Mailing List Archive

>Why in the world are we now giving anon users the option to
create user pages?

Also, I was wondering where such a decision was made. The
main wikipedia mailing-list? The decision process should be
more clear and more democratic.

Best wishes,
Takuya Murata

Most policy decisions should be made on wikipedia-l. This should
be more clear, sure. But it's pretty 'democratic' already, and doing
it on the wiki itself might not help.

Takuya Murata wrote:

> >Why in the world are we now giving anon users the option to
> create user pages?
>
> Also, I was wondering where such a decision was made. The
> main wikipedia mailing-list? The decision process should be
> more clear and more democratic.
>
> Best wishes,
> Takuya Murata
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

> Why in the world are we now giving anon users the option to create user
> pages? Talk pages are a good idea but please don't display an edit link to
> "View user page" on anon talk pages. We don't want to give them too much
> since that will only result in fewer of them actually signing up for and
> using a user account (which is still something we want to encourage, no?).

That was simply a side effect of the new Talk code. However, I'm not sure
it needs to be changed. Just today I talked to an anonymous user who told
me that he would only login when at home, but who had a fixed IP address.
By using the "View user page" link, he could put a redirect to his normal
user page on it. I think that sidebar link is too obscure to be abused but
can have reasonable uses. At the same time, the more frequently displayed
user link in recent changes still points to the user contributions.

If it's not wanted, I can take it out, though. Any other opinions?

Regards,

Erik

> Also, I was wondering where such a decision was made.

The new Talk code was requested both on Village Pump and on the mailing
list repeatedly. The user page stuff was simply a side effect of that.
However, if you want to keep up with the latest changes and possibly have
some influence, check out the code and start hacking.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker

Regards,

Erik

>Most policy decisions should be made on wikipedia-l.

I see.

> doing it on the wiki itself might not help.

Why is that?

>> Also, I was wondering where such a decision was made.
>
>The new Talk code was requested both on Village Pump and on
the mailing
>list repeatedly. The user page stuff was simply a side
effect of that.

I mean is there someone who made the final decision?
(probably one who has a right to submit a code to CVS) For
example, in Linux after all Linus decided to apply a patch
or not. Of course, he listen to people's opinion but he made
a decision.

>However, if you want to keep up with the latest changes and
possibly have
>some influence, check out the code and start hacking.
>
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hac
ker

Yeah, thanks. I don't think I can have influence though.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:05:51PM -0600, Takuya Murata wrote:
> I mean is there someone who made the final decision?
> (probably one who has a right to submit a code to CVS) For
> example, in Linux after all Linus decided to apply a patch
> or not. Of course, he listen to people's opinion but he made
> a decision.

It seems it's usually Brion who commits stuff here, but it's
less formal than with Linux kernel. And it's Jimbo who owns servers.

Anyway, this was rather uncontroversial change.

>It seems it's usually Brion who commits stuff here, but it's
>less formal than with Linux kernel.

So, it is a kind of arbitrary.

>And it's Jimbo who owns servers.

What do you mean? I thought Bomis owns the server. Am I
right?

>Anyway, this was rather uncontroversial change.

I don't remember saying it is controversial. I am sorry for
giving wrong impression. I was just wondering about the
decision process. I don't mean to object to this change at
all. (though I advocate the system should be more democratic)

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:08:12PM -0600, Takuya Murata wrote:
> >And it's Jimbo who owns servers.
>
> What do you mean? I thought Bomis owns the server. Am I
> right?

And Jimbo owns Bomis.

[cut&paste]
> >It seems it's usually Brion who commits stuff here, but it's
> >less formal than with Linux kernel.
>
> So, it is a kind of arbitrary.
>
> >Anyway, this was rather uncontroversial change.
>
> I don't remember saying it is controversial. I am sorry for
> giving wrong impression. I was just wondering about the
> decision process. I don't mean to object to this change at
> all. (though I advocate the system should be more democratic)

Generally if change is not controversial, anyone with CVS access
can apply it, and if you don't have CVS access you can just
send it to such person (usually to Brion). For example most
translations get updated without any discussion.

If change is controversial, there is usually lot of discussion,
and it usually doesn't get applied unless there is consensus that
it should be. There were some exceptions, for example there was no
consensus about banning subpages, but usually we try to make
everyone either agree or at least not strongly oppose change.

But if you mean "democratic" as in voting, then no, we don't do that.

>But if you mean "democratic" as in voting, then no, we
don't do that.

I didn't mean that. I don't believe in voting.

Actually I am not so sure about what is more democratic
system. I said the system of wikipedia should be more
democratic because it seems to me that the decision about
the wikipedia system doesn't reflect well the opinion among
the majority of wikipedians, if not totally. First, simply
really few people subscribe this mailing list. Second,
changes are somewhat invisible. Basically there is no
announcement about the changes. For example, new text for
new pages. (Forget the talk pages or Village pump. They
exist for conversation not for announcement)

I don't want to mean people who have access to CVS should
speak more (I am implying Brion). I am saying we should make
the management (including decision-making) more visible and
closer to oridanly wikipedians. Sure, now people dicuss in
Village pump or some send direct message to Brion personally
in his talk page. But it is not the democracy in the essence.

Wikipedia is great because not only it is free, open-content
but also because it is democratic. People made decision in
their own. People go where they want to go without
discussion. The important distinction is wikipedia is the
place where not the rulers listen to people's demands but
all of people rule.

Sorry I am just talking about something abstract. But this
is why I felt the management should be more democratic. And
again I don't know practical way. Developing wikipedia
system in wiki? I don't know.

Sure, it is usuall that the system of the site changes
suddenly. Think of amazon.com or google. They are not
democratic. But we can do better.

Oh, anyway, can we set up the wikipedia for developing? Like
hacker.wikipedia.org

I like to document more information about the wikipedia
software and also it would be nice if there is the place the
developers find the tasks wikipedias want and exchange
brainstorms. (Well, there is sourceforge. But no one is
using it anyway. Most of stuff in sourceforge seems outdated
like bug reports several months ago)

Again, I don't want to blame anyone. I just hope the system
of wikipedia is as good as the articles of wikipedia.

(Sorry pieter. I prefer hacker to developer. hehe)

On mer, 2003-01-29 at 20:09, Takuya Murata wrote:
> Wikipedia is great because not only it is free, open-content
> but also because it is democratic. People made decision in
> their own. People go where they want to go without
> discussion. The important distinction is wikipedia is the
> place where not the rulers listen to people's demands but
> all of people rule.

Democracy is a two-way street, and the way to get involved is, well, to
get involved. ;) This mailing list is open to subscription and can be
read on the web by anyone. Our source repository can be examined on the
web or by anonymous CVS access, and anyone showing interest and with a
sourceforge account can be given commit access.

Pick a task, find an itch to scratch, and get working on it. The only
reason I'm here is because I got involved in the Esperanto Wikipedia and
wanted to modify the software to better support my favorite language. If
I do anything else here, it's just to provide the infrastructure for the
supersigno-conversion code. Now, if only I had the time to write some
articles! ;)

> Sorry I am just talking about something abstract. But this
> is why I felt the management should be more democratic. And
> again I don't know practical way. Developing wikipedia
> system in wiki? I don't know.

Oh, it can be done in theory:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FileReplacement

I dunno if we want to do that for our source, though...

> Oh, anyway, can we set up the wikipedia for developing? Like
> hacker.wikipedia.org

I'd prefer to work on meta.wikipedia.org. But that's just me.

> I like to document more information about the wikipedia
> software and also it would be nice if there is the place the
> developers find the tasks wikipedias want and exchange
> brainstorms. (Well, there is sourceforge. But no one is
> using it anyway. Most of stuff in sourceforge seems outdated
> like bug reports several months ago)

Those bug reports are still open because they're still not fixed. :)
There are a lot of little parser errors, and little search errors, that
can be best fixed by replacing the horribly fragile subsystems they're
in with clean, testable code.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Don, 2003-01-30 at 05:09, Takuya Murata wrote:

> Actually I am not so sure about what is more democratic
> system. I said the system of wikipedia should be more
> democratic because it seems to me that the decision about
> the wikipedia system doesn't reflect well the opinion among
> the majority of wikipedians,

Actually, the wiki code is developed in a manner very similar to wiki
articles themselves. CVS access is granted fairly liberally, so almost
anyone can modify the software. Like wiki, CVS stores all previous
revisions, so it's always possible to revert if necessary. To avoid
problems, we use a manual mechanism similar to FileCopy, in the form of
Brion occasionally updating the live sever. This part could be more
formalized, and probably should be eventually.

Given this, I'm surprised we don't have more active coders. Right now,
it's mostly Brion, Magnus, Tomasz (TeX) and me. There are really few
valid excuses not to participate, given that PHP is easy to learn and
all the tools you need are free. If you have time to work on Wikipedia
articles, you have time to work on Wikipedia code.

The only real difference is that you need to be a coder to participate.
Since we're dealing with code, I don't think this can be much improved.
Importing the code into wiki doesn't make much sense -- we should use
the right tool for the right job. CVS is tried and tested and works well
in this situation, so do SourceForge's tools.

When there are conflicts about features we try to resolve them either
before or after the feature is introduced, depending on personal
judgment. Knowing that there are *always* people who disagree about
something if you ask if there are people who disagree makes it tempting
to wait until someone complains *after* a feature has been added.
Compare it to asking on a Talk page before making a change, or just
making the change and waiting until someome complains.

But if by "democratic" you mean that the coders need to work on what the
non-coders decide then, sorry, that's not gonna happen. If you want
that, I have a long list of articles that I want to be written ..

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de

Takuya Murata wrote:
> >Most policy decisions should be made on wikipedia-l.
>
> I see.
>
> > doing it on the wiki itself might not help.
>
> Why is that?

Lots of things happen on the wiki that lots of people miss. There are
a lot of pages flying around everywhere, recentchanges is really
pretty big, and so on. Here, there are threads and a degree of
linearity to the conversation.

Takuya Murata wrote:
> I mean is there someone who made the final decision?

In theory that's me, and for anything that really affects real policy
in a real way, it should be discussed before implemented. On the
other hand, lots of minor changes go in whenever the developers feel
like it.

Erik instituted subpages on talk and user spaces and asked the world
about it at the same time that it was installed. That wasn't really
best practice. It turned out o.k., though, because in the ensuing
discussion it turned out that I was pretty much the only person
against it.

Generally, though, major things should be discussed before being
implemented.

What counts as major versus minor? Well, that's a judgment call
sometimes.

--Jimbo

Takuya Murata wrote:
> >And it's Jimbo who owns servers.
>
> What do you mean? I thought Bomis owns the server. Am I
> right?

Bomis owns the server; I own Bomis. So, that's what he meant.

Very soon now, the server will be owned by the nonprofit foundation.

--Jimbo

Takuya Murata wrote:
> Sorry I am just talking about something abstract. But this
> is why I felt the management should be more democratic. And
> again I don't know practical way. Developing wikipedia
> system in wiki? I don't know.

Your discussion is good. You have thoughtful criticisms here,
and these are always appreciated. However, I will say that this
particular discussion should take place on wikipedia-l, not on
wikitech-l.

Never hesitate to talk in the abstract, and big-picture ideas with the
good of wikipedia in mind are the best!

--Jimbo

>Very soon now, the server will be owned by the nonprofit
foundation.

Oh, really. Do you have more information regarding this? I'd
love to mention about this in wikipedia article.

On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 03:23, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Takuya Murata wrote:
> > I mean is there someone who made the final decision?
>
> In theory that's me, and for anything that really affects real policy
> in a real way, it should be discussed before implemented. On the
> other hand, lots of minor changes go in whenever the developers feel
> like it.

Just like wiki. :)

> Erik instituted subpages on talk and user spaces and asked the world
> about it at the same time that it was installed. That wasn't really
> best practice. It turned out o.k., though, because in the ensuing
> discussion it turned out that I was pretty much the only person
> against it.
>
> Generally, though, major things should be discussed before being
> implemented.

Subpage support features for user-space had, in fact, been discussed on
the mailing list before, and was approved by many. (If it hadn't, I
definitely would have taken it out when installing updates.) The key
feature, though, which still hasn't gotten done, is changing the
'contribs' and 'email' links on subpages to point to the user!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

>But if you mean "democratic" as in voting, then no,
we
don't do that.

I didn't mean that. I don't believe in voting.
Actually I am not so sure about what is more
democratic
system. I said the system of wikipedia should be more
democratic because it seems to me that the decision
about
the wikipedia system doesn't reflect well the opinion
among
the majority of wikipedians, if not totally. First,
simply
really few people subscribe this mailing list. Second,
changes are somewhat invisible. Basically there is no
announcement about the changes. For example, new text
for
new pages. (Forget the talk pages or Village pump.
They
exist for conversation not for announcement) I don't
want to mean people who have access to CVS should
speak more (I am implying Brion). I am saying we
should make
the management (including decision-making) more
visible and
closer to oridanly wikipedians. Sure, now people
dicuss in
Village pump or some send direct message to Brion
personally
in his talk page. But it is not the democracy in the
essence. Wikipedia is great because not only it is
free, open-content
but also because it is democratic. People made
decision in
their own. People go where they want to go without
discussion. The important distinction is wikipedia is
the
place where not the rulers listen to people's demands
but
all of people rule. Sorry I am just talking about
something abstract. But this
is why I felt the management should be more
democratic. And
again I don't know practical way.

Hello Takuya

What you say makes a lot of sense. I agree the current
system is far from being the perfect one.

Just wanted to add that if people want to get
involved, they may come here if they want. But, if all
the discussions take place on the en.wiki, you just
remove internationals the possibility to say their
word too. We can't follow what is happening on the en.wiki.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Anthere wrote:
>
> >But if you mean "democratic" as in voting, then no,
> we
> don't do that.
>
> I didn't mean that. I don't believe in voting.
> Actually I am not so sure about what is more
> democratic
> system. I said the system of wikipedia should be more
> democratic because it seems to me that the decision
> about
> the wikipedia system doesn't reflect well the opinion
> among
> the majority of wikipedians, if not totally. First,
> simply
> really few people subscribe this mailing list. Second,
> changes are somewhat invisible. Basically there is no
> announcement about the changes. For example, new text
> for
> new pages. (Forget the talk pages or Village pump.
> They
> exist for conversation not for announcement) I don't
> want to mean people who have access to CVS should
> speak more (I am implying Brion). I am saying we
> should make
> the management (including decision-making) more
> visible and
> closer to oridanly wikipedians. Sure, now people
> dicuss in
> Village pump or some send direct message to Brion
> personally
> in his talk page. But it is not the democracy in the
> essence. Wikipedia is great because not only it is
> free, open-content
> but also because it is democratic. People made
> decision in
> their own. People go where they want to go without
> discussion. The important distinction is wikipedia is
> the
> place where not the rulers listen to people's demands
> but
> all of people rule. Sorry I am just talking about
> something abstract. But this
> is why I felt the management should be more
> democratic. And
> again I don't know practical way.



Sorry for bothering again but I very much agree with
the above. Having no solution, it is at least good to
talk about it (clear and visible management, democracy, etc).

Maybe, closing down meta.wikipedia.org is a good idea?
Designers, developers, programmers, administrators, etc should be
on the 'normal' wikipedia, they should _not_ be 'gods'.

This relates to (inter)language problem: there is no
central wikipedia (or do you regard the English-speaking
one, www.wikipedia.org, as the central one?).
Wikipedia thus already DOES work with distributed
servers, isn't it? (Spanish wikipedia is on another machine
than the Dutch, and the English, etc?)

Sorry for speaking here (I did not read _all_ previous e-mails).
Pieter Suurmond





> Hello Takuya
>
> What you say makes a lot of sense. I agree the current
> system is far from being the perfect one.
>
> Just wanted to add that if people want to get
> involved, they may come here if they want. But, if all
> the discussions take place on the en.wiki, you just
> remove internationals the possibility to say their
> word too. We can't follow what is happening on the en.wiki.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 15:33, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> Sorry for bothering again but I very much agree with
> the above. Having no solution, it is at least good to
> talk about it (clear and visible management, democracy, etc).

Great!

> Maybe, closing down meta.wikipedia.org is a good idea?

What??! Why??

Are you saying that discussion about the site should be hidden away on a
secret "hackers-only" wiki where people can't find it instead of the
open-to-everyone meta wiki?

Or buried in a thousands-of-edits-per-day encyclopedia where people
can't find it instead of a more leisurely specifically-for-discussion-
about-running-the-site meta wiki? Buried on the English Wikipedia where
people coming from other languages won't have a *clue* how to find
things, and people who don't speak English don't have a chance of having
their voices heard?

I say NO to that. Closing meta would be undemocratic, bigoted, and wrong
in every way.

> Designers, developers, programmers, administrators, etc should be
> on the 'normal' wikipedia, they should _not_ be 'gods'.

Not sure what this means.

> This relates to (inter)language problem: there is no
> central wikipedia (or do you regard the English-speaking
> one, www.wikipedia.org, as the central one?).

meta.wikipedia.org is the central wiki for discussion about the workings
of Wikipedia and plans for changing it. It is officially multilingual,
and open to all (though _so far_ most content is only in English).

> Wikipedia thus already DOES work with distributed
> servers, isn't it? (Spanish wikipedia is on another machine
> than the Dutch, and the English, etc?)

They're all on the same machine, and will be integrated further when the
user accounts and upload sections are rolled into one to avoid the
numerous headaches encountered currently by people working in multiple
languages (separate logins; have to copy images multiple times, have to
put in interlanguage links multiple times, etc).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thanks very much for explaining Brion!
I'm very pleased with what I hear about all that
intergration on 1 machine. Sounds great.

Sorry for mentioning 'gods'
It's just that I dislike the word 'meta',
I would prefer the word "development" or "admin" or.... (?)

I'm now considering the following:

Read-Only Caching:
Cache some of the wikipedia-documents on my own server
for read-only. Just when I might want to edit, I 'll get
redirected to your real wikipedia-server to read the
latest version, and perhaps write..

Or maybe your server (or a second machine) might run a
read-only version of the wikipedia-content, as a regular
webserver?... Just for quick reading, there should be no
locks. Locks are only required for writing documents
(conflicts and such).
For someone that quickly wants to read-only, it is no
problem when he or she does not really get the *latest*
version of that page, but a cached version from yesterday.
.... ? ....

Well, anyway, thanks for your very informative and clear
reply. Thanks to all other Wikipedia-maintainers as well
for making Wikipedia possible.

Pieter


Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 15:33, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> > Sorry for bothering again but I very much agree with
> > the above. Having no solution, it is at least good to
> > talk about it (clear and visible management, democracy, etc).
>
> Great!
>
> > Maybe, closing down meta.wikipedia.org is a good idea?
>
> What??! Why??
>
> Are you saying that discussion about the site should be hidden away on a
> secret "hackers-only" wiki where people can't find it instead of the
> open-to-everyone meta wiki?
>
> Or buried in a thousands-of-edits-per-day encyclopedia where people
> can't find it instead of a more leisurely specifically-for-discussion-
> about-running-the-site meta wiki? Buried on the English Wikipedia where
> people coming from other languages won't have a *clue* how to find
> things, and people who don't speak English don't have a chance of having
> their voices heard?
>
> I say NO to that. Closing meta would be undemocratic, bigoted, and wrong
> in every way.
>
> > Designers, developers, programmers, administrators, etc should be
> > on the 'normal' wikipedia, they should _not_ be 'gods'.
>
> Not sure what this means.
>
> > This relates to (inter)language problem: there is no
> > central wikipedia (or do you regard the English-speaking
> > one, www.wikipedia.org, as the central one?).
>
> meta.wikipedia.org is the central wiki for discussion about the workings
> of Wikipedia and plans for changing it. It is officially multilingual,
> and open to all (though _so far_ most content is only in English).
>
> > Wikipedia thus already DOES work with distributed
> > servers, isn't it? (Spanish wikipedia is on another machine
> > than the Dutch, and the English, etc?)
>
> They're all on the same machine, and will be integrated further when the
> user accounts and upload sections are rolled into one to avoid the
> numerous headaches encountered currently by people working in multiple
> languages (separate logins; have to copy images multiple times, have to
> put in interlanguage links multiple times, etc).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: signature.asc
> signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
> Description: This is a digitally signed message part

I have to reply this, though we should move this discussion
to wikipedia-l. It is because Brion, you got a wrong idea.

>Are you saying that discussion about the site should be
hidden away on a
>secret "hackers-only" wiki where people can't find it
instead of the
>open-to-everyone meta wiki?

1. The current meta-wiki is dead.

I certainly understand the initial motivation of meta-
wikipedia.org. We should talk about development, management,
or policy in the different place than English-edition
wikipedia or meta?? (It seems apparent that the site should
be renamed)

But what kind of contents are there? There is almost
anything but inproper in the main wikipedia. There are
haiku, september 11, ....

As the saying goes, bad eats good (Forgive me. I can't
remember phrase). Weird (at least to most of people) stuff ,
including non-English contents just makes meta-wikipedia
look anything but the place to conduct decent discussion.
What if I submited a Japanese essay? It is acceptable in the
current policy, but it aggregate the situation because no
one can review it.

As I said, if we decided to change the policy of meta-
wikipedia, I certain second it. But otherwise, meta-
wikipedia seems dead or going to be dead.

Buried on the English Wikipedia where
>people coming from other languages won't have a *clue* how
to find
>things, and people who don't speak English don't have a
chance of having
>their voices heard?

Oh, that is great! I can type even Japanese (I tried. See
SandBox)

Anyway,

2. The meta-wikipedia is not multilingual at all and it
cannot be.

I don't see any reason that the sole wiki site has contents
written in several languages. Sure, technologically
speaking, meta-wiki is multilingual, but in practice, is it
really? What if I started to post Japanese comments, who
will reply to them? If I did, I just only increase the bunch
of mess. You can't discuss one theme in more than one
languages. That is for sure. The discussion

So, there is no reason to have a multilingual wiki site,
hence there is no reason to separate English discussion from
the English-edition wikipedia.

3. Practically meta-wikipedia and maing lists segregate the
majoriy of wikipedians from the decision-making.

What is now happing is decision-making occurs in the place
that most of people don't see. The recent changes in English-
edition wikipedia is the critical place where most of people
notice even minor changes. In the reality, meta-wikipedia
practically separate people to express their voices.

You can speak, but only if you go to travel to Alaska. It is
not democratic. The discussion about the policies should
take place in where people are actually living.

>I say NO to that. Closing meta would be undemocratic,
bigoted, and wrong
>in every way.

Closing meta means nothing because meta means nothing.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Takuya Murata wrote:
> 2. The meta-wikipedia is not multilingual at all and it
> cannot be.
>
> I don't see any reason that the sole wiki site has contents
> written in several languages. Sure, technologically
> speaking, meta-wiki is multilingual, but in practice, is it
> really? What if I started to post Japanese comments, who
> will reply to them? If I did, I just only increase the bunch
> of mess. You can't discuss one theme in more than one
> languages. That is for sure. The discussion
>
> So, there is no reason to have a multilingual wiki site,
> hence there is no reason to separate English discussion from
> the English-edition wikipedia.

[en]
Because Japanese Wikipedia is small now and there aren't many
people who can understand Japanese here, it's not good idea to use
Japanese on meta. But there's nothing special about English,
and any language understood by sufficient number of Wikipedians is ok.
And so will be Japanese in the future.

[jp]
Nihongo no wikipedia chiisakute nihongo ga wakaru hito ga wikipedia ni
sukosi kara nihongo de meta de kaku ha ii koto ja arimasen
Demo eigo wa tokubetu ja arimasen, sosite mai no wikipedian no takusan no
gengo ga ii desu. Mirai ni nihongo mo ii desu.

(yes, i know that my japanese is no good)

[pl]
Poniewaz japonska Wikipedia jest na razie niewielka i niewiele
osob rozumie tu japonski, uzywanie japonskiego na meta nie
jest najlepszym pomyslem. Ale nie ma nic specjalnego w angielskim,
i kazdy jezyk z wystarczajaca liczba rozumiejacych go osob jest ok.
W przyszlosci bedzie to rowniez japonski.