Mark, I hope I didn't touch the actual mo.wp issue in any way -- I was obviously referring to the decision process. On which your opinion seems to be "don't involve the community, keep it transparent, protect the absent". Milos came up with a proposal. I came up with a proposal. What is your proposal?
Thank you, Gutza On 13-Oct-10 03:53, M. Williamson wrote: > On the matter of the disposition of mo.wp - I have stated it several > times clearly in the other thread, that there should be some sort of > accommodation available for users of the Cyrillic alphabet that > enables both reading from and contributing to a Wikipedia, be it ro.wp > or a separate Wikipedia. > > On the matter of how a decision should be reached in this matter, my > opinion is that we should learn lessons from the past and that endless > votes and debates which involve the whole community in a single page > do not seem an ideal solution; I also believe in transparency. I also > believe in protecting the rights of those who are not present or who > are underrepresented, that is my main reason for continued involvement > in this discussion. > > -m. > > > 2010/10/12 Gutza <[email protected]>: >> Mark, >> >> There seems to be some communication problem here. Do you actually have >> an opinion on this matter or not? If you do have an opinion, what is it? >> >> Thank you, >> Gutza >> >> On 13-Oct-10 03:36, M. Williamson wrote: >>> 2010/10/12 Gutza <[email protected]>: >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> You are a veteran in Wikipedia matters -- you have been involved in this >>>> project for several years under nickname "Node ue". You have fought in >>>> the Moldovan language article on en.wp for years, and you have >>>> single-handedly created and defended the entire mo.wiki project, from >>>> interface to content. As such, I am amazed by the number of >>>> inconsistencies in your reply: >>> This is a mischaracterization. I am a "veteran in Wikipedia matters", >>> I suppose, having been around since about 2001, but I have not edited >>> that article in 4 years or so, and I have barely touched >>> Moldova-related topics on-wiki (perhaps a total of 5 edits over the >>> course of the last few years). After having read your message, I can't >>> help but feel maligned for things I may have said a long time ago and >>> which I have mostly since forgotten. As a human being, my views have >>> changed and developed since then. I hope we can continue to respect >>> each other as thinking individuals. >>> >>>> 1. Your wording is inflammatory ("rule-by-mob"), and your point >>>> gratuitously infers an ulterior motive on my part; as far as I can >>>> tell, there is no reason for such implications. >>> "Rule-by-mob" has been used by many people, including great thinkers >>> far wiser than I could ever hope to be, to refer to one of the great >>> flaws in the democratic process. An absolute democracy is never ideal >>> because the rights of minorities can easily be voted away by the >>> majority. That is why, in most politically-stable democracies with any >>> measure of ethnic diversity, there are multiple safeguards to ensure >>> that the rights of minorities or people who for whatever reason do not >>> have as loud of a political voice are not trampled. In this case, the >>> population of Romania is much larger than that of Moldova, and smaller >>> still is that of Transnistria. In addition, Moldova (excluding >>> Transnistria) does not enjoy the same level of internet connectivity >>> as does Romania, and Transnistria does not enjoy anywhere near the >>> same level of internet connectivity as either. >>> >>>> 2. Wikipedia is governed by consensus, wherein the quality of your >>>> argument weighs much more than the number of people who hold the >>>> same point of view; as such, the rule-by-mob and any similar >>>> arguments are moot. >>> This is not a local Wikipedia, this is a foundation matter. What you >>> are proposing is to make a decision that will affect a community >>> without ensuring their equal representation in such a discussion. If, >>> theoretically, the Romanian Wikipedia's continued existence were up >>> for discussion, would you feel safe going into a room of all people >>> who are already biased against your cause and asking them to vote on >>> it, knowing you were outnumbered? Our community is supposed to >>> function by consensus and compromise, not simple majority-rules votes, >>> but things are often reduced to that. >>> >>>> 3. Several "interested parties" (such as myself) have been watching >>>> this discussion on foundation-l for some time; as long as they had >>>> nothing to comment, they kept to themselves -- this is in line >>>> with Wikipedia policies regarding tacit consensus. Moving this >>>> entire conversation to a private medium equals hiding the >>>> decision-making process from the very interested parties it was >>>> intended for. You might have not been aware of such silent parties >>>> before my message here, but you were replying to the very message >>>> which revealed their existence. >>> The idea was proposed by Milos, not myself; my own comment is that it >>> seems better than a free-for-all on Meta, not that it is the best >>> possible idea and that we should use that. I, for one, am always in >>> favor of greater transparency and accountability. So we are faced with >>> two proposals: one that allows trampling of a numerical minority by a >>> much larger group, and another that creates an environment of no >>> transparency or accountability. Neither is a really good solution in >>> my view, I'd like to find something better. >>> >>>> 4. All of this is public, so far. As such, any "private" medium this >>>> conversation could be moved to will be "invaded" by Romanian and >>>> Russian "mobs". But there's a significant difference: where silent >>>> parties were silent, now they would now have to voice their >>>> presence in the new, "private" medium. >>>> >>>> Having said the above, please tell me how exactly you see this private >>>> decision-making process, from a technical point of view: which medium do >>>> you propose? Who would centralize all messages? When would we know we >>>> reached consensus, and who would decide that? How would that be proven >>>> to the outside world? >>> Again, this was not my proposal. You can refer these questions to >>> Milos. I don't like the idea of a free-for-all >>> vote/discussion/whatever on Meta that will surely be little more than >>> a repeat of what happened 4 years ago, but I also don't like the idea >>> of a secret cabal with unknown members making secret decisions in a >>> secret forum, only to be divulged to the community after the fact. >>> >>> -m. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
