Talk:Toytoy's proposed policy for wiki closure: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:08, 26 July 2005

Latest revision as of 16:59, 25 February 2023

(98 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)

Line 12:

::: My idea has always been "If this wiki fails, let's close it." If the English wiki has only 5 regular contributors and their edits account for 86% of all edits, I'll say let's close the English wiki.

::: However, if 10,000 educated [[:en:Edo language|Edo]] speakers (population: only 1,000,000) come to Wikipedia, we can expect that the Edo wiki would become fairly up-to-date, accurate and unbiased in a couple of years. I'll say let's keep it.

Line 22 ⟶ 25:

::::: If my Wikipedia performs so poorly that it fails to attract new users and I have to spend several hours a day writing it to keep it from dying, I will be deeply ashamed. If that's the case, I'll close my own Wikipedia (because it's not supposed to be ''my own'' and I was not supposed to be ''on my own''). Did you get it? -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 13:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

==No hi estic gens d'acord==

amb aquesta proposta. [[User:Pérez|Pérez]] 18:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I he de afegir que aquest toytoy només es dedica en els darrers temps a fer propostes de tancar wikipedies. On son les seves contribucions a la wiki? Sr Toytoy. Ou sont votres contributions a la wiki? M. Toytoy. Where are your contibutions to the wiki? Mr Toytoy. Dónde están sus contribuciones a la wiki? Sr. Toytoy

Un Vàndal? Un voyou? Vandal? Vándalo?

[[User:Pérez|Pérez]] 18:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

== Strong dissent ==

Line 60 ⟶ 71:

: I did not wield an unfair yardstick at a minor language. As you have said, Min Nan users are everywhere. It's on the 21st/22nd (whatever) place. So the speaker base is not a problem. And many of them are highly educated and reasonably wealthy. So the actual point is they don't come to your playground. And that's your policy's problem. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 12:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:: I find it methodologically flawed to discuss specific examples, since they are not limited to one or another wiki. But to indulge your obsession, I'll just say that

::*Whether the Min Nan language/variety -- or as Chinese nationalists prefer, dialect -- ranks at the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd place depends on which edition of the ''Ethnologue'' one consults;

::*The edit history does not show that the discrepancy ''was'' repeatedly noted but left in place. This judgement call could be criticized for maintaining inconsistency, but it was not due to an oversight or lack of eyeballs.

::As for your other points:

::*Did anyone participate? No, absolutely no one participated. The MediaWiki software gained [[:en:sentience|sentience]] and started to generate the 1000+ meaningful articles on its own. Your bias truly shines here.

::*The wiki ''has'' slowly but steadily grown its user base. There ''are'' several active contributers and passive (usually anonymous) ones. You should look at the statistics.

::*It is not my playground, no more than [[Proposed policy for wiki closure]] is your playground. Nor am I a founder of this wiki (as you mistakenly assumes in your proposal), though I did apply for adminship early on (not that any of this should be relevant to this discussion).

::*Your point about Min Nan having lots of educated speakers assumes literacy to be part of their (our) education, which it is largely not. But that does not mean the literate base is none, either. Nor does that mean we invented a new language or new script or new orthography, and chose Wikipedia to implement it. The difference is that by bringing Min Nan writing to the digital page, people who are against regional Chinese languages suddenly notice, even though it has been around for more than a century.

::

::[[User:A-giâu|A-giâu]] 10:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==NPOV==

Line 158 ⟶ 180:

:: Maybe you should take more time than 30 minutes to think through before making this kind of strong suggestion and aclaims that other people work is not worth to keep here(?) If I remember correctly it was Stalin who said: "''no person, no problem''" (and results were...).

:: If you see the problem then is good to look for solution, which will benefit also other side, not just try to erase it. ... anyway, you seem have made your mind and it seems to be pointless to prove and spend time that there is other side of coin and to argument why your suggestion is not sensible. (when asking understanding from others, it may good to start to understand them first, unfortunately your approach and way of arguing, doesn't invite even to think along, not talking about supporting it) --[[User:TarmoK|TarmoK]] 07:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As a regular user of, and contributor to, the Esperanto wikipedia, I must say your statistics puzzle me. What on earth do you mean by labelling a large and living encyclopedia a "one-man-band"? We're ''at least'' 130 registered users, out of which perhaps one fourth are active contributors. By starting out with the language with the lowest "one-man-band-percentage" at top (instead of at the bottom of your list, as it ougt to be), and, furthermore, by italicing so-called artificial languages [I write "so-called" 'cause in the end, all languages are man-made] "for comparison's sake", you only give me the impression that you dislike certain languages and Esperanto in particular. This may or may not be so, but anyhow your way of presenting these statistics is misleading. What's the logic in italicing AIs, for instance? What is there to compare? In my POV all living, functioning languages should be treated equally, no matter their origin/prehistory. Where is the [http://kw.wikipedia.org Cornish wikipedia] in your list? Most of its contents are made by one man only. Furthermore, listing the Toki Pona and Klingon wikipedias serves no purpose, as TP has already been removed (just try making an edit there), and Klingon doesn't work as a fully functioning wp (you cannot make interlanguage links to it).

As a writer of the world's two most widely spoken languages, Mandarin Chinese and English, you are in a position where you can easily look down on the efforts of contributors from minor languages. This may in the same way easily lead you to a kind of "linguistic arogancy". Had you been the member of a minority group (globally, linguistically speaking), I'm sure you'd felt differently.

We need articles in a wide variety of languages. Sometimes, somethings just cannot be translated, or a very unlikely to become so. An example: till now, only the Cornish Wikipedia has articles about the Cornish-language bands [http://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krena Krena] and [http://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skwardya Skwardya]. If English as a language had been in the same position as Cornish, I'm sure only en: would have articles about, say, U2 or Eric Clapton. [http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediisto:Bab Bab]

== Chinese language issues (moved from the article) ==

Line 197 ⟶ 223:

::: Face it. If people really want to start a functioning wiki, [[:w:MediaWiki]] software is always available for free. Even if this Wikipedia does not host it, there will be many other hosts, possibly some of them in Africa. My proposal is all about performance. And the only way to achieve good performance is to gather as many as possible. From what I have seen, most small wikis simply fails to attract people. That's why they remain so small and they will be small for the foreseeable future. An empty parking lot issued by Wikipedia cannot save you from being small if people are not coming. If you fail to bring your people here, it's your own fault, not mine. I just ask to close those non-functioning wikis. Remember, I am not Jimbo. No one will listen to me. Your tears are ''irrelevant''. So is my proposal. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 13:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:::: Well thank goodness for that :) No offence, but your stance seems to me as typical of "big guys" (large cultures, languages, centres of power) towards "little guys". Don't be such a playground bully, OK? Language diversity, similarly to biodiversity, has its merits. [[User:198.36.32.41|198.36.32.41]] 07:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC) [[:pl:user:Bmucha]]

''Your proposal'' is irrelevant. Face it. And just stop it. Thank you. --[[User:Magadan|Magadan]] 15:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 211 ⟶ 239:

: I am amused. There are so many active and hyper-active Jewish and Israeli in the English wiki, why didn't they join the Hebrew wiki during its infancy? -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::Maybe same reason you haven't joined chinese wikipedia being Chinese? --[[User:62.151.60.41|62.151.60.41]] 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

::Actually, only one or two active wikipedians joined us from the English version... [[User:Troll Refaim|Troll Refaim]] 19:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 233 ⟶ 263:

: Can you read? Is there any derogatory meaning other than "being the only [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipediholic|wikipediholic]] of a wiki because no one else comes"? Shame on you. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 01:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

::For quite some time I was that hyper-active nut on the nl. wiki. It had 400 pages, most of them pretty atrocious in quality. Now it has 80.000 pages. Suppose you want me to be ashamed of that and my mothertongue too? Only 21m speakers, must be inferior? We know your kind: got rid of them in 1945.[[af:Gebruiker:Jcwf]]

== Long-term project ==

Line 260 ⟶ 292:

== Where's the problem ==

I simply don't see the point of this proposal. I know that some of the smaller wikis do not function optimally, but what harm do they do the rest of us? The smaller wikis get virtually no publicity in the larger ones ([[:en:Main Page]] only lists wikis with over 1000 articles), so I can hardly agree that they cast aspersions on the other by there very presence. And they provide a useful sandbox for users with illusions of grandeur (a minority of miniwiki admins): let these sorry souls pretend to be King (or Queen) of a tiny wiki if they wish to be, it keeps them out of the hair of the rest of us! On that note, I must go and start '''lincolnshire.wikipedia.org''', the first encyclopedia in [[w:Lincolnshire|Lincolnshire]] English... [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 18:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:I agree completely. Of the small, not-so-well-functioning wikipedias, some will grow and get healthy while many others will not. It is impossible to tell which ones on beforehand. If you kill 20 half-dead wikis, maybe you killed one that had a future as a vivid and well functioning wiki. Letting them all live, the other 19 wikis do no harm. / [[User:Habj|Habj]] 22:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

==Monitor, don't lock==

Line 265 ⟶ 299:

: If you have the expertise, time and will to monitor inactive wikis, let's do it. I believe there will still be some wikis not monitored by anyone. By monitoring, I expect to see vandalism removed in a matter days and an accountable monitoring report created monthly or quarterly. If this is not affordable, let's close it.

::It's already being done, Toytoy. The only reason anybody even noticed that the Zhuang Wikipedia was "in the wrong language", is because of the SWMT. Nobody here seems to care what you expect. You have effectively alienated yourself from the community with your bossy attitude, telling everybody what's going to happen without giving a choice, and calling people liars and assholes. You said in one spot that your reasoning is smarter than anybody else on this talkpage, that is very rude and hasn't earned you any brownie points.

: There is an over-1000 article wiki that failed to spot a huge numerical discrepancy on its Main Page for over 5 months. They failed to monitor their own small but beautiful wiki. So much with monitoring. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 23:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::SWMT only monitors inactive, and VERY small (as in, under 200 articles in most cases) Wikipedias. These are Wikipedias which are still very fragile. A Wikipedia with over 1000 articles is in a stage of development where the community is already fully responsible for problems. If you see a problem in a page, CORRECT IT. You call it a '''huge numerical discrepancy'''... Guess what, these weren't even texts in the native language, they were to introduce the language to speakers of other languages. The figures are one number different. This is, in my view, an '''extremely insignificant numerical discrepancy for which no Wikipedia should be closed by any sane person'''. What you're like here is, "Oh my... they have a HUGE numerical discrepancy on the mainpage, because their Wu and Mandarin versions have one different number!!!! We need to flush them down the toilet!!!". However this is TOTALLY rediculous.

::What is your motivation behind seeking such a widespread "purification" of all Wikipedias, more like a Wikipedia-genocide? So far it seems that it's only out of a hatred for Chinese languages. For your information, zh-yue is still a TEST WIKIPEDIA, which means that it does not have any of the stringent requirements. It can't be "closed", because it was never open in the first place! --node

:: The SWMT now has only two members. I know there are other submarine watchful eyes but this is only better than nothing. It's too late now to make this proposal, but you really have to think harder before starting a new wiki. You shall always ask yourself, can I monitor this wiki? If you cannot, just don't do it. Wikipedia is not their only lifesaver. It shall not be a lifesaver at all. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 01:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Uhh... HELLO!!! The SWMT monitors '''''all''''' small and inactive Wikipedias. It's very simple, I check for vandalism on ALL of them EVERY COUPLE OF HOURS very diligently, this is a list of perhaps 80 Wikipedias, but I also check Wiktionaries, Wikibookses, Wikiquotes, in total a list of over 300 I think. So you think we cannot handle one or two more?? I don't need to ask myself if I can handle it before I add a new one, I just add it. I was one of the main proponents of the 4 newest Wikipedias, when they were created I immediately added them to the list. All of these are somewhat active, unfortunately though the Scots Wikipedia is the only one that can be considered "healthy" yet, although the V~oro interface is translated. --node

== Why are we indulging this fool? ==

Line 377 ⟶ 419:

: Thanks for reading. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 02:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

::Just a few comments to some of the points:

::* Answer #2-3: If nobody but bots *have used* the link, it *has been* useless. If nobody but bots *will use* it, then it *will be* useless. But are you certain that you can extrapolate?

::* Answer #4: It is much easier to see if someone is asleep than to evaluate if a wiki is "reasonably up-to-date". So I don't think your comparison is valid in this case.

::* Answer #5: There you assume that it is about a language you neither write nor read. I read a few languages I don't really know how to write - some of them have not that very large wikipedias, and might - a year or two ago - have been classified as 'having a dead wikipedia' and hence being closed. But today, they *do* improve my thinking diversity.

::* Answer #6: a) If they come, there is no way, I repeat '''no way''', that they would come in sufficiently large numbers at once. They'd come one by one to a locked wiki, and immediately leave. And don't say that they could first gather somewhere else, since that would require 1) that there were a place they could inform others about their interest in a wikipedia in that language, and 2) that they came almost at the same time, to avoid that the first possible users would have forgotten all about it and 3) that they all speak some second language through which they could learn about the existence of wikipedia, since a closed, and hence empty, wiki will not give any google hits.

:::If on the other hand, that first user had had the chance of creating ''something'' - not necessarily large, or NPOV, or actually good in any way, but still something - not only would the next user have a chance to see what the fuss about "wikipedia" was all about (without having to resort to a language they perhaps doesn't even read), but also there would be google hits in their own language, which would direct more people to the wiki.

::* Answer #6: b) The whole point of the internationalization of wikipedia is IMO that it contains all the languages, and hence it looses much of the whole point by "kicking away" some languages to other servers/software/owners/domains/.........

::* Answer #7: In all wikis today (not excluding the big, and active ones!) there are scores of small, incorrect and POV-containing articles in those areas of expertize which is still not well covered by users. These are also a problem to the readers, but how do it come that incorrect articles in a wikipedia are less of a problem than incorrect articles on a small wikipedia? And no, there is not necesarlily a larger chance for a error in a highly specialized article in quantum physics, say, to be corrected in en:wikipedia than a trivial error in a small one. Simply by the reason that there may very well be a similar barrier to attracting the PhD:s in physics, as to the speakers of an 'obscure' language. Should be hence "lock" quantum physics articles from editing on en: until we have enough professors??? I'm sorry, but I think that is just as ridiculous as your suggestion, Toytoy.

::Ok, that's what I had to say today. Thanks for your time. [[user:Mikez|\Mike]][[User talk:Mikez|(z)]] 21:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

== Middle way ==

Line 434 ⟶ 486:

*etc. etc.

:To follow your own trend, ''you'' are the one that wants to put salt in your soup, ''we'' will have nothing to do with it. Saludos--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

::Orgullomoore has summarized the points faultlessly. "We" is a well-known rhetorical device for disguising whim as consensus, and personal interest as universal rule.

::It is you who are wasting our time here. I stated clearly that I have four solid objections which you have not addressed.

# running a wiki in a certain language is not "saving it [the language]" in any meaningful sense; Wikipedia is merely providing users with a variety of choices, so that they can employ the language they prefer;

# the vague moral argument that we are "not supposed to do it [save the language]" is not only irrelevant, as per 1. before, but completely unfounded; there are no grounds for it, and to formulate it as you did merely covers the fact with a lot of emotive tragic-hero chatter;

# the existence of slow, small or partially inactive wikis does not impair the quality or attractiveness of the larger ones; from my own experience of the Spanish languages case (Castilian, Catalan, Aragonese, Asturian, Galician and Basque having their own wikis), it's quite the contrary. Minority-language-speakers, enthused by the prospect of writing in their own language, turn up much better articles in matters of regional or historical interest, which in turn are translated and enrich other wikis.

# the increased administrative overhead deriving from your proposal, mainly in the form of endless and painful decision processes before opening or closing a given wiki, is far more detrimental to Wikipedia than the current existence of said wikis.

::Please say anything meaningful about these before resorting to personal arguments again. You've been warned. [[User:Taragui|Taragui]] 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

== Opposite Viewpoints from Zh.Wikipedia(Chinese) Community--We should Keep Our Steps to Openness and Diversity Firmly ==

Line 454 ⟶ 514:

這個開放的架構，其前提就是人人平等，人人都可貢獻自己的所知，各種語言版本的維基百科將循著地球公民的良知與善意逐漸完善，未必是現在，但保持開放性就是保持了完善的可能性。

the title:

'''The Meaning of Openness'''

===精靈遠走的中土世界？ ===

Line 463 ⟶ 526:

僅以目前強勢的語言來看，並不能得出未來它終將永遠強勢的推論。在拉丁語是世界獨強的時候，英語還不是個東西，如今拉丁語已成僵死語言（但化身到拉丁語族之中），英文卻席捲世界。前面所說的開放性，就包括給未來的強勢語言一個選擇的機會，我們不能在當下就掐著未來的脖子。更進一步說，我們必須對未來有信心，相信未來終將有人會把弱勢語言版本的維基百科修改得更加完善。反面來說，我們在不能襄助弱勢語言的同時，更不應該命令弱勢語言離開這個計畫，如果這樣做，維基百科將成為精靈遠走的中土世界。

the title:

'''Middle-earth That Elves Left?'''

''The Essentiality of Existence of Multi-language Versions''

Soon after it began, Wikipedia was made available in many other languages. Personally, I thought Wikimedia saw the importance of diversity. It realized the importance of taking in the knowledge from all over the globe, therefore setting up Wikipedia in different languages. Wikimedia aimed to gather greater understand of subject matters, as seen through various points of view that has emerged under diverse cultures, and decided against the support of mainstream languages only. This was prompted by how closely inter-dependent the different mainstream editions of Wikipedia were, and how the different editions had to be worked as one plan. Wikipedia's logo depicts a globe pieced together one by one, so no one piece should be given up on.

The importance of supporting many languages is obvious. It helps to maintain the neutrality and the dissemination of knowledge, since what an article lacks in a language, can be made up for by translation. Alternatively, a user can compare an article in different languages to get a neutral point of view. This is interlingual cross-cultural exchange. However, to further development of human intelligence, the diversity of languages must be preserved. Through assimilation or various other influences, some languages and cultures will die out, while others will, through the deeper knowledge of other languages, prevail. After all, Mankind has always developed in different directions and dimensions. Even today's languages and cultures first arose out of diversity.

Even the most important language may not persist forver. When Latin was at its peak, English was non-existant. Today, Latin is dead and only preserved in her derivatives, while English has taken the world by storm. To have openness also implies giving future mainstream languages (but today's less mainstream languages) a chance. We should never strangle them out of the future. Also, we must have faith in the future, and believe that one day, someone will polish up the Wikis in these less mainstream languages. In another way, even if some of us cannot help these languages, we have no right to evict them from the plan, or wikipedia will lose her middle ground.

===我寫故我在===

Line 472 ⟶ 547:

或許一個語言版本有其先天的進入門檻，導致參與的難度提高很多，但這是參與者本身的力有未逮，還是這個語言版本本身的問題呢？（關於與事實不符乙節詳後述）現在沒有人說某個語言版本只有特定身份的人才能參與，端看參與者本身有沒有興趣跟能力罷了，如果說因為自己不會、不能參與，就說一個已成型的社群結構有問題，進而評判其貢獻沒有價值，豈非倒因為果？

the title:

'''I Write, so I Be'''

''The Importance of Participation''

Wikipedia opted to be open, so that anyone can participate in writing and compiling a complete encyclopaedia. Since conception, Wikipedia was involved only in the editing and administration roles, and is not judgemental of any language or trend. Wikipedia accepts all points of view, without possessing her own. In Wikipedia, you are free to edit all mistakes, but, for goodness' sake, do not criticise and attack every mistake. To accuse others as being narrow-minded or stubborn is contrary to Wikipedia's aims.

Some people may criticize, comment on and judge the trends of Wikipedia, but its objective to gather the knowledge of the world in every language should never be affected. Wikipedia has given every person equal rights and freedom to decide, whether or not he should contribute to Wikipedia, and to which language edition. After all, the driving force of Wikipedia stems from participation and contribution, not criticism. As an example, [[User: Ktsqure]] once proposed that the Chinese Wikipedia start articles for every century from the 1st centry to the 21st, and the Chinese Wikipedia freely exercised her abovementioned rights not to heed the criticism as soon as it was made.

So, in some editions of Wikipedia, should there be a steeper learning curve than other editions, is it the fault of the user or the edition? Today, no one language edition restricts anybody's participation. So how can a person, because of his ignorance toward a certain language, starts criticising the community structure of that language edition, and goes even further to vilify the value of that edition? Is it the fault of that edition, or is that person's?

===你們對我最小兄弟所做的，就是對我做===

Line 480 ⟶ 566:

這完全是對於少數、弱小的歧視所造成的。十九世紀以來的帝國主義為人類帶來許多災難，更讓人切齒的是某些同受壓迫的民族在富強之後，搖身一變反而成為歧視、侵略他人的軍國主義者；我要呼籲的是，強勢者不應成為壓迫的來源，身為日漸壯大的中文（漢語）維基使用者，理應對於弱小語言版本的發展遲緩感同身受，並且在發言上有所節制，畢竟任何一個語言的強勢都不應該成為壓迫、驅趕其他弱小語言離開維基百科計畫的理由。

[[Image:UNFlag flagof the United Nations (small).png|120px|left]]聯合國大會在1992年2月21日通過第47/135號決議《隸屬少數宗教及語言之民族或族群之權利宣言》，其中第二條第一項即謂：「隸屬少數宗教及語言之民族或族群者（本處係指少數族群的人們）有權去享有其自身的文化，宣揚與實踐其自身的宗教，在公私領域使用其自身的語言，並且不受到任何干預或是各種型式的歧視……」，維基百科是一個世界性的非營利計畫，影響所及早已超越國家的界線，參與此一偉大的計畫時，宜注意到保障弱小語言、並免予歧視的國際法趨勢，雖說維基百科不是弱小語言的急診室，但任何人均不應出於歧視的目的去檢視弱小語言版本的貢獻成果。

the title:

'''When you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'''

''Avoid Discrimination on Minor Language Versions''

===從大還是從小下手？ ===

Line 490 ⟶ 581:

再繼續說數字及大小的迷思，以及所謂節省資源、經濟論的荒謬。英文維基百科的條目數是閩南語維基百科的650倍，如果說要節省資源，很明顯的，只要英語版本節省出1/650的資源，就可以保留閩南語版的空間，「為什麼你看得見你弟兄眼中的木屑，卻不覺察你眼中的大樑呢？」，難道英語版的650倍都是毫無雜質的精華，而閩南語的1/650則全部都是糟粕嗎？如果要討論節省資源，那從最大的英、德、日、法版本開始做起吧！

the title:

'''Start from the bigger or the smaller?'''

''The Paradox of Resource-saving''

===可能打擊錯誤===

Line 499 ⟶ 595:

我還是必須扣緊開放性的主題，回到正面的論述之上。具有特定目標的開放性架構，只要透過參與就可以糾正任何達成目標前手段的錯誤，具體的來說，今天只要有三個熱心參與壯語維基百科的人，用符合ISO標準的壯語書寫體系加入壯語維基百科，目前被稱為垃圾的壯語維基百科獨偏某地區壯語音調的撰寫模式及政策就可以獲得改善。如果要基進一點地說，在我們強調普通中文作為漢語維基百科的唯一正統語言的同時，我們就必須容忍其他文法的漢語維基百科的存在，否則，我們就必須把它納進來，做為一個可接受的寫作標準。

the title:

'''Possibly Wrong Strike'''

''The Relation between Measures and Goal''

===捍衛異議者的說話權===

Line 508 ⟶ 609:

另外，別忘了中文維基百科社群做為一個社群的責任，就是我們不能放棄（雖然不見得能說服某些意見，但我們必須、有義務去）平衡意見市場的努力。如果有一天讓開放性崩潰，那會是全體維基社群的災難。每個人應該沒有壓力、無所恐懼（比方說被人用效率來計算他們的貢獻成果）地參與維基百科，這是一個開放空間所應具備的條件，我所相信的維基媒體當局不會隨便以數字衡量貢獻，然後拿小語言版本開刀，但在這之前討論氛圍及過程卻非常重要，容我再引一小段話：「接著他們把魔掌伸向猶太人時，我沒有說話，因為我不是猶太人；最後，他們把魔掌伸向了我，這時，已經沒有人站起來為我說話了」。

the title:

'''Protecting Objector's Right of Speech'''

''The Result of Diversitism''

===不只是百科全書===

Line 516 ⟶ 622:

維基是從夏威夷語的wiki而來，wiki固然含有「快」的意義，但是wikipedia不是要求快速發展的百科全書，相反地，它透過確保開放性並尊重多元來鼓勵參與，讓參與者慢工細活地討論，所以我要大膽地說wikipedia其實是participedia，wikipedia其實是在說「快來參與百科全書」，只有評論卻沒有參與就不應稱為wiki，更進一步說，「打造全人類各種語言版本免費百科全書」的目標，只要透過參與就能減少錯誤，趨近於正確，這是維基百科一直在走的道路，也是我所認識的維基之道。

the title:

'''Not Only an Encyclopedia'''

--[[User:Theodoranian|theodoranian]] 11:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

''I have translated the title of those sections in my poor English. Thanks.''--[[User:Theodoranian|theodoranian]] 15:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

: '''User Testament:''' I can testify that they really hate my idea. That's true. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 11:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 532 ⟶ 643:

* I support closing this rediculous and arrogant proposal a.s.a.p. [[User:B.|B.]] 20:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

* '''I support closing''' this debat ASAP, and to modify the page in order to gather the consensus expressed here or, if it isn't possible, to blank it. --[[User:Martorell|Joanot]] 22:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

* '''Close''' - So, will someone put a notice at the top of the page stating this? [[w:en:User:JesseW]] 01:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

* Delete the page, '''close''' the discussion and make sure Toytoy doesn't start this nonsense up somewhere else!

* I '''support''' officially ending debate on this textbook example of how ''not'' to make a proposal (or toy with those against it), because the debate has ended with a clear result. Please do not delete it. [[User:A-giâu|A-giâu]] 11:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*Mark this debate dead, and keep a very close eye on Toytoy to guard against similar proposals later - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*'''Close''' this nonsense and send Toytoy to the WikiDungeon. [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 00:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

*<b>Arevider-te.</b> Si 'wikis sin spera' te enoia, tu pote usar iste idea: <b>promover wikis in linguas moriente</b>, in loco de occider un poc Wikipedia. Isto meliorarea Wikipedia, e salvarea un cultura. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 01:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

* '''close''' - supporting to close, proposal can't be demand + all other arguments against this "proposal" given all over this page --[[User:TarmoK|TarmoK]] 06:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

==Lot of scientific gibberish, lack of consistent proofs; never a textbok case, and speaking in defense of the Catalan==

Line 565 ⟶ 683:

:: No, you erred again. In adding from all the arguments given by my partner, if you consider as valid the top edits from an absent user it's another proof of incosistence of your proposal. You argue that WP collaborated by one man or by a little group of users would be closed. So, if this user is absent more than 3 months ago, how would be able Catalan WP to achieve more than 15.000 articles the last mont? (near of 3.000 new articles in those 3 months of the absent user with top-edits). It isn't hopeless nor a lack of productivity.

:: In the other side, this user named Llull is one of the founders who started Catalan WP more or less one year ago, and since then there is more than 1000 users. Every language version of WP's has started this way with a little group of users who were doing a commendable effort and compromise to engage it out, including English version. And your arguments against little communities of wikipedians is also disappointing Jimbo Wale's statements about this subject: In an interview on Spanish newspaper (http://www.elpais.es) he said: "More than 50% of edits in english is done by 524 active users, it means 0'7% of editors. WP in Spanish has 450 editors, but 8'1% of it is responsible of more than 90% of these articles."[http://www.elpais.es/articulo.html?d_date=&xref=20050714elpcibenr_3&type=Tes&anchor=elpcibred] Such as all we're doing already here, excepting you, erred man, in any part of this interview he's neithernot considering that a WP ruled by little group of users as negative.

:: Your proposal is non the [[CPOV]], as all we're disappointing with you. As it's clear about the inconsistency of your arguments, I vote to close this debate and to modify the page in order to gathering the points of views expressed by all the users here. --[[User:Martorell|Joanot]] 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 578 ⟶ 696:

:: Last year when an editor of EB found some really big mistakes in the English wiki, most people replied, "why didn't you fix it." In this like-minded group, few dared to say that a systematic weakness has been exposed. My criteria may not work, however the problems remain true. At least with these three ill-fated Chinese dialect wikis. No one cares in this faith-based feel-good wiki. -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] 20:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:::*If some have not proposed another set of criteria it is because proposing to close otherwise "active" wikis its merely absurd. But, if you read thouroughly the whole argument on the catalan defense, there are a couple of proposals, like focusing on articles instead of edits, just to mention one of the many that other users have posted. I think you can construct yourself another set of criteria with all the comments that have been posted so far. But you are as close-minded, and so involved in a heated defense of your own thesis, that you haven't been able, as the proposer and manager of this debate, to reach a consensus. You have just fiercely and offensively defended your own ideas and opinions, without ever trying to reach a middle ground, or simply admitting that your proposal was wrong in the first place.

:::*As for the "inactive" wikipedias, that has been discussed in other pages, and there is no need to repeat it all over here.

:::*Now, if you feel so strongly about those "ill-fated" Chinese dialects (and your comment simply betrays your own linguistic prejudice and closed-mindness to diversity, even if that diversity means a different alphabet), and can't help but want to bring them down, at least don't drag the rest of the healthy wikis with your inconsistent and extrapolating arguments.

:::*Finally, no one would consdier your opinions when your arguments are fallacious, and if you cannot counter-argument without resorting to verbal abuse and cultural prejudice.

:::--[[User:Alonso|Alonso]] 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

==I object==

In every possible way. I feel dumb even responding to the original poster's suggestion. BTW., Jimbo should've closed the English Wiki when there were only a couple of editors...how could he not see that it would never work!? --[[User:Lumijaguaari|Lumijaguaari]] 19:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

== Real data ==

Let's look at real data.

I'll compare data from the Min Nan wikipedia, one of the "accused ones", and a similar one, the Chinese one. I speak neither Min Man or Chinese. I've choosen these because Min Nan is one main character in the arguments, and because people speaking Chinese and Min Nan live in the same country and I asume they have the same access to Internet and to the wikipedia.

According to wikipedia [[:en:Min Nan]] has 50M speakers and [[en:Chinese language]] 1300M (and [[:en:Mandarin_(linguistics)]] 900M). Let's round it and say 50M for Min Nan and 1000M for "standard" Chinese. It is 20:1 for Chinese. So a Min Nan wikipedia with a 1/20th of the users and growing speed of the Chinese one I'd consider a real success.

Let's look at the numbers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaZH_MIN_NAN.htm]:

=== Articles after 1 year of existence ===

*Min Nan: 940

*Chinese: 2400

Same time, 1/20th of teorical base of contributors, 2/5th of the articles. I say GREAT!

=== Proportion of edits by top users ===

*Min Nan (after 1 year): 1 top user -> 54%

*Chinese (after 2.5 years): 4 top users -> 21%; 24 top users -> 51%

I don't know how to get Chinese data for the same time. Anybody knows? Anyhow, it's 2.5 times the time, 20 times the possible users, so I found 1 user 54% really close to 24 users 51%. A draw :-)

=== Active users last month ===

*Min Nan: 14 (8 with more than one edit and not clearly a bot)

*Chinese: 63 (54 with more than one edit and not clearly a bot)

After just 2/5th of the time, and with 1/20th of speakers, 1/7th of active users. GREAT again.

=== Wrong data ===

I will not respond about the argument about wrong data. The example is just silly (21st or 22nd most spoken language in the world?). I'm sure that even in the English wikipedia one can find many of this kind of mistakes.

=== Conclusion ===

We have to congratulate the Min Nan wikipedia people fo the success they have, and encourage them to keep on, not to close it!

Unless, of course, that the reason of all of this was the typical position against minorized langages, the languages some people say are only useful to gossip (I think you, toytoy, think so, or at least you have written it, when it was disscused the convenience of a Cantones wikipedia) and are not real language but dialects that cultivated people do not use.

My first language is Catalan. In my country we have had many of these things. Catalan forbidden to be used on schools or public places, children scolded for speaking it, sings on the school walls saying ''be clean, speak French'' (instead of Catalan, of course), not being attended by the police or public authoritites in Catalan (or even being fined fot doing so) and so one and so more.

If this is the case, as it really looks to me, please, don't make wikipedia another tool of oppression against minorized languages. I know every year there are many languages dying, and that wikipedia is not and has not to be a tool to preserve them, but also wikipedia has not to be a tool to keep them down, if they want to survive.

--[[User:Viktor|Viktor]] 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

'''OH......please don't close Zh.wikipedia.....I will be sad.'''--[[User:203.70.84.75|203.70.84.75]] 04:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==We should try to address people needs in their own language==

The road will be tough, it will take time, but without streching our resources, we must try to build resources in people mother languages. Their mother language is the language people understand best and an encyclopedia in their language will benefit people best, even though they have to complete it with other major and more developped languages. The only reasons I see for closing a language is when there are no editor on it but spammer, and this would be only temporary. A best choice would be monitoring, which would have to be better organised possibly.

I see Toytoy talking of "common standard" to respect, but I do not think this is agreeable. The common standard he is thinking of is the english standards. I see no problem with having different standards, such as an incomplete encyclopedia in a very minor language.

In short, I do not support this proposal at all.

However, I think everyone is free to make a proposition, ToyToy just as anyone. We should not delete a proposal which does not suit us, but simply indicate our disagreement. Some ideas might come out of the discussion; perhaps more people realise they could help monitor minor language and this would be good.

Just do not make too noisy a fuss about this proposal. This is not because ToyToy proposes it that it will happen ;-)

[[User:Anthere|Anthere]]

== Every huge project was first just a seed ==

There is a time when French project was smaller than actual Armenian one and only few user (like me) was active on it. Fortunately there was no proposal to close it. [[User:Aoineko|A<small>&#9774;</small>ineko]] 06:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed! Don't trample upon fledging blades before they have the chance to grow out slowly but surely to massive oaks. [[User:Caesarion|Caesarion]] 10:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:For a minority wikipedia presents an important chance to foster the use of the language. Especially if topics beyond the everyday live are concerned. We should give them the time necessary to test whether there is a need of an own wiki or not. And it's true: nearly all of the big ones grew very slow in the beginning... [[:eo:Vikipediisto:Montanesko|Mo]] 11:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

: Sure, I see no point in closing small Wikipedias. Well, there might be some Wikipedias that are ''completely'' inactive, those should be locked, but otherwise – no. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=="Let all the pretty flowers bloom"==

Let all the pretty [[en:Flower|flowers]] bloom Toytoy. I think Mao said something like that once. The way I see Wikipedia is just one Encyclopedia with many language versions. To deny other languages on the basis of not enough members contributing, or not enough fast growth is to deny a voice to the few who when added up all together make up a big part of this [[en:Encyclopedia|Encyclopedia]] project. Let all the pretty flowers bloom, it adds to the beauty of the garden, to take these away makes it look like a bed of silk flowers, pretty to look at from a distance, but up close the spirit is dead. Let the minor languages coexist with the others, each language brings a shade of color, and especially, there's beauty of expression and culture that can only be expressed in one's own mother tongue. [[User:ILVI|ILVI]] 14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== Response from Node, feared "language troll" of Wikimedia ==

Hi Toytoy,

I'm sure you've been awaiting my response with either eagerness or fear. So, here it is.

Before I start, a note: you used "per se" improperly. ;p

Now, let's begin. I have numbered my points so they can be neatly replied to individually.

# '''Why close any given Wikipedia, unless it has become a nuisance?''' The Sicilian Wikipedia, as an example, does not in my opinion even warrant a debate or an investigation. Yes, a large percentage of the articles were created by a single person, but so far there have been no complaints. There are other active users there as well who fix any errors he might make and strive to keep all articles -- no matter who the author may be -- free of POV. The Limburgish Wikipedia is another good example. The majority of the articles were created by HaafLimbo (Wouter Steenbeek, also the purveyor of the Zeelandic Test-Wiki), but he is well-acquainted with NPOV policy. Also, since this is Wikipedia, anyone else can edit his writing and in this way it is monitored.

# '''Why does it matter whether or not a Wiki is active, popular, or perfect?''' Inactive Wikis -- that is, Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikibookses, and Wikiquotes -- are all currently monitored by the [[SWMT]]. Currently this consists of only [[User:Angela|Angela]] and myself. HOWEVER, the vast majority (perhaps 99%) of vandalism and spam on inactive Wikis is caught by me or Angela, and most of that which is NOT caught by us is caught by someone else (such as [[User:Mxn|mxn]], [[User:sj|SJ]], [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]], or any number of other users). Wikipedias which are not well-known should not be deleted for this alone -- the English Wikipedia was not well-known right away.

# '''What is your familiarity with "bad Wikis"?''' Which Wikipedias do you edit on a weekly basis? I think it is only zh: and en:. Where do you get off making this proposal, then? How many of these other languages can you speak?? Obviously not Hebrew, because if you did you'd probably also know that not all Jewish people can read and write fluent Modern Hebrew, just as not all Buddhists can read and write fluent Pali, and not all Christians can read and write fluent New Testament Greek. Next time you want to make such an extreme proposal, please gather the opinions of native speakers of these languages (you did it for Minnan, but for any other languages??).

# My conclusion: Wikipedias have a tried and true development pattern. All Wikipedias that are now "safe" from the claws of your proposal, would not have been safe 3 years, 1 year, 6 months, or even 1 month ago (depends on the Wiki). Wikis are collaborative environments, and "broken Wikis" will slowly but surely be repaired. Some have accused the Low German Wikipedia of being in Patentplatt (fake Low German). If this is true, it will eventually be fixed. The system works. And, as they say in [[:ug:|Wulumuqi]], '''ِائفئت يينت بروق دونت فيقسيت''' (UKY: ifht yint broq dont fiqsit) -- '''''if it ain't broke, don't fix it)'''''. --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]]

:I have occasional disagreements with Node but not this time. Toytoy cannot be right. [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 20:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==Deliberate obstruction of Wikipedias in other Chinese languages==

My own conclusion is that small wikipedias in minority languages will grow all be it very slowly. They just need time. What is written now will be kept isn't that great? It gives another person something to build on instead of having to start from scratch. I am becoming very irritated by the group of Chinese wikipedia users that try to kill every wikipedia in a different Chinese language apart from Mandarin! They already succeeded partly by obstructing the creation of wikipedias in other chinese languages but Mandarin! [[User:Waerth|Waerth]] 11:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:Seconded. This is all about obstructing other Chinese wikipedias, and never mind the collateral damage elsewhere - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::Thirded. I'm still pissed that what otherwise would've been a successful bid for a Wikipedia in a language with gazillions of speakers -- in fact, two separate bids (the less-publicised Wu request, and the Cantonese request) -- was obstructed mostly by incessant whinging that it would take away from the userbase of the oh-so-impoverished Chinese Wikipedia, which at that time had almost 20000 -- TWENTY THOUSAND -- articles. Despite what was at first a thriving test Wikipedia, it was never created, not in small part due to Jimbo's expression of his opinion (which was based from advice from someone at the East-West center who said that Cantonese and Mandarin are written the same, despite the fact that plenty of other people were saying on-list that they are in fact NOT). Now the possible future creation of a Cantonese Wikipedia is overshadowed and subtracted from by the creation of the "Cantonese Community Wiki" at Wikicities... damn!!! Thanks a lot, Fuzzyhead!!! >:( --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 18:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Fourth-ed. I entirely agree with Waerth, David Gerard, and Node ue.[[User:Harvzsf|Harvzsf]] 02:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Fifthed. Totally agree, but Toytoy and others who've tried to block non-Mandarin Chinese wikipedias clearly don't represent the whole zh-wikipedia community. I think we should go ahead and create a Cantonese Wikipedia as soon as possible. The test-wikipedia was going fine, and proved its feasibility. And the Wikicities site points to Wikipedia, so we should have a Cantonese site that people can contribute to. Also, rather than drawing users away from zh-wikipedia, it might actually draw more people here, benefiting all Chinese wikipedias. --[[User:Chamdarae|Chamdarae]] 09:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Idle question... Jimbo Wales <i>seriously</i> thought Cantonese and Mandarin were two forms of the same language? When he had en:Chinese Language to read? If what you're saying is true, why should we bother with making Wikipedia better when the site's very owner isn't going to read it? [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 01:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately Almafeta, that article is very confusing. In the very first section it says: "Spoken varieties of Chinese can be written in a common formal written language which, since the beginning of the twentieth century is Vernacular Chinese (based on Mandarin), written using a nearly identical set of Chinese characters."

::::While it is true that people more often use Baihuawen ("Vernacular Chinese") in writing, it is actually just writing with Mandarin vocabulary, grammar, and expressions. It's also quite possible to write the local vernacular, as has been done at the Cantonese test-wiki, and it's perhaps about 70% similar to written Mandarin in the case of Cantonese. All of this is explained to some degree in [[w:Chinese written language]], but even then it's very -- VERY -- confusing. I'm going to add a new page on Meta for discussion of the possibility of separate Chinese wikipedias. [[Proposal for Sinitic linguistic policy]]. --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

== immediatism vs. eventualism and language bias ==

This proposal is just [[immediatism]] at its finest, combined with a bias toward languages with large numbers of speakers. As an [[eventualism|eventualist]], I naturally oppose it. On top of that, I'm one of several people who have an interest in reviving the obscure [[en:Lojban|Lojban]] Wikipedia [http://ljo.wikipedia.org], which would almost certainly qualify for deletion under this proposal's terms. And yet I cannot identify the harm in having an encyclopedia in lojban, or in Klingon. And the benefit that just one person, reading nothing but some obscure language, might find information that otherwise would not be available to him, more than justifies the trivial cost of keeping the more obscure Wikipedias open.

It is better to have an encyclopedia of poor quality than to have none at all. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 16:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Every language should have a Wikipedia. To me that's one of the best things about this project - many other large sites in the Web only have information in English, German, French and other "big" languages, but few have content in such less known languages as the ones in this proposal's list (sometimes even Bulgarian, my language, fits this description!). The good thing about Wikipedia is that it gives users from around the world the opportunity to create an encyclopedia in THEIR language. If this is not so in the future, Wikipedia would not be what it is today. That's why I'm against this proposal. --[[User:Megara|Megara]] 20:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

== Cluttering up interwiki links ==

While I certainly don't see the point of having an encyclopedia in, let's say, [http://ang.wikipedia.org Anglo-Saxon], I guess it doesn't do any harm either.

With one small exception: the sidebars with interwiki links get rather cluttered up in popular articles, for example [[en:Germany]]. The histories of some articles are also quite cluttered with robots inserting interwiki links. If all 3,000 languages that exist ultimately get their on wiki, interwiki links will become quite unusable.

Instead of deleting small wikis, which would certainly be very radical, maybe it would be helpful to limit interwiki links that point to small wikis. For example, each small wiki would be assigned to no more than two big wiki where it can insert its interwiki links:

* [http://nds.wikipedia.org Low German] gets to be linked from German and Dutch only

* [http://za.wikipedia.org Zhuang] gets to be linked from Chinese and Vietnamese only

--[[en:User:Chl]] 27 July 2005

:Yes Chl but from an eventualist point of view, this wouldn't be a good idea either because eventually, there will be 3000 Wikipedias, but all of them will be /complete/ encyclopaedias. Why not crint that priggie when we cackle to it? --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 18:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

: No, when there is a page in nds, we want it to be seen in other languages too. We do not want to be second class citizens in wikiland. We have been treated as a second class language far too long. No way. [[User:HeikoEvermann|HeikoEvermann]] 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:Chl, you won't have to worry about 3,000 different language Wikis. There's only about 2400 languages left, and by the time Wikipedians get enough natural languages supporters from each of those languages to pass in [[Requests for new languages]], at least 75% of those will have gone extinct. (And ancient languages and conlangs have a higher standard to meet than natural languages, so don't worry about those anytime soon.) [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 03:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

== The one-man-band symptoms ==

A complaint about "one-man band" wikis worded as a "highly personal" policy proposal from one person with the assertion that no one else should edit or add to it... is this page looking for an irony award or something? I vote '''userfy'''. --[[User:66.101.59.18|66.101.59.18]] 00:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== Let the seeds grow ==

I think we shouldn't eliminate small wikis, but instead help them grow. Especially when we are talking about languages with a relatively small number of speakers, wikipedia could be a good way to preserve such languages. I would like to look at them in the same way we look at endangered species. You don't shoot at them, but protect them. As an example, in the first half of June on italian Wikipedia we started a project aimed to our contributors and readers, in which we invited people to contribute (if they can) to the sicilian Wikipedia. I think we will do something similar also for sardinian and friulan. Every language brings with itself history and culture, an heritage that in some cases is at risk. I want a richer Wikipedia not a poorer one. --[[User:Snowdog|Snowdog]] 07:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

*Ditto. Furthermore, who knows?, maybe tomorrow sicilian wiki will start growing at 10% per month --[[User:Blakwolf|Blakwolf]] 11:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

=="Toytoy is jealous": Reaction of a 'top user' of the Indonesian Wikipedia==

I cannot escape to the impression that Toytoy is actually jealous to the achievement of these so-called 'one man band' members or top users with relatively high amount of contribution. Well everything has to start with one man/person. There is a saying "Necessity is the mother of invention". Well as for the one man Wikipedias, I should say that one day many of them would become useful. Who are we to judge? It is preposterous that a big Wikipedia such as the Indonesian language Wikipedia would be closed because of the efforts of few active users. Please note that the Indonesian language Wikipedia has the potential to serve 250 millions people. [[User:Meursault2004|Meursault2004]] 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

:'''Misguided Proposal''' indeed. I looked at your reasoning for closing things down. These so called "Tests" cited quality control. Are you some kind of Industrial Engineer? I can't see the objective of these "Tests":

::*Is it such a big whopping problem that wikipedia runs slow? Does anyone have any statistical data to support the premise that shutting down some ''small'' wikipedias will speed up other '''big''' wikipedias? I doubt it.

::*No relations to their free speech? Oh, I heard that before when people talk about the Genocide in Rwanda. I am afraid you're a bit mistaken there. The spirit of an open internet is ''to encourage and nurture freedom'' with the importance of '''nurture''', not shutting it down.

:[[User:Kortsleting|Kortsleting]] 22:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

== When does a Wikipedia fail? ==

That is just the way Wikipedia works. Very few people will feel like contributing when there seems to be too much work to do. Few people have the determination to actually ''start'' a Wikipedia from scratch. When these few people have created a considerably large amount of articles, search engine hits will increase, more and more internet users will actually see the articles and will start ''improving'' them (especially so if they find these articles to be biased or of low quality). I do not think you should deem a Wikipedia a failure too hastily. – [[:w:hu:User:KovacsUr|KovacsUr]] 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== Worst proposal ever ==

Here's why this is the worst proposal ever.

Let's say I'm Norwegian or Danish and I want to learn about the Icelandic town of Ísafjarðarbær. Let's check the English wikipedia:

[[en:Ísafjarðarbær]]

Nope, looks like a red link (as of today).

Let's check the Icelandic wikipedia:

[[is:Ísafjarðarbær]]

Yep, there it is. Now, if I were Norwegian with perhaps a smattering of Icelandic education I could read it, and also translate it into English if need be. Same goes with every small region in the world that most people except for people of that country have never been to.

IOW, your proposal is a proposal for Wikipedia to shoot itself in the foot. Glad to see the debate's been closed already.

:I think it's been two months since this proposal and it looks like the English Wikipedia now has a stub article on the town. Where did it come from? Translated from Afrikaans, one of the Wikipedias down at around 5000. 'Nuff said. [[User:211.202.17.124|211.202.17.124]] 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

==Plurality on this planet==

Dear Toytoy, please consider plurality and reconsider your suggestion... There are more than 3 000 languages on this planet. I peronally think that for a small language like Estonian that you mention in your discussion (and I am not Estonian), 10 000 articles is the same as having one million articles in English. I speak ten languages, ToyToy, and one of them is indeed Estonian. I personally think that this and any other minority language in this world have their right to exist, even more so in the Internet and in an open-source project such as Wikipedia.

If there are only a few articles, who cares? Why would it bother you? Or me? Why would it bother me if there are only n users for such-n-such language (that I do not even speak, nor do I use their pages). Maybe to some minority users even ten articles in their own minority language are worth more than one million articles in a world language such as English, French or Spanish.

This world needs plurality and tolerance. Please, reconsider your suggestion.

----

This proposal served as a wake up call on my involvement in wiki. As mention in the proposal, it is not a prudent action to be too depend on foreign resources and money. And also it is wiser to have back up, in case future proposal such as these, do get through. I be looking towards supporting local resources based on copyright belong to the author. I have been lax earlier and will be monitoring situation in wiki more closely.[[User:Yosri|Yosri]] 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

== What's the point of an Esperanto encyclopedia? ==

Maybe the following anonymous question asked at the esperanto wikipedia is worth of mention in this context.

>You might consider this a troll, but I don't...

What's the point of an Esperanto encyclopedia? Esperanto is so narrowly-used that it really doesn't provide any benefit to anyone that isn't already reaped from native-language encyclopedias. Again, what's the point?

>I suppose there is no generally valid answer to your question. Everybody has his own views and experiences. Esperanto is a part of my cultural horizon. Using esperanto I´m capable to express myself more freely then in any other foreign language and I feel myself nearly as comfortable as in my mothertongue. And believe it or not; I acquired a considerable part of my knowledge about various areas of interest (above all literature, live and history of other peoples etc.) via esperanto. I've got acquainted to interesting men and women from different corners of the planet, we talked to each other on equal footing (a japanese told me: esperanto is a sort of linguistic handshake; everybody has to make a move towards the other) and all this changed the way I look at the world; I learned to think more in a global context, in a more balanced way. Learned to appreciate the value of foreign cultures (and not only of the so called big ones - '''every language opens the door to a cultural universe of its own''') and at the same time I pay much more attention then before to the cultural values and traditions of my own country.<br>

I've always been hungry for information (like many wikipedians, I presume) , I love good literature. I read much, in German, English, Italian, Norwegian and esperanto. Sometimes I find informations on a certain topic in Italian, informations I could not find in English, sometimes I look for something in German and find it in Esperanto. And of course the best information on topics related to esperanto, its poetry for instance, is available in esperanto. So what's the point of resigning to look for informations in an esperanto encyclopedia? [[:eo:Vikipediisto:Montanesko|Mo]]

(And by the way don't 26,500 articles speak for themselves?)

Dear anonymous visiter:<br>

Believe it or not, Esperanto has its own culture, artistic works, music, and NATIVE SPEAKERS. Yes, there are several hundred people that speak Esperanto natively as their first language. (Mom and Dad meet, and are from different nationalities, but both speak Esperanto. Therefore Esperanto is the language spoken in the household.) Some native Esperanto speakers are editors on this Wikipedia. So, if you are saying that this Wikipedia is not worthwhile because there are not many native speakers and other national languages are more worthwhile, you might also want to ask the same question of the folks at the Cherokee or Nauruan Wikipedias, after all, they are narrowly-used, and most people that speak Cherokee or Nauruan also speak English, right?

And that is the point of Esperanto. It allows me to work and communicate with folks from France, Brazil, China, and South Korea, and make good friends which would have been impossible to make before. It allows me to see things from a more global perspective than I would with "just English." And it allows a second language that's simple to learn that does not supplant other languages. Read the [http://www.esperanto.se/dok/praguemanifesto.html Manifest of Prague] (in English) to give you a good idea why Esperanto is important.<BR>

--[[:eo:Vikipediisto:Yekrats|Yekrats]] 11:49, 2. Auxg 2005 (UTC)

:If a language is used by a sufficient number of speakers who regularly edit and improve articles, Wikimedia doesn't give a flip if its' English, Dutch, Zulu, or Klingon. 'notability' is not a standard for including a language. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 10:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

== I think your proposal is a BAD IDEA and a Catch-22 ==

I am a frequent contributor to the Esperanto Wikipedia, and occasional contributor to the English Wikipedia (if you discount my interwiki stuff). Since the Esperanto Wikipedia was disparaged as having "one-man band syndrome" with 7.6% of the edits being made by our top user. If you look at our stats page, we've got a pretty nice "contribution curve" with no robots among the top 15 users and no single user far ahead of the others (according to the last wikistats from May).

In the past year, the Esperanto wiki has passed some major milestones. We've surpassed the 20- and 25,000 article mark, garnering some good press from the Esperanto community. Wikipedia is probably one of the top 3 sites in the Esperanto language. We recently implemented a Featured Article of the Week and a Collaboration of the Week, and have a really good group dynamic that has formed. There is a focus on article-quality. New users are coming in, reading, and contributing. We might have never got here if such a policy was in place.

Your proposed policy for closure seems too nebulous and can only hurt Wikipedia rather than help it. Of course, you have proposed it as a policy, but the only benefit I've found that you propose is that you feel the overall quality of wikipedia will improve if several international wikis are cut. The only disadvantages of our current having many smaller wikis you propose is percieved criticism.

Language diversity is important to most of us Esperantists, because you never know when that little idea from a minor-league dialect is going to be important. You never know when the next great Wikipedian is going to come in through a small language. Remember, all Wikipedias were embarrassingly small and struggling as they started. I don't know of any Wikis that could have survived your criteria when they were small.

Surpressing the little languages does us no good. Little languages take very little space and use very little bandwidth, yet they have the potential to attract enthusiastic people to take the reins. So, I think we can think of the little languages like "advertising". If they sit dormant for a month or two without growth, the next great contributor may be just around the corner. If we close a wikipedia because it's "not growing fast enough" or "not having a large enough user base" compared to others, then we cut off their potential of getting to the point where they can grow fast and attract new users. You say that at a minimum, a Wiki has to be able to be used by people, but how does a wiki get there without being small first? What happens if they are pruned before they have a chance to grow? It's a Catch-22.

Furthermore, all of the press coverage I've seen about Wikipedia that mentions its internationalization does so in a positive light.

Please, let's abandon this bad idea.

-- [[User:Yekrats|Yekrats]] 19:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Surpressing the little languages does us no good. Little languages take very little space and use very little bandwidth, yet they have the potential to attract enthusiastic people to take the reins. So, I think we can think of the little languages like "advertising". If they sit dormant for a month or two without growth, the next great contributor may be just around the corner. If we close a wikipedia because it's "not growing fast enough" or "not having a large enough user base" compared to others, then we cut off their potential of getting to the point where they can grow fast and attract new users. You say that at a minimum, a Wiki has to be able to be used by people, but how does a wiki get there without being small first? What happens if they are pruned before they have a chance to grow?" Me too agree with the precedentt contributor. And I find this ideavery bad one! and totally unconsistent to THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF WIKIPEDIA. (Eliott)

== Wikipedia is a mean to learn other languages ==

(maybe you 'll say I first have to learn English... BUT)

Wikipedia is a mean to learn other languages.

I enjoy reading articles in Romanian, it helps me to learn this language. Reading articles in german or in english makes me see another points of view.

And I really enjoy reading the esperanto and interlingua Wikipedias : it's so funny to understand nearly all what is written (as a latin-european, it's easier for me).

Interlingua is a language that many people can understand without a special formation. (I think all people speaking a latin language).

I don't have to defend Esperanto (Vivu Esperanto!), it has been already done before me. That's a language that everyone is able to learn in a few months! Isn't it great?

An esperanto Wikipedia has to exist because of the philosophy of both Wikipedia and Esperanto.

And I've read someone who wrote about some traditional languages : "All people speaking this language who can access to Wikipedia learned a "standard" language at school (english for ex.)". In my opinion, knowledge and cultural exchanges should be accessible to anybody, as well to people who didn't study a lot... in the language that they better know.

(I'm sorry I couldn't express myself as well as I wanted... I would prefer writing in french or, why not, esperanto? )

[[User:Laika|Laika]] 21:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (France)

== This may have gone unnoticed... ==

But this was a very funny saga. --Lotsofissues

== Merge ==

We're talking about merging all the articles, yes? Preserving all content in the process? Not some bizarre [[Deletionist]] effort to close a bunch of wikis? [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Response by [[User:Pérez|Pérez]] ==

*As contributor to the catalan wikipedia I think to clouse a wikipedia will not be the end of human civization in whole, but that will be the end of some civilizations in the world. There are very much languages that have only a few speakers, not the catalan of course, and may be that languages have not more that one or two contributors to wikipedia; if wikipedia clouse may be that language will dead. In the case of catalan the, I think, the little number, or the big number of contributions of only one contributor is because we have had one very active contributor: [http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Llull Llull] whose contributions finished on march, 30 2005. I think is not a good idea to clouse a wikipedia. [[User:Pérez|Pérez]] 18:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)