriately.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
Where are all these random stats coming from?? Anything the rest of us
can play with?

Brianna

On 18/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> > And a few stats:
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Commons_stats_October_2006.svg
> >
> > We are probably the world's largest site for free wallpapers: the median
> > of the distribution looks like it's 800 kpixels, which is 1024x768.
>
> I'm not so sure, looking at our top aspect ratios:
>  Images Ratio
>  201436 1.33
>   61803 0.75
>   40633 1.00
>   37839 1.50
>   20991 0.66
>   14287 0.62
>   12942 1.60
>   10734 1.25
>   10552 1.49
>   10352 0.80
>   ~~~~~~~~
>
> I'd be shocked if flickr didn't completely dwarf us in terms of images
> with 4:3 and 5:4 aspect.
>
> Since most cameras produce either 4:3 or 3:2, it would be interesting
> to answer the question: Are Wikimedians cropping all these images, or
> are we just pulling lots of images from outside websites where they
> are cropped to fit the layout?
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Again, this seems like a view not shared by the community. If we have
a subcommittee full of people who have no wiggle room when it comes to
codes, it won't be very good for us in the long term.

Wikimedia language codes are not permanent! This needs to be
emphasised. If a new code is accepted in the future, we can adopt it
(as we hopefully will with BAT-SMG -> ZOG).

In the mean time, though, it is awfully mean of us (or rather, of
you), to restrict Wikipedias to those varieties viewed by SIL as
languages.

So in the mean time, thanks to you guys, we can have a yib.wp in a
language that is universally agreed to not be a language, while we
must have a single yuf.wp against the wishes of the speakers of those
3 languages, who request and require separate literatures? That makes
no sense.

Compliance with standards is good, but if it prevents the creation of
a Wiki, we should ignore it.

You and Gerard award ISO 639 too much importance.

Mark

On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> So would you say: hey, codes are fun, let's invent some new ones to give
> some languages/dialect a space?
>
> And then you would go to iso and say: hey guys - we have that neat code
> ... it is a bit messy, but you should adopt it since otherwise it is not
> going to end up in software localisation etc?
>
> Great point ... by not attributing a proper code you help those who are
> against that regional language or dialect, because you prevent a code
> from becoming official and you contribute to the fact that these poeple
> will much a harder time to get software etc. in their language.
>
> Sun is still at iso 639-2 and sooner or later will go to 639-3 and this
> means for example that when it comes to languag code an "any code
> language" will not be included. Software that works with such language
> codes and locales will not be able to handle the fantasy code.
>
> We are well aware of the fact that we require a lot - but please
> understand also that by requiring certain things we make sure that these
> languages really have a chance ... otherwise they would be confined into
> wikipedia (that has some kind of relevance) and certain other less
> relevant projects without even becoming the chance to reach an official
> standing.
>
> I'd say that by making such things sure for those small communities we
> well do something for them: assure that their language has a real
> chance. Well of course ... if the community then prefers not to have an
> easy way to being reknown officially ...
>
> Thanks, Sabine
>
>
> Mark Williamson schrieb:
> > The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community.
> > When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to
> > act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you
> > advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community
> > believes to be reasonable.
> >
> > You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the
> > code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from
> > the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia
> > projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such
> > as "lat-ltg",  which community and requester deemed unacceptable due
> > to its political implications,  of which the current proposed code has
> > none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or
> > language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more
> > inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it
> > needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about
> > the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably
> > and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the
> > larger community which they serve.
> >
> > The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and
> > imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out
> > minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a
> > solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
>  http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr

body:
On 10/18/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:

> I strongly advise anyone possessing a TLD domain that they wish to
> redirect to the Wikimedia projects to put up a very simple page along
> the lines of:
>
> "You are probably looking for the xxxx language edition of [insert
> name of project here]. Please update your bookmarks and follow this
> link to find the original [link to project]"

Wikimedia.org.au is a redirect until the Australian chapter is doing
enough work to require a separate wiki. For now, that work is on meta.
It will become the "real URL" once we've got more going on.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
> You are utterly barking up the wrong tree. Complying with standards does
> not mean that you cannot have things outside of the standards. It means
> that you comply with the standards as far as they go. There is no reason
> at all not to have new projects when these projects comply with what the
> Wikimedia Foundation accepts as it's policy for that type of project.

And from what I have seen so far, it's not impressive.

> Your assumptions are blinding you. It is also rich that you use "the
> community" as an argument. This same community has asked for the closure
> of wikipedias that you fought tooth and nail to preserve. In a previous

Yes, the difference is that I am not a member of the language subcommittee.
If I were, I would obviously have to put aside my personal feelings on
issues and come to more objective conclusions based solely on evidence
rather than emotion and instinct.

And remind me of these "Wikipedias"...  I was troubled by the sudden
deletion of the Klingon Wikipedia, but I did not fight "tooth and nail to
preserve" it. I have fought for the preservation of mo.wp, but then, the
history of that is not as one-sided as you perceive; see the Meta page
Proposals for closing projects, the vote is currently at 90-50 (rather than
90-0). Although, perhaps a total of 10 individuals who participated in that
vote (at maximum) were Moldovans. Majority were Romanians and Russians.

> post you were talking about political reasons to do certain things.
> Political arguments are the ultimate POINT OF VIEW. When we are to come

Apparently your understanding of what I said is lacking. I said that YOUR
solution shows a political statement, while the solution currently endorsed
by the majority

> to a reasonable policy for new projects, flash crowds and political
> arguments will have to be considered of little importance because they
> either deny or ask for things that have little linguistic merit.
> Remember, what we aim to achieve; bringing knowledge to all people in
> their own language.

Well, last time it was proposed such draconian measures as seem to be
favoured by the Subcommittee as regards the approval of new languages, no
consensus was reached by the community. Wikis created since that time,
though, have had a reasonably high rate of success. Now, your subcommittee
wants to kill what we have going by imposing requirements and restrictions
which are going to be difficult for most languages to meet. Consider that
most of the most recently-created Wikis, including the most successful among
them (Zazaki, Siberian) had, at the beginning, only 1 or 2 contributors,
contrary to the new Incubator policy requiring 5 users _before a test may
even be started_!

Originally, such measures were in fact favoured by the community, during the
extensive arguments following my request for a Sicilian WP (which, btw, is
now a smashing success), but it appears based on votes at Proposals for
closing projects that the general idea regarding inactive Wikis is to let
them be the way they are, and a more liberal policy regarding creation of
Wikis is widely accepted (only require two native speakers, sometimes
Test-WP).

I do not have a problem with a Subcommittee deciding controversial issues
such as Belarusan or Moldovan. However, I do have a problem with a committee
(rather than the community) regulating new language creation.

Yes, the current procedure is subject to flashmobs, but these have only
occurred in a handful of cases (Padonki, Siberian, Zazaki, Murcian,
Andalus). I think that, besides that, it works very well -- most of the
voters are intelligent people capable of checking to see if a language
really exists, what reasons it might deserve a Wiki or not, etc.

I know that I was not even considered for the subcommittee due to my
history, my style and personality, and my controversiality. However, this
does not mean that my words are worthless.

Nearly all of the people who are most active in the process of new language
requests were, in fact, excluded altogether. These are a crowd of people
with experience, a good level of expertise in languages (Steinbach, Arbeo,
Jade Night...), and ability to decide objectively.

> To repeat and conclude; compliance with standards does not prevent the
> creation of new version of WMF projects.

Yes, but it does affect neutrality.

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
--- Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by.  The
> > > viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
> > > means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
> > > licence.  This means that the content is more free and therefore
> > > furthers our mission.
> >
> > And...? ;-)
>
> I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being
> flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer
> restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
>
> (I license my work cc-by.)

I agree. Copyleft can be useful, but the biggest problem with it is that it
tends to prevent you combining with other copyleft work. To quote Lawrence
Lessig: "all of these licenses were written without regard to the fundamental
value of every significant advance in the digital age ? interoperability."

-- Matt

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to implement 'wikihow' web style??

body:
Hi wind sun,

I'm the engineer at wikiHow and should be able to help you, thanks for
your interest.

Don't worry about the rex parameter, it doesn't have any affect on the
page creation page. You can download a copy of our source code here:

http://www.wikihow.com/x/wikihow-1.6.tar.gz

It contains all our modifications to Mediawiki. For the page creation
page, check out includes/EditPageWrapper.php, all it does is extend
EditPage.php and splits an article into the separate parts (intro,
steps, tips, warnings, etc) and then glues it back together again
before saving. To make sure that the 'edit' action uses this page
instead of EditPage.php, check out the changes to includes/Wiki.php at
around line 383.

For the discussion namespace, I renamed the usual Talk namespace in
Namespaces.php, Discussion sounded more intuitive to us. For the form
at the bottom of each talk page, check out skins/WikiHowSkin.php,
there's a function called getTalkPostForm() which sets up the form on
talk pages and posts to a special page located at
includes/SpecialPostcomment.php.

The code really needs to be cleaned up at some point, so sorry for any mess.

Let me know if you have any questions!
Travis

On 10/16/06, ??? <cdexs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> i think lots of people here had browsed this site www.wikihow.com. i have several technical question about the site,dos anybody can give
> me some trains of thought :)
>
>   1)i saw "Create page" link url was implemented as "http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?action=edit&rex=4",here "rex" le
>     seems a additional customized parameter, why use this additional url parameter? how to "Create page" by this way?
>
>   2) while clicked "create page",in next new page, has several textarea to input "Introduction"?"steps"?"tips" etc separately. MediaWiki
>      just has one textarea to add content?how to customize edit page like that?
>
>   3)while clicked "discuss this page" will goto http://www.wikihow.com/Discussion:Cook-Food, we can find here has a new namespace
>    "Discussion"?and in this page,top area of page lists all discussion and bottom placed a textarea to add discussion?it's very convenient
>    for user to check and add topics? in standard mediawiki,discussion page just lists topics,should click"+" again to add topic, wikihow
>    style is a better choice, how to do?
>
>
>    thanks in advance!
>
>    wind sun
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: David Monniaux

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
bawolff wrote:

>>And a few stats:
>>
>>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Commons_stats_October_2006.svg
>>
>>
>
>Out of curiosity, Does anyone know what they highest resolution image
>on commons is?
>
Except for fake sizes such as SVG pictures, the largest is:
Orion_Nebula_-_Hubble_2006_mosaic_18000.jpg

a 18000x18000 picture stored in a 19 megabyte file.


from_name: Roger Luethi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:03:08 -0700, ScottL wrote:
>    Would something like this not require that the $100 Million worth of
> copyrights in this case be assigned to WMF or some other foundation that
> we setup rather than simply released under GFDL or a CC license?

That's exactly right.

>    Further, if we end up creating some sort of copyright holding
> foundation, might it also be worthwhile to make it easy for contributers
> to assign their copyrights to WMF if they desire?  This is I think only
> interesting in a dual-licensing type of setup, or am I missing something?

For the Wikipedias it's too late to be useful. For commons, why not?

Roger


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hoi,
I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
do advocate to use these established ways.

My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.

Thanks,
    GerardM

ScottL wrote:
>    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
> an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
> actually a language?
>
>    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
> new wikipedia to be formed.
>
>    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I
> think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
>
> SKL
>
> GerardM wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
>> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
>> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
>> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
>> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
>> difference and that we can do as we like.
>>
>> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
>> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
>> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
>>
>> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
>> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
>> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
>> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
>>
>> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
>> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
>> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
>> and work on amending the practices where needed.
>>
>> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
>> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
>> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
>> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
>> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    GerardM
>>
>> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>>
>>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>>
>>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>>
>>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>>
>>> We are not perfect.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
>>>>
>>> iso,
>>>
>>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
>>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
>>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
>>>>
>>> proposer.
>>>
>>>> I'll tell him.
>>>>
>>>> Arns
>>>>
>>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> There are two issues.
>>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>>
>>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
>>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
>>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
>>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>>>>>
>>> become
>>>
>>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
>>>>>
>>> am
>>>
>>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>>>>>
>>> Latvian.
>>>
>>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
>>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
>>>>>
>>> what
>>>
>>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>>>>>
>>> around.
>>>
>>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
>>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
>>>>>
>>> Florentine.
>>>
>>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
>>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
>>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
>>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
>>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
>>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>>>>>
>>> Latgalian
>>>
>>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>>>>>
>>> literature
>>>
>>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
>>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>>>>>
>>> used
>>>
>>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
>>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
>>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
>>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
>>>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
>>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
>>>>>
>>> imho
>>>
>>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
>>>>>>
>>>>> second
>>>>>
>>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
>>>>>>
>>> there
>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
>>>>>>
>>> It's
>>>
>>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
>>>>>>>
>>>>> however
>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
>>>>>>>>>
>>> my
>>>
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
>>>>>>>>>
>>> proposed
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> like
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>
>>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Angela


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> Mark, are you able to read English? Where did I or Gerard write that we
> restrict languages to ISO 639-3 codes? If any we talk about ISO 639-3
> and to add specifiers to it to get a proper code for officially not
> existing languages.

Well, that's basically what I said in my e-mail. Gerard wrote that we should
follow the standard, etc., etc., and you wrote something about making codes
up.

Did I ever advocate that we just make codes up? Unless you think that using
6-letter codes (macro code plus custom identifier, viz fiu-vro, bat-smg,
roa-rup, map-bms, etc.) is "making codes up", which from what you said in
most of this e-mail doesn't follow your opinion.

You should know very well what it means when you need to proof that a

> language exists ... or am I wrong and everything in the last year was
> always all to obvious and went smoothly?

I didn't need to prove anything to anyone. The fact that it has its own ISO
639-2 code speaks for itself. That it is written in that script in that
region is a fact, not disputed. What /is/ disputed is whether or not it is
"offensive", or whether it should be allowed to exist given there are not
native speakers working on it. If this is how well-informed you are on this
extremely controversial issue, you need to do some studying before you vote
to make a decision.

You should not doubt about someon trying to be objective. Objectivity
> can be preserved only by facts on the ground - not by: I am favourable
> or against because I think this or that ...

Humans are subjective by nature. We can be more objective or less objective,
but it is impossible for us to be entirely objective.

Multilingual mediawiki is not all too far away ... and it can, if we
> work out a good strategy, be the solution for many language problems.
> Why? Well, imagine that there is that macro language or that language
> that has other languages included, but that up to now don't have an own
> code .... well: they can co-operate on one wiki - we are about
> languages, right? so why would we try to separate the macro language to
> many small wikipedias? Does it make sense? From a time and

No, it makes little sense. Our current usage of macro codes does not agree
to such a handling.

I think you misunderstand the term "macro-language". It refers to a code for
a "language" that is really more of a language family. "macro codes" also
include codes for entire language families, such as BAT, FIU, and MAP.

administration point of view there is little sense in doubling the
> efforts ... Imagine to have one admin per locale that belongs to the
> macro language .... that would mean the clean up work with vandals would
> not depend on one person only. Certain kinds of contents could be
> created contemporarily for all of the languages/dialects .... it would
> shift all of them to another level.

It really only works for special cases. Certain close dialects of Kurdish,
maybe some of the Italian minority languages, Dutch Low Saxon (many
dialects, no single standard), Norman... But currently they are already
cooperating in single Wikipedias. It won't work for more different cases,
such as Samogitian/Latgalian (share the same macro code) or V?ro and
Karelian (again, share the same macro code), because editors will not
understand each other.

If the committee's official opinion is that we should try to have
"cooperation" in a single Wiki between certain mutually unintelligible
varieties, then WM has reached a new low when it comes to language policy.

And now please come back on earth among living beings ... and consider
> this with a logical mindset and not only "they are this or that ...." we
> are not this or that, we have our experiences and these are at disposal
> of all by trying to make the creation of new wikipedias as npov as
> possible.

Yes, but what makes you special? Why should you get to have a microcommunity
that is more important than the existing community? Why are your opinions
more valued than ours? You also have to consider that simply *moving* a new
Wiki right on top of an existing Wiki (as you are apparently planning for
the Belarusan case, according to Timichal) is going to cause huge issues. A
slow phasing-out, replacement of articles individually  or by bots makes
much, much more sense.

Just saw your latest mail: there were no requirements and restrictions
> published by us up to now ... well, I'd know that really ... clouds?

Mentioned on Incubator, supported by Timichal on IRC...

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
All books, journals, music and other audio recordings, all video, all
images.

Pretty big dream, but you asked.

Mark

On 15/10/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would like to gather from the community some examples of works you
> would like to see made free, works that we are not doing a good job of
> generating free replacements for, works that could in theory be
> purchased and freed.
>
> Dream big.  Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase
> copyrights to be made available under a free license.  What would you
> like to see purchased and released under a free license?
>
> Photos libraries? textbooks? newspaper archives? Be bold, be specific,
> be general, brainstorm, have fun with it.
>
> I was recently asked this question by someone who is potentially in a
> position to make this happen, and he wanted to know what we need, what
> we dream of, that we can't accomplish on our own, or that we would
> expect to take a long time to accomplish on our own.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Emma

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Thank you all guys. Somebody have already started what I am looking for.

On 18/10/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
> an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
> actually a language?
>
>    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
> new wikipedia to be formed.
>
>    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I
> think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
>
> SKL
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on
> the
> > one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with
> indicating
> > content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
> > engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
> considered
> > a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
> > difference and that we can do as we like.
> >
> > Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
> the
> > terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these
> things
> > does not sanction that we continue to do so.
> >
> > When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
> use
> > that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to
> do
> > this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
> > wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
> >
> > ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When
> this
> > happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It
> is
> > to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current
> practices
> > and work on amending the practices where needed.
> >
> > The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic
> one.
> > Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to
> "recognize"
> > what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> > linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO
> and
> > Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    GerardM
> >
> > On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
> >>
> >> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
> >> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
> >> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
> >>
> >> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
> >> bat-smg, and map-bms.
> >>
> >> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
> >> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
> >> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
> >>
> >> We are not perfect.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
> >> have
> >>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
> >> iso,
> >>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
> When
> >>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
> best
> >>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
> >> proposer.
> >>> I'll tell him.
> >>>
> >>> Arns
> >>>
> >>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> There are two issues.
> >>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
> >>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
> >>>>
> >>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
> >>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
> because
> >>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
> >> have
> >>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
> >>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
> >> become
> >>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
> >> am
> >>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
> >> Latvian.
> >>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
> are
> >>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
> >> what
> >>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
> >> around.
> >>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
> >>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
> >>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
> >> Florentine.
> >>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
> >>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
> for
> >>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to
> us
> >>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
> >>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
> >>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
> >> to
> >>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
> >> Latgalian
> >>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
> >> literature
> >>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be
> a
> >>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
> >> used
> >>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
> >> it
> >>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
> >>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
> >>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage
> I
> >>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
> >> not
> >>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
> >>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
> >>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
> >> imho
> >>>> is a complete misnomer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>    GerardM
> >>>>
> >>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> >>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
> >>>> second
> >>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
> >> there
> >>>> are
> >>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
> >> It's
> >>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Arns
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
> >>>> however
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
> >>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>    GerardM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
> >> my
> >>>>>> point
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
> >> proposed
> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
> >>>> like
> >>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
> >> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
> >>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Angela
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
> >>> :)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Amanuel Amente
XL in life


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
ScottL wrote:

>   Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
>an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
>actually a language?
>
>   If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
>new wikipedia to be formed.
>
The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several constructed
languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those
should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a large
swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our
other criteria.

Ec

>
>


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hoi,
Please understand that I raise a technical point that does not in any way
prevent projects to be started. It does prevent the unfortunate creation of
a project like als.wikipedia.org where als in ISO-639-3 is Albanian, the
main language .. Fortunately, on WiktionaryZ we have already reached
agreement that the als code can be replaced for Schwyzerd?tsch (gsw). When
this is a good solution for the als.wikipedia folks, this would help a lot.

Please let me know what is problematic with my view point. The fact that
this is not yet shared does not negate the merit of the point of view.

Thanks,
   GerardM <http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:gsw>

On 10/18/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree with your advocacy.
>
> You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the
> community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board
> languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in
> new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.
>
> Mark
>
> On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is
> > incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean
> > that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this
> > can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to
> > follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well
> > established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I
> > do advocate to use these established ways.
> >
> > My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they
> > speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that
> > are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that
> > allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is
> > that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been
> > two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > ScottL wrote:
> > >    Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not
> have
> > > an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
> > > actually a language?
> > >
> > >    If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow
> a
> > > new wikipedia to be formed.
> > >
> > >    If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
> > > activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
> > > body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though
> I
> > > think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
> > >
> > > SKL
> > >
> > > GerardM wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have
> on the
> > >> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with
> indicating
> > >> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard
> and
> > >> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
> considered
> > >> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make
> a
> > >> difference and that we can do as we like.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
> the
> > >> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these
> things
> > >> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
> > >>
> > >> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
> use
> > >> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed
> to do
> > >> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are
> patently
> > >> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
> > >>
> > >> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code.
> When this
> > >> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable.
> It is
> > >> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current
> practices
> > >> and work on amending the practices where needed.
> > >>
> > >> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a
> problematic one.
> > >> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to
> "recognize"
> > >> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> > >> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through
> ISO and
> > >> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>    GerardM
> > >>
> > >> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
> > >>>
> > >>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
> > >>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
> > >>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
> > >>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
> > >>>
> > >>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
> > >>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
> > >>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
> > >>>
> > >>> We are not perfect.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mark
> > >>>
> > >>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian
> will
> > >>>>
> > >>> have
> > >>>
> > >>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will
> have
> > >>>>
> > >>> iso,
> > >>>
> > >>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
> When
> > >>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
> best
> > >>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
> > >>>>
> > >>> proposer.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'll tell him.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Arns
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hoi,
> > >>>>> There are two issues.
> > >>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
> > >>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect
> of
> > >>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
> because
> > >>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
> > >>>>>
> > >>> have
> > >>>
> > >>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
> > >>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
> > >>>>>
> > >>> become
> > >>>
> > >>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet.
> I
> > >>>>>
> > >>> am
> > >>>
> > >>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
> > >>>>>
> > >>> Latvian.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
> are
> > >>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
> > >>>>>
> > >>> what
> > >>>
> > >>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
> > >>>>>
> > >>> around.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
> > >>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was
> constructed
> > >>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
> > >>>>>
> > >>> Florentine.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there
> is a
> > >>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
> for
> > >>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open
> to us
> > >>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO.
> We
> > >>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to
> that
> > >>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these
> is
> > >>>>>
> > >>> to
> > >>>
> > >>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
> > >>>>>
> > >>> Latgalian
> > >>>
> > >>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
> > >>>>>
> > >>> literature
> > >>>
> > >>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would
> be a
> > >>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
> > >>>>>
> > >>> used
> > >>>
> > >>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a
> grammar
> > >>>>>
> > >>> it
> > >>>
> > >>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
> > >>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are
> revival
> > >>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some
> stage I
> > >>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I
> would
> > >>>>>
> > >>> not
> > >>>
> > >>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make
> the
> > >>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
> > >>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian ..
> which
> > >>>>>
> > >>> imho
> > >>>
> > >>>>> is a complete misnomer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>    GerardM
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in
> 1918-1944
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> second
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political.
> And
> > >>>>>>
> > >>> there
> > >>>
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>> It's
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Arns
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hoi,
> > >>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other).
> Latgalian
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> however
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
> > >>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>    GerardM
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hoi,
> > >>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian.
> From
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> my
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>> point
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> proposed
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be
> something
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>> like
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Angela
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: P. Birken

subject: [Foundation-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never
ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be
circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more
work on the vandalism front, see also
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

Regarding AOL I have always thought that workarounds for their
IP-range should be done by AOL and not by us.

Philipp


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
> > > For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by.  The
> > > viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
> > > means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
> > > licence.  This means that the content is more free and therefore
> > > furthers our mission.
> >
> > And...? ;-)
>
> I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being
> flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer
> restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
>
> (I license my work cc-by.)

Thought of saying so on your user page e.g. {{DualLicenseWithCC-By-2.5}} ? You
currently have cc-by-sa.

I really doubt you'll get flamed for it.

-Dan


body:
On 10/18/06, P. Birken <pbirken at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have made the experience that from most schools, there are never
> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block can be
> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only create more
> work on the vandalism front, see also
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first
checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue
to be prevented by default.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: magiske prosesser

body:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200
  "P. Birken" <pbirken at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have made the experience that from most schools,
>there are never
> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block
>can be
> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only
>create more
> work on the vandalism front, see also
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung

I believe the perspective you present is somewhat
constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of
these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the
confining and not often inspiring environment of school in
many cases will come back to us of their own volition to
contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the
nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is
considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or
documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy
to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate,
however, we might not in the end be better off for it.

Halvor (User:meco)

--
email to and from this person will be subject to public
availability


from_name: meta.sj at gmail.com

body:
+++ magiske prosesser [18/10/06 10:22 +0100]:
>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:21 +0200
>  "P. Birken" <pbirken at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We have made the experience that from most schools,
>>there are never
>> ever useful contributions. Hundreds of If the IP-block
>>can be
>> circumvented easily by creating accounts, this will only
>>create more
>> work on the vandalism front, see also
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie%3AIP-Sperrung
>
>I believe the perspective you present is somewhat
>constricted as we ought to take into account that a lot of
>these "vandals" having been introduced to Wikipedia in the
>confining and not often inspiring environment of school in
>many cases will come back to us of their own volition to
>contribute with something valuable. Perhaps therefore the
>nuisance is outweighed when the bigger picture is
>considered. Since this connection isn't easily spotted or
>documented (and hence not acknowledged), it would be easy
>to adopt a preventive practice such as you advocate,
>however, we might not in the end be better off for it.
>
>Halvor (User:meco)

Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts

body:
On 10/18/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Aphaia (Kizu Naoko) now has permission to create FoundationWiki
> accounts, together with Michael Snow.

Thank you for granting this new right, also for all supports and trust
all you involved people. I hope to utilize it thoughtfully for benefit
for the Foundation and Project.

Another right on that wiki may be hopefully not off topic: import
right. It is now enabled both on meta and foundation wiki. So ... how
can we use it actually?

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts


body:
2006/10/18, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> As I understand it, the proposal is to default-check the first
> checkbox (block anonymous users only). Account creation would continue
> to be prevented by default.

In that case, I have no serious objections.

Philipp