Archives/2007-03-03
From LangCom
![]() |
This page is no longer maintained and may be outdated: moved to m:Special projects subcommittees/Languages/Archives/2007-03-03. |
Archived discussion |
This is an email discussion about archival and transparency, scope, and processing method. A consensus was reached on scope and processing method, and everyone except GerardM agreed to public archival. |
1. |
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) Hello, There are a few points I'd like to clarify. 1. Archival and transparency. 2. Scope. 3. Processing method. <1> charter: http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#Subcommittee_charter Yours cordially, |
2. |
Berto 'd Sera Hi Jesse! 1. Archival and transparency.
Okay for me :) > 2. Scope.
> Should we forward every request to the board, No. It will take ages to deliver a new wiki even if filter them. And if we do not what exactly is our function? Our archives are public, none can say we produce wiki-desaparecidos :) But we exist to make sure that requests are well-formed, so it should be us to decide what is well-formed and what is not. 3. Processing method.
>of which two are in the test project phase. You mean in the incubator? If so it's only two. No work in the incubator = no wiki. There is no point in making requests when it's not clear whether the project has the strenght it takes to become a wiki. > "I object to the second proposal; I'll explain later, no time now".
I object in principle to anyone not having: I say "no robots" because it's unfair. This way a geek with 3 native speakers can have a wiki in two days while a community of 2 million people from Africa would wait for ages. A community is not made by python slaves, it's made by living people. Once they have a wiki I'll happily spend my time to help them with robots, but that's AFTER they got approved as real humans. Bèrto ‘d Sèra |
3. |
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) Hello Berto 'd Sèra, The policy requires a code before a proposal can be approved. There are some cases where a language deserves a code but doesn't have one yet; it would be perfect if you can help users get one. There's no explicit requirements in the policy that define a 'successful' test project, because that is best left to judgment. Trying to define every case where it is successful or not would be difficult and wouldn't work anyway. It would be a good idea to write some basic guidelines for successful test projects, but we shouldn't codify them as inflexible requirements. For example, 500 articles and ten users is a failure if there are ten bot accounts automatically importing text; on the other hand, it's somewhat successful if the proposal is *supposed* to be mainly bot-edited, as with some of the wikis that automatically convert text from another wiki's writing system. In general, I agree that we want a human community, not an army of bots. If there are both, all the better— bots are excellent tools. Yours cordially, |
4. |
Jon Harald Søby On 3/3/07, Jesse Martin wrote: I have no objections. However, I think archiving would be more practical if we got our own mailing list; this would also make communication easier (pressing just "reply" instead of "reply to all" ;-). > 2. Scope. I believe the board has has more important things to do than to judge on language matters, and frankly, I think it doesn't fall within the board's scope - what language editions exist or don't exist of Wikipedia really has little with the Wikimedia Foundation itself. But of course, this is up to the board itself - we should probably ask. > 3. Processing method. The e-mail approach would be easier with a mailing list; each new language proposal should have its own thread, perhaps marked in a specific manner (e.g. with a [new] tag or something). The delay should be considerably longer than 24 hours, however, I'm thinking 1 week - 10 days. -- |
5. |
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) Hello, I agree on all points. If the delay is longer, though, we'll need to consider several requests simultaneously. Yours cordially, |
6. |
GerardM <this user has not agreed to public archival.> |
7. |
Berto 'd Sera Hoi! <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.> <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.> BTW, if I wanted everyone upset against this Commitee I'd do exactly what the Board is doing. I'd have everything paralyzed, and let the Committee be the escape goat... Maybe for some people this is a very good reason for them to become REAL SLOW :) Childish, isn't it? Bèrto ‘d Sèra |