Mailing List Archive

Erik Moeller wrote:

>Only one response so far? If there's no interest we might as well do
>without a public referendum.
>
Some of us take a couple of days to get to our e-mails.

To be more optimistic - maybe everyone is carefully deliberating on the
answers before giving them. ;-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni wrote:

>On 11/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
>>== Vision Statement ==
>>
>>'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>in the sum of all knowledge.'''
>>
>>
>Involves a lot of running and screaming
>
Stark naked?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
>> English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
>> language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
>> other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
>> languages, right? I don't think so...
>>
>
> The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
> appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
> "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
> or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
> should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
> actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
> supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
> barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
>
>
Hoi,
With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world
to unite under one language does horrify me. The image that I get is
shopping centres all over the world that have exactly the same shops,
the same products. Television that has the same programs, the same
adverts. Going to Italy and only to be told how it used to be with
nothing going on that I cannot find in Almere (FYI Almere as a city is
only some 30 years old). Supporting multi linguality you do in order to
appreciate that there is more than what you to take for granted. Not
knowing at least two languages and cultures ensures you that you do not
appreciate what is around you. Being able to appreciate things from a
different perspective is what provides depth to the world as you
perceive it.
>> Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>> the projects? If not here, then where?
>>
>
> Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.
>
>
>> Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
>> well, considering how important it is to the projects...
>>
>
> Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on
> technology and lacks the dedication to become one.
>
>
>> Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing
>> here.
>>
>
> Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both
> M&V might make sense.
>
It is even dangerous to think that we are ONE community, we are one
community in that we share commons values. But many other values are
starkly different. This is easy to observe, just watch the interaction
between the ro and mo communities. It is so bad that the ro go as far as
denying the existence of mo.
>
>> Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
>> statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
>> how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
>> Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
>> and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
>> teacher.
>> Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
>>
>
> Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that
> word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally
> different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge?
> Is unverifiable information knowledge?)
>
If you ask a teacher if it is useful to show the same information in 10
marginally different ways, he will tell you no two of his kids are the
same and that by being able to say the same things slightly different
the message will come across where it did not at first. Certainly when
the background of people is different, information that is well written,
NPOV may not inform because the assumptions no not coincide with the
assumption of the reader. It is exactly to overcome these issues that
makes it so important to tell the same information in "ten" marginally
different ways.

Honestly and truly, let us cherish our differences by being aware of how
we differ. But let the differences not be what drives us apart while we
have so much in common.

Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brianna Laugher wrote:

>>== Vision Statement ==
>>
>>'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>in the sum of all knowledge.'''
>>
>>Comment:
>>
>>One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own
>>language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument
>>that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by
>>teaching another language like English and then giving access to
>>learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly
>>endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination
>>in our vision statement.
>>
>>
>The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia
>*global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global
>influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of
>anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale. It deserves proper
>recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be
>re-appended.
>
As much as agreeing with the retreat cabal may be contrary to this
curmudgeon's world view, I think that leaving "in their own language"
out is best. Nevertheless, I find Erik's rationale somewhat
condescending and misleading. The vision statement is not about the
role or importance of English, or any other language. The statement
will presumably be translated (both linguistically and culturally) into
as many languages as required, where it strikes me as normal that every
person will imagine in the context of a world vision unique his own
language and culture. We want a Yaqui person to imagine within the
context of a world not too dissimilar to that described by Castañeda.
Vision may not even be about language, so why restrict vision by
mentioning it.

In fact I would be inclined to shorten the statement even furtherr to

'''Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all
knowledge.'''

"Single", even if it's purpose is to be emphatic, is not necessary.
Some people could even draw the conclusion that marriage is the point in
life when we stop imagining. ;-)

"Person" strikes me as less coldly technical than "human being".

"The sum of" is a pointless redundancy and cliché.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/16/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
[snip]
> The statement
> will presumably be translated (both linguistically and culturally) into
> as many languages as required, where it strikes me as normal that every
> person will imagine in the context of a world vision unique his own
> language and culture. We want a Yaqui person to imagine within the
> context of a world not too dissimilar to that described by Castañeda.
> Vision may not even be about language, so why restrict vision by
> mentioning it.

Thank you, this was the point I was trying to make about our proposed
vision statement already capturing the required aspects of
multilinguality.

> In fact I would be inclined to shorten the statement even furtherr to
>
> '''Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all
> knowledge.'''

So, while I agree with every point of your reduction and I recognize
that my argument would apply to the initial draft just as well, I'm a
bit concerned that a vision of "Imagine a world in which every person
can freely share all knowledge" fails do differentiate us from
communications technology projects like Freenet
(http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html) or a project to make 'Free
Hardware' networking equipment. :)

None of the current Wikimedia projects, for example, are currently
intended to facilitate the sharing of all fetish porn videos. But are
not these videos a part of all knowledge taken in the absolute sense?

> "The sum of" is a pointless redundancy and cliché.

To me, "The sum of" implies aggregation, distillation, and synthesis.
Perhaps my understanding of the words is unconventional?

In any case, I believe our vision should succinctly express an
intention to not merely facilitate a lossless retransmission of all
data, but to enable the world through repositories of knowledge in
the most useful and apropreiately accessible forms.

I thought "the sum of" took us closer to that...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
> > appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
> > "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
> > or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
> > should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
> > actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
> > supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
> > barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.

> With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world
> to unite under one language does horrify me.

That's perfectly fine, and we can have a debate about the relative
merits of our positions. My point, however, is that we should avoid
phrases like "in their own language", because they transport an
inherent POV about what the correct strategy is to disseminate
knowledge. If we can express support for multilinguality in a more
neutral fashion, I'd be supportive of it -- such as "breaking down
language barriers".

--
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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Brianna Laugher wrote:
>
>
>>The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
>>English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
>>language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
>>other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
>>languages, right? I don't think so...
>>
>>
>I am really glad that you picked up on this. This is very much
>imperialistic thinking; to the winner all the spoils. If you want to
>understand what the relevance is of native languages, you may want to
>read what the UN has to say about this.
>
>http://webworld.unesco.org/imld/res_en.html
>
The ideas there are very interesting once you strip away the diplomatic
verbiage. In particular the following:

> 5. Also invites the Director-General to undertake the following
> concrete actions to promote multilingualism and cultural
> diversity on global information networks:
>
> (a) to strengthen activities to make cultural heritage in the public
> domain which is preserved in museums, libraries and archives freely
> accessible on the global information networks;
>
> (b) to support the formulation of national and international policies
> and principles encouraging all Member States to promote the
> development and use of translation tools and terminology for better
> interoperability;
>
> (c) to encourage the provision of resources for linguistic pluralism
> through global networks, in particular by reinforcing the UNESCO
> international observatory on the information society;
>
> (d) to pursue further consultations with Member States and competent
> international governmental and non-governmental organizations for
> closer cooperation on language rights, respect for linguistic
> diversity and the expansion of multilingual electronic resources on
> the global information networks;
>
I would suspect that we are already among the most engaged of the NGOs
referred to in (d).

>The notion that by providing information in English we provide
>sufficient information is fundamentally wrong. The English Wikipedia
>does not provide sufficient information for people to understand their
>culture. When it does provide information in the first place, it brings
>it into a context that is decidedly outside of the culture of these
>people. When you have read and listened to people explaining what
>knowledge is lost with the demise of minority languages, you would
>understand that the tapestry of human knowledge is become threat bare as
>a consequence. Then again, when you do not know what you lost you did
>not lose it right ? Wikipedia may become a collection of much of the
>information that exists, when it does it may help us appreciate the loss
>that is happening to us all and to our detriment.
>
Absolutely! The most important task for minority languages lies in
relating to their own cultures. It may be interesting to translate into
a minority language information about the latest discoveries in nuclear
physics, or the politics of nations on the other side of the globe, but
that has nothing to do with the soul of that language.
:-) Although in most cases I prefer not to comment on erroneous
idioms, I would like to point out that "threat bare" should normally be
threadbare" indicating that the fabric is deteriorating to the point
where one can almost see through it. It is nearly at the point where
darning may no longer an effective way of bringing it back to life. To
be sure, that which has become so impoverished is also barren of
threats, but that is another story. :-)

>It has often been pointed out that the disconnect from the cultural
>values leads to a loss of cohesion and conflict. History also learned
>that the "upper classes" adopted the language of the cultural oppressor
>leading to eventual revolt. The sad thing is that much of the cultural
>values are lost in the process and one of the slogans for such a
>revolution is the promise for a cultural resurgence. A resurgence that
>seems to be always bleak compared to what is considered the "golden age"
>even if it was objectively not that great for the majority of the populace.
>
None have been so effective at sharpening the oppresor's language into a
weapon as the Irish, but they had already resisted Charlamagne's effort
to impose a common European script.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/16/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
[snip]
> relating to their own cultures. It may be interesting to translate into
> a minority language information about the latest discoveries in nuclear
> physics, or the politics of nations on the other side of the globe, but
> that has nothing to do with the soul of that language.
[snip]

A language can not live without useful material being both available
in it, and being actively written in it.

That said, although it is a laudable goal, I do not believe that
preserving dying languages should be part of Wikimedia's mission.

If the output of our efforts can be used by others to help preserve
languages... If they can translate the content in the major Wikipedias
or if we can find a little space on our servers for them to run
Wikipedias in their languages, all the better. If our efforts to
archive the past knowledge of the world in wikisource, and our efforts
lower the real cost of sharing knowledge through Wiki technology
causes the preservation of languages as a side effect then thats
fantastic!

But preserving languages should not be our mission.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard schreef:
> On 21/11/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
>>>
>
>
>> Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and
>> in some cases creating a written script.
>>
>
>
> See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The
> reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on
> this list ad nauseam in the past.
>
>
> - d.
Hoi,
Defining what a language is, defining a script is a non trivial matter.
When you want to get into these kinds of thing there is a space for it.
There are people who dedicate their life to these kinds of thing. There
are two types of people (and many classifications), there are those that
do and there are those who don't.

Both for the defining what a language is and, for coming up for a
script, you are in the wrong place when you want to do it in the
Wikimedia Foundation. There are other organisations that deal with that.
There are people in those organisations that are "approachable" that do
not bite and who are happy when people show a "do and can" attitude.

When there is a need for doing original research to have a language or a
dialect or an orthography or a script recognised or dismissed by
Standard organisations, then the need for this within the Wikimedia
Foundation is to have it done outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Voting on "is this a language" is a bad idea. It just does not work.
Demonstrating that there is a big corpus in what is supposed to be a
language does work. This however has to be shown to relevant Standard
organisations because that is what they are there for.\

The question is, do you want to go that extra mile ..

Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l