Talk:Wikimedia projects are not for nation-building

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is now a Special projects subcommittees for new languages. Have you made them aware of this proposal? Angela 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I told them for the proposal. --Millosh 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan issue[edit]

The Moldovan language is standardized by the Moldovan Academy, which defines its script as Latin. The Moldovan wikipedia uses an old, now non-standard form of the language. Dpotop 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no user base on wikipedia, so the problem is closed. Dpotop 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll add it inside of the text. This document doesn't deal with old-new issue, as well as it doesn't deal with a number of users on Wikipedia. This document doesn't say what project should be opened, but what project shouldn't be opened. This page doesn't deal with a lot of other issues, too. --Millosh 15:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I modified my version. NB: you don't know what you're talking about. Having the same language does not mean "same nation". Also, you're mixing Moldovans with the policies of the self-established Transnistrian authorities. The language they use is:
  1. non-standard, for standard Moldovan (i.e., the one standardized by the Moldovan Academy) is Latin-scripted.
  2. only different from Standard Romanian in script, not ortograph.
  3. The Moldovans don't seem to eager to become Romanians.
Dpotop 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Millosh threatened me with a block on my talk page. At the same time, he did not reply to my arguments presented above. This is not normal. Dpotop 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see how you can say that "nation/ethnicity" is "in the process of assimilation with Romanian nation". This is not correct from my own experience with Moldova and moldovans (I went there for a three week trip this summer). "Nation" and/or "ethnicity" is indeed not "well established", but is as far as I can see absolutely not in the process "in the process of assimilation with Romanian nation". --Dittaeva 10:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the part "in the process of assimilation with Romanian nation". --Millosh 11:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty as criteria[edit]

I agree that Wikimedia should not be misused as a political tool for nation building. I do not however agree that sovereignty or independence should be used as a criteria on deciding if this rule applies. If we do that, we get mixed up in politics in a way we should not.

We now have four Serbo-Croatian nations, but their independece should not count as arguments for separate wikipedias. The lack of international recognition of Transdniestria should not count against the cyrillic Moldovian Wikipedia.

They are not Serbo-Croatian nations Petri, former Yugoslavia was formed by 6 republics (nations) --Ego and his own 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What should count is the status of the language/dialect and the purpose of the proposal. If the true intention of the proposed wiki is a nationalistic of separatist agenda then the wiki should not exist. Defining the true intent of a proposed or even existing wiki is a difficult task, but that does not need to affect the formulation of this policy. -- Petri Krohn 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nationalsm works both ways; if a proposal for deletion is done on a nationalistic agenda to oppose separatism, then it should be rejected. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not related to sovereignty, but to the stadium of language standardization. For example, Moldovan Cyrillic passes because it has language standard. Montenegrin doesn't pass in this moment if because it doesn't have standard and the situation is not clear if the language would be (almost) the same as Serbian standard (if one of that is positive: has a standard and/or it has different orthography, it should pass). And Montenegro is independent state and Transnitria is not. Strictly speaking, it is related more to ethnicity (see the second meaning of the word "nation" on en:Nation); I realized that "nation" in English means "state", too. So, it is not related to existanse of state. --Millosh 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Moldovan cyrilic is not a separate standardization of Romanian language, only a transliteration. The person who started Moldovan Wiki is a kid from USA (self-declared mo-2) with little knowledge about the language, he make many mistakes (even comparing with the language used in Soviet times), his mistakes can not be considered a new standard. Is like somebody will start a Turkish Wikipedia in arabic script (which was used previously for Turkish), but not using old Ottomanic words, just today standard Turkish with grammar/spelling errors as result that he is not knowing well the language.--MariusM 12:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is language[edit]

Name of language - Nation mark[edit]

There is meny political implications regarding language. I dont see the problem with new languages on wikipedia, beside nationalistics/politics implications that particularly country (language) have reflected on wikipedia. Those issues affects all realations to that language-dialect, so I don't see how will wikipedia go around it instead to look case by case. I think that this article missing the point, and I don't see that real problem is in wikipedia policy. All nation-building political forces are using unquestionable sources to back up their intentions. So it is quite hard to make systemization. I don't see ether how Google page count can give any valid measurement about languages.

Wikipedia should be what is meant to be: World scale encyclopedia which anyone can write (this is not basically true - true is: what majority think should be written). Here comes one problem, that I came on during Montenegrin language request. Who is majority and why it opposes to include new, part of article or even new language? We count on common sense, and that could be true in most cases on e.g. English which lot of people know but on languages which use small number of people this easily could not be the case. So the majority rule could be questioned here and I think that should be found better ways to solve this problem.

In this discussion I didn't see any arguments about why language is not nation-building ? Example English, German, French, Italian(see nation Marks?). Spreading of English helped England to spread culture and every aspect of their nation. This is not to hard to understand, same thing is about every other language. So language is nation building mechanism with different manifests on cultural, economics and political life of people. I don't see how this can be questionable as it is reality.

Is language a Nation Building mechanism?[edit]

Yes, even if there is a bad examples not all are bad. Language is basic of people communications and providing other people from other culture to see different aspect of different languages is great attribute of wikipedia, if not even key one. Do not forget that main point of wikipedia is free collaboration and contribution. And contribution and collaboration is mainly focused on Nation level as the languages are formed and called that way(not exclusively but mainly). So it should be very clear and undoubtedly policy about misuse of wikipedia. And policy in this way formed do not give that impression as it is based on few linguistics rules that I think don't have real connection with problem.


The main problem that I could find about this is extreme nationalism and similar ideologies. And from this suffer not only new or unstandardized languages under wikipedia projects. I have read the letter from Special projects subcommittees [1], and seems that they have put it very well about this problem.

If I can suggest it could be good to give real example of situations and consequences of such mis usage of wikipedia. In that way maybe we cold see better what is damage to WMF and what possible solutions could arise in discussion.


I have just tried to show gray beside black and white schema on this article. About Montenegrin case I will write more as it could be helpful to discussion.

Note: When I refer to wikipedia I meant any wikimedia project --Ego and his own 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)