Wikisource talk:New vote on language subdomains

Based on the comments below, I propose the following organization rules. I believe these rules reflect the established consensus.

• One single general question: "Do you support/oppose the creation of language subdomains in Wikisource?".
• Voters must have contributed at least 50 edits, and be registered at least 30 days before the vote begins.
• A person who logs in under different identities will have to sum his/her edits, and will be counted as one single person.
• Only edits in wikisource.org and existing subdomains (he.wikisource.org) will be considered; edits in other wikimedia projects will not be considered.
• Soft-weighted vote: a vote's weight is log(N/50), where N is a user's number of edits, log is the natural logarithm (base 2.71)
• Vote opening: April 12th, 2005. - ending May 12th, 2005.
• If the vote passes, the creation of subdomains will require meeting certain criteria, the details of which will be established after the vote. A subdomain should have at least one highly active admin, who will prevent vandalism.

If you disagree with one of these rules, please let me know on this page. It is still time to change them. ThomasV 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On what should we vote? - ¿Sobre qué debemos votar? - Sur quoi votons-nous? - Su che cosa dovremmo votare?

One crucial point is which question will be put to vote. Sould there be one single question for everybody, e.g. "Do you support/oppose subdomains?" or should there be one question per subdomain, e.g. "Do you oppose to the creation of xx.wikisource.org". It seems to me that the outcome could be different, depending on which question is asked.--ThomasV 22:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose the following: There will be one single question put to vote, "Do you oppose/support the creation of the following subdomains?", followed by a list of requested subdomains. Each subdomain request will have to contain a list of people requesting it and a candidate bureaucrat. All these people must be allowed to vote. Please comment. ThomasV 00:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The general philosophical question about having any subdomains is a different one from the question of any specific subdomain. The general question should probably be settled separately and before individual languages are considered. If that vote receives a positive result the issue relating to the most active languages may be a mere formality after that. An important issue for individual languages is the extent that someone will be available to police copyright. The naming of bureaucrats is an incidental issue, and may often depend on who wants to do the work. Eclecticology 03:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, there is a danger that the general "philosophical" question could be misunderstood. If the question is "do you support the creation of subdomains?", some people might believe that a "yes" would automatically entail the creation of a subdomain in their own language. For example, consider the case of somebody who is not interestred in having his own language in a different subdomain (for example because he does not feel confident enough about managing it), but who would not oppose the creation of subdomains in other languages. This person could answer "no" to the general question, but at the same time would not oppose to the creation of say, he.wikisource.org. Remember that he.wikisource.org was created because nobody was opposed to it. --ThomasV 07:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing that I've noted about wiki votes is that the subject matter can easily get out of control, or that people will start wanting last minute changes, like introducing a new logo idea just when it was looking like that issue was going to be settled. How a question is phrased and the stability of the question is important. The other side of your argument is what to do about those people who would say yes to all specific language subdomains whether they intend to participate in it or not. I don't think that the Hebrew Wikisource experience is a useful precedent any more than the experience with the Toki Puna and Klingon Wikipedias. These all date from a time before procedures were established. The general subdomain question is one of permissions; it does not carry any obligation that any will or must be created. It operates even less to require any individual to do any job. Perhaps these factors need to be made more clear in the question.

If the vote passes allowing specific language sub-domains should then be a matter of meeting established criteria rather than any further vote. These criteria will mostly be very easy for major languages, and primarily focus on the project's viability. Eclecticology 09:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that nobody else contributed comments to this. For me it is a matter of primary importance. So, let me state again what the issue is. It looks more convenient to have one single "philosophical" question, rather than one vote per subdomain. However there are issues with this. Suppose we have one single question, e.g. "subdomains, yes or no?", and that the outcome of the vote is yes. After the vote, a person who requested a domain in his own language might have done that against the will of his language community. In this case, it common sense suggests that the subdomain should not be granted, for a majority of the people contributing to this language are opposed to it...

In order to solve that, should a new vote be organised for each language? if we do so, then it is more practical to organize all votes right now; otherwise we will waste time...

if we organize one vote per domain, then a new issue is that somebody opposed to subdomains would probably vote "no" to all of them. This means he would vote several times, and sometimes in votes about languages he does not even speak. In order to keep balance, I guess somebody who supports subdomains should similarly be allowed to take part to each vote, regardless of his linguistic competence. As you can see, such a vote will furiously ressemble a "one single question" vote. Alternatively, we could somehow prevent people from taking part to votes concerning languages they do not contribute to, which would certainly generate endless disputes concerning the linguistic abilities of voters...

I hope I made the issue clear...

In order to sort this out, I believe there should be one single question, eg "do you support/oppose subdomains". If the outcome is yes, allowing subdomains should be a matter of meeting established criteria, as Ec put it above. We should discuss these criteria here.

But I want to make it clear that in this option, voters must accept to let people who do not necessarily speak their language decide on something about their own language community. This is like giving up a right; however this is balanced by the fact that this "giving up" is reciproqual.

ThomasV 16:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

J'avoue que j'ai un peu de mal à tout suivre... donc je vais peut-être répéter certaines choses dites ci-dessus ; mon anglais n'est pas suffisant pour saisir tous les aspects d'une longue conversation. Mon avis est que la question : approuvez-vous la création de sous-domaines ? est contenue dans la question que l'on poserait pour chaque sous-domaine, et qu'elle est donc inutile. D'autre part, comme elle très générale, elle implique que si le vote obtenu est non, ce sera un non qui s'opposera probablement à un consensus de contributeurs dans certaines langues. Autrement dit, ce non pénalisera des groupes linguistiques et ne sera pas vraiment représentatif. En revanche, la question pour ou contre chaque sous-domaine est claire et précise, et elle permet de mieux voir s'il y a des contributeurs qui s'investiront dans un sous-domaine précis. Je crois qu'ainsi les choses sont plus équitables et plus représentatives. Marc 21:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok je répète en francais ce que j'ai dit plus haut: si on fait un scrutin par domaine, il faut donner aux gens le droit de participer à chacun de ces votes, et donc de voter plusieurs fois. Quelqu'un qui est opposé aux sous-domaines va voter non dans chacun de ces scrutins. Pour faire le poids, ceux qui sont pour vont probablement se mettre d'accord pour voter "oui" partout, même dans les langages qu'ils ne parlent pas. ca fait qu'on aura grosso modo plusieurs fois le meme vote... ThomasV 21:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, contribuiamo anche noi italiani.

Fare una sola domanda "filosofica" o fare diverse domande, una per ogni wikisource che si vuole creare?

Beh, perché non fare ENTRAMBE le cose? Penso sia possibile fare una sorta di struttura piramidale.

1. Prima la fatidica domanda "Sei d'accordo con la creazione di sottodomini linguistici per Wikisource?". A questo punto si aprono due possibilità:
   1. si vota "no" ed il proprio contributo termina qui
   2. si vota "sì" e quindi si passa al "punto 2"
2. (detto "punto 2") In seguito si procedono alle varie domande, sottodominio per sottodominio, in cui chiunque abbia votato sì può esprimere la propria opinione.

Perché questo doppio livello? Perché chi vota "no" non ha bisogno di rimarcarlo lingua per lingua, mentre chi vota "sì" può trovare intelligente creare una it.wikisource - piuttosto che una fr.wikisource - ma non una Wikisource in Klingon. Ed è giusto che esprima il proprio parere.

Questo è - più o meno il mio contributo alla domanda. Naturalmente, alla domanda "filosofica" risponderei immediatamente "sì": vi rendete conto della Babilonia linguistica di questa discussione?

Gatto Nero 11:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je ne vois pas en quoi cela gène qu'il y ait plusieurs fois le même vote, et je ne suis pas sûr que se soit vraiment le cas. Ce qui m'ennuie, c'est que la première question suppose que l'on pourait s'opposer d'une manière générale à un consensus linguistique, ce qui est contraire à l'esprit de ces projets. Personne ne peut s'opposer à la création de sous-domaine en général (de même qu'il n'y a pas de fonctions qui donneraient plus de pouvoir de décision sur les autres), tout ce qu'il faut, c'est des personnes pour soutenir un sous-domaine. Avec la seconde question, il est en revanche possible de s'opposer pour d'autres raisons, comme par exemple qu'il n'y a pas assez de contributeurs réguliers pour s'en occuper. Dans ce cas l'opposition est justifiable. Je crains que dans la première question, le pour et le contre soient rendus arbitraires à cause de leur généralité. Marc 10:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gatto Nero propose de poser les deux questions. Si on répond non à la première question, on n'a pas à répondre aux autres questions. Si on répond oui, on peut voter oui ou non aux autres questions. Marc 10:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

la première question suppose en effet que l'on s'oppose d'une manière générale à la création de tout sous-domaine, même si il existe un consensus entre les utilisateurs d'une même langue. Et c'est effectivement le cas. Lors du premier vote, une partie de ceux qui ont voté "non" (du moins Eclecticology et yannf) l'ont fait parce qu'ils sont opposés en bloc à la création de sous-domaines, quel que soit le consensus qui puisse exister au sein d'une communauté linguistique. Ils s'y sont opposés de facon idéologique (ou "philosophique" pour reprendre le terme utilisé par Eclecticology). Si on relit les débats du premier vote, on voit que pour défendre leur position, ils ont utilisé des arguments d'ordre idéologique (par ex. créer des sous-domaines reviendrait à "créer un nouveau mur de Berlin"), et non des arguments d'ordre pragmatique (par ex. pas assez de contributeurs réguliers). Par conséquent, le désaccord (qui est la raison d'être de ce vote) porte sur la question "philosophique", pas sur la création d'un sous domaine particulier. Pour cette raison, il me semble que le vote doit porter sur la première question.

Si le oui l'emporte à la première question, je ne pense pas qu'il soit nécessaire de refaire un vote par domaine; il suffira de remplir certains critères. (Ec semble d'accord sur ce point).

ThomasV 11:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bon, vu ainsi, je comprends, bien que je constate maintenant qu'il ne semble y avoir aucun argument valable, même idéologique, contre les sous-domaines. Marc 13:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GattoNero. For "support/oppose question" I prefer a simple positive question "Do you support creation of language subdomains (i.e. xx.wikisource.org)?"

Frieda 16:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should repeat in English what I said above. Those who are opposed to subdomains are not opposed to the creation of one subdomain in particular (for example because it does not have enough contributors), but they are opposed to the creation of any subdomain, for "philosophical" reasons. At least, this is what I understand from Ec's comments. The vote should focus on the point where there is a disagreement. If the vote passes, I believe they will not oppose to the creation of a particular subdomain, provided it meets established criteria. Therefore I think we should have only one general question (oppose or support). I think it is not necessary to have a second question after that. Moreover, having 2 questions the way proposed by GattoNero would be a bit unfair, because those who said 'no' to the first question would be excluded from the second vote. ThomasV 10:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minimum number of voters required - Mínimo de votos necesarios - Voti minimi necessari

• I guess the vote should not be considered valid if less than 20 people participate. --ThomasV 08:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• cela semble un bon minimun. Caton 09:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• to answer the question that was in the scriptorium (LadyInGrey), I did mean 20 voters at all, not 20 per language. However, we should keep in mind that it does not belong to us to decide whether the vote is valid or not. The final decision will depend on the Wikimedia board. So maybe we should not care about this condition. I propose to drop it. Comments?--ThomasV 20:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The point about having a minimum number of votes is to show that there is enough interest in the issue. Eclecticology 03:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Il est dommage de ne pas avoir de statistiques. Il y a bien une liste des participants (il y a 2207 comptes enregistrés), mais elle ne permet pas de savoir combien de participants ont par exemple plus de 100 contributions. De telles statistiques permettraient de proposer un nombre de votants raisonnable par rapport à l'ensemble des contributeurs actifs de Wikisource. Marc 21:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If we haven't those stats perhaps admins number can be a starting point. Assuming that each admin will vote, we can think of more than 20 votes to validate it. Frieda 16:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • many admins do not participate any more in this project, so I do not think that each admin will vote. As I mentioned on the vote page, the pattern of participation has greatly changed since the last vote. Anyway, I believe the validity of the vote will be decided by the board. ThomasV 17:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who should be allowed to vote? - ¿Quiénes podrán votar? - Chi può votare?

• No anons/pas d'anonyme / niente anonimi
• Posséder un compte avant le début du vote / è necessario essere iscritti prima dell'inizio delle votazioni
• I would say voters should have a minimum of 50 edits. The purpose of this is to avoid sockpuppets, not to give an exclusive right to heavy users. --ThomasV 08:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 100 me semblait quand même assez peu ; il s'agit surtout que les votants soient un minimum impliqués. Caton 09:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ok mais voir plus bas (pondération)
• Je préfère le niveau plus élevé. Pour nous qui ont déjà contribué nous savons que 100 contributions n'est pas grande chose. Avec pondération le minimum pourrait être moins. Il y a d'autre possibilité tel que considérer si les contributions sont récentes ou considérer les contributions aux articles comme ayant plus de valeur que les contributions aux wiki-politiques, mais il me semble que l'administration de ces idées serait trop difficile. Eclecticology 06:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Il apparaît que l'on devrait tenir compte du nombre de contributeurs qui pourront effectivement voter. Il y a peut-être plus de 2000 comptes, mais je me demande combien ont plus de 100 contributions, vu qu'un grand nombre de ces comptes apparaissent en rouge. Marc 10:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• On it.wiki you can vote to an admin election if you have at least 50 edits and you made your first edit at least 30 days ago. I think it's a good rule. Frieda 17:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• is this 30 days before the vote starts or 30 days before it ends?ThomasV 17:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • before it starts. Frieda 17:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should heavy users have more weight in the vote ? ¿Debe el voto de los usuarios con más contribuciones contar más? - Il voto degli utenti con più contributi deve pesare di più?

• I think the vote should somehow be weighted, but the risk is that people with a small number of edits will not be encouraged to participate to the vote in this case. The goal is to have the largest number of participants. Please tell me what you think, esp. if you do not have many edits but still wish to participate. I see 3 possibilities:
  • 1: One user = one vote (provided their number of edits is above the threshold defined above)
  • 2: One user's vote is multiplied by his number of edits. That is, if you have 1254 edits, then your vote counts as 1254 votes.
  • 3: Some intermediate solution, where heavy would have only 2 votes, other users 1 vote. More generally, I mean any solution where heavy users have more weight, but this extra weight is less than proportional to their number of edits. in other words, for those who understand math, the weight would be a sublinear function of the number of edits (it could be a log.) ThomasV 08:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2 et 3 ne semblent pas praticables, car il seraient à mon avis injustes. Un nombre minimum raisonnable paraît mieux. Caton 09:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 2 and 3 are unfair. In particular, the number of edits does not accurately reflect the level of involvement. Some people (like me :-) spend a lot of time f***ing around with author pages, while others (like you) contribute a lot of new texts. Some other users have about 50% of their contributions in the Scriptorium and related pages, and others (I won't reveal their name) mostly contribute spelling errors. So it is definitely unfair to count the number of edits. but the problem is that solution 1 is unfair too, and maybe even more. So I think we should not care whether it is fair or not. The goal is not to organize a fair vote (that's impossible), but to obtain the largest possible agreement before we proceed.--ThomasV 09:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and if you divide a bok in chapters you can get 100 editions in only two book without problems. But if you write it together it is only two.

Excuse my English--FAR 10:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je propose alors de faire abstraction du nombre de contributions, et de chercher une formulation négative du type :Ne peuvent prendre part au vote les personnes qui ne possèdent pas de compte à la date d'ouverture du vote et qui n'ont jamais participé à l'édition de textes. Cela permet d'inclure ceux qui n'aurait par exemple que 10 contributions, mais correspondant à 10 textes. En fin de compte, ce qui importe, ce que les votants participent un peu de temps en temps. Cela dit, c'est toujours aussi injuste que le point 1. Caton 11:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

C´est meilleure, mais je peux edite 10 livres ou 10 (chapters, je ne sais pas au Française). Excusez ma française, il est moins bon que ma anglaise. Salut--FAR 13:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caton: I agree that it does makes sense to exclude people who never edited texts. I guess having a minimum threshold of 50 edits almost already guarantees that. However, this is off-topic. In this section, the question is not who should be allowed to vote, but whether votes should be weighted. I know that 1,2 and 3 are unfair. I proposed 3 simply because it is an intermediate solution between 2 extremes, but I have no preference. All I want is to avoid the scenario of the previous vote, where the number of edits by voters was taken into account after the vote (in order to counter alledged sockpuppets), which was not planned initially. I want the rule to be fixed and accepted in advance and not to be changed once we see the results. ThomasV 23:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

D'accord, en fait je ne pensais que sur la base d'un vote avec 1, et je n'avais pas pensé que 3 pouvait être admis, peut-être par l'habitude des règles de vote de la Wikipédia. Pour l'instant, je ne vois pas comment définir le rapport des votes entre un heavy user et un autre contributeur. On pourrait imaginer qu'une personne, contribuant ailleurs sans contributions (ou très peu) à Wikisource et/ou lecteur sur Wikisource posséderait une voix ; un contributeur occasionnel ou plus ou moins régulier 1,5 ; et un contributeur plus important en quantité 2. Enfin je ne sais pas, 3 me semble intéressant, mais pas évident à établir. Mais tu as peut-être une idée plus précise que moi ? Caton 23:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that whether people contribute somewhere else should be taken into consideration here. Although the number of edits by a user is probably a bad measure of his/her level of involvement, it has the merit to be very clearly defined, and everybody will have to agree on it. In contrast, if we decide to look at someone's edits in detail, in order to decide whether they are productive or not, we might start endless disputes. This is why I do not want to use another criterion than the sheer number of edits, if we decide to give more weight to heavy users.

Now, concerning the way this could be made, I do not have a more precise idea. I guess we should wait for more comments on this. The reason why I raised the issue of giving more weights to heavy users is that numbers of edits have been used to evaluate the results of the previous vote. ThomasV 00:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I brought in the idea of weighted voting previously it is only fitting that I should comment on it here. I do agree that these matters should be worked out before the vote starts, and whatever we do now could also be a model for votes on our most far reaching issues. The first practical question that I encountered about such an idea was ease of application. The voting levels were thus based on the user levels appearing on the user contribution pages, with a person reaching maximum votes with 500 edits. At that point I was allowing a single vote for anyone who chose to vote including IPs, but that was mostly because some had already voted before I introduced the idea. In the present situation, where this is being discussed before the vote I would be inclined to use fewer than the seven voting levels that I used then. With a minimum 100 edit qualifier I would tend toward 3 voting levels; with a minimum 50 edit qualifier I would suggest 4. I did not at the earlier vote, nor do I now suggest that anyone should have an unlimited number of votes.

The point of how the number of edits is reached is an interesting one, but there is no realistic way of reviewing a person's edits to see which are more worthwhile than others. Counting only edits to the main namespace is possible, but I can't be sure that it can be done easily. The "f***ing around with author pages" is a lot of work, and is just as valuable to maintaining the organization of the site as the texts themselves. A person who takes a larger work and divides it into 20 chapters deserves the credit for 20 chapters because of the extra work involved. Making a simple cut and paste from Project Gutenburg into a single article is only worth credit for one article, because of the mindlessness of the technique. Our 4.3 megabyte sample from the Patrologia Latina shows how useless cut and paste can become. Eclecticology 07:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

nobody seems to be supporting solution 2. So I guess we should choose between "one user = one vote" (with at least 100 edits in order to participate) and a "soft weighted" vote (solution 3). May I suggest the (very geeky) following weighting method: a user's number of votes is log(N/50), where log refers to the logarithm, and N is his number of edits. A few examples: if you have 50 or less edits, your vote does not count. If you have 100 edits, your vote has a weight of 0.69. You need to reach 136 votes in order for your weight to be equal to 1. If you contributed 500 edits then your vote weights 2.30, and if you have 1000 edits, you have 2.99 votes. If you have 5000 edits your vote is counted as 4.60. As you can see, 5 users with 100 edits each would have more weight than one single user with 500 edits.

ain't this cool? Among other advantages, this would be, to my knowledge, the first ever log-weighted vote in history! This sole fact would give us a tremendous publicity...

ThomasV 14:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Traduction : Personne ne semble soutenir la solution 2. Ainsi je suppose que nous devrions choisir entre "un utilisateur = une voix" (avec au moins 100 contributions pour participer) et un vote "légèrement pondéré" (solution 3). Puis-je suggérer la méthode (très geeky) de pondération suivante : le nombre de voix d'un utilisateur est log(N/50), où log se rapporte au logarithme, et N est son nombre de contributions. Quelques exemples : si vous avez 50 contributions ou moins, votre voix ne compte pas. Si vous avez 100 contributions, votre voix compte pour 0,69. Vous devez atteindre 136 voix pour que votre vote soit égal à 1. Si vous avez 500 contributions alors votre vote compte pour 2,30 voix, et si vous avez 1000 contributions, vous avez 2,99 voix. Si vous avez 5000 contributions votre voix est compté pour 4,60. Comme vous le pouvez voir, 5 utilisateurs avec 100 contributions chacun auraient plus de poids qu'un utilisateur seul avec 500 contributions. N'est-ce pas cool ? Entre autres avantages, ce serait, à ma connaissance, le premier vote à pondération logarithmique dans l'histoire ! Ce point à lui-seul nous donnerait une publicité énorme... ThomasV

Très geek... si c'est bien ainsi qu'il faut traduire... Il faudrait une page d'anthologie sur Wikisource. Mais sérieusement, ce type de vote ne me gêne pas, du moment que des contributeurs qui ont peu d'éditions trouvent cela acceptable. Ça paraît représentatif. Mais je comprendrais que d'autres préfèrent la solution 1. La 2 est vraiment trop déséquilibrée. Marc 15:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I haven't gotten in sooner...I agree with ThomasV in that I think the vote should be weighted. That way, those who are very active on the project get a bigger say in the outcome since they have invested more time and have a greater stake in the outcome than one who appears only periodically. As such, I am not a fan of solution 1, the "one user = one vote" approach. Nor am I a fan of solution 2; this method will merely be a competition between the heaviest of Wikisource users and will leave even moderate users out of the vote. I support solution 3 more than anything else, especially what Thomas proposed with logarithmic voting. Heavy users will still have a greater vote than light users, but they will not have such a strong vote that light users are crowded out. If we use a system of weighted voting, I would prefer the logarithm. Although I do have a question to Thomas: I'm unsure of how you are getting the results for your equation. What base for the logarithm are you using? It surely can't be 10, since that base would be too big. Zhaladshar 15:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I used the so-called "natural" logarithm (base 2.71). ThomasV 15:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Okay, I was wondering why base 10 wasn't working for me. Zhaladshar 15:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also ich finde das mit dem natürlichen Logarithmus so nicht in Ordnung. 100 Edits sollten zumindest eine Stimme sein, wenn schon 50 Edits nichts wert sind. Mein Vorschlag für die Formel ln (Edits * e / 100). Das gibt dann bei 50 Edits auch schon 0.3 Stimmen und 100 Edits geben 1 Stimme. --B 06:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Das ist wirklich kein grosses Unterschied. Da das Regel das gleiche für allen ist, sollte es kein Problem sein. Allerdings soll die Abstimmung morgen beginnen; ich finde es jetzt ein bischen spät, um Regeln zu ändern. ThomasV 08:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ich weiß, ich bin etwas spät dran, aber mir ging erst jetzt auf, dass die jetzigen Regeln nur zu Missverständnisse führen. Ich hatte lange den Eindruck, dass man mit 50 Edits eine Stimme hat (wegen Regel 2). Das trifft aber nicht zu, denn man bekommt nach der jetzigen Regel 5 keine Punkte. Alle, die nicht so gut Englisch können, um der obigen Diskussion zu folgen, haben das vielleicht missverstanden. Dann sollte man am besten gleich bei 100 Edits als Grenze anfangen. Ansonsten werden die Editoren meiner Meinung nach nur getäuscht. --B 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

es steht nicht, dass man mit 50 Edits eine Stimme hat, sondern dass man so mitwählen darf. Ich werde es mit 51 umsetzen, damit es kein Missverständnis mehr gibt. Aber es muss sowieso eine Grenze geben, ob 50 oder 100. ThomasV 14:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Annonce du vote sur tous les wiki - annuncio del voto su tutte le wiki

Ça nous aide pas d'annoncer le ailleurs si le resultat ne serait que d'inviter les votes des gens qui ne s'occupent pas de Wikisource. Nous préférerons la participation de ceux qui supportent l'idée d'un Wikisource, que ça soit dans un domaine ou plusieurs. Eclecticology 08:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oui, ce point n'est pas vraiment une règle. Il s'agit simplement de publier d'une manière visible l'ouverture du vote. Marc 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

duration - duración - durée du vote- durata :

1. 1 or 2 months - ¿1 o 2 meses? - 1 o 2 mesu ? 1 o 2 mesi?

I am for 1 month preparation (the current period) + 1 month vote. ThomasV 21:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ça semble largement suffisant. Marc 10:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, one month is enough. Frieda 17:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On which conditions should a subdomain be created? - ¿Qué condiciones debería cumplir un subdominio para ser creado? - Faut-il des critères pour créer un sous-domaine ? - Sotto quali condizioni un sottodominio dovrebbe essere creato?

• • Number of contributors - Número de colaboradores - Nombre de contributeurs ;
  • Number of pages - Número de páginas - Nombre de pages ;
  • at least one bureaucrat (or admin) candidate - al menos un candidato a burócrata (o bibliotecario) - au moins un candidat pour être bureaucrate (ou admin)

Il en faudrait des critères pour la création d'un sous-domaine, dont la présence d'un nombre suffisant de contributeurs actifs serait très important. La disponibilité d'un administrateur (pas obligatoirement un bureaucrat) pret à prendre la responsabilité est aussi important. Il y a sans doutes d'autres. Comme j'ai remarqué ci-dessus la question générale des sous-domaines est beaucoup plus importante que la question d'aucun sous-domaine particulier. Si l'idée générale est acceptée, il est fort probable que la création d'un sous-domaine français ne deviendra qu'une formalité. Ce n'est pas si évident pour toutes les langues. Eclecticology 08:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to have active contributors. I think "a sufficient number" could be as low as 1, if this user is really involved. I will not consider requests by people who are not involved in wikisource. maybe the "involvement" criterion should be the same as the one that we use to decide if someone is authorized to vote. --ThomasV 08:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the person is going to be the only one involved in a language thae involvement should probably be more significant than that. Perhaps looking at the combined edits of all those wanting that subdomain may be more important. Can we treat one person with 500 edits as equivalent to 5 persons with 100 edits each? Eclecticology 09:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Il ne paraît en effet pas possible d'utiliser le même critère que pour l'autorisation à voter. En tant qu'administrateur, le contributeur seul sur un projet doit avoir un peu plus de présence surtout pour éviter le vandalisme. D'un autre côté, le fait de créer un sous-domaine avec seulement un contributeur pourrait tout de même encourager d'autres personnes à venir contribuer, ce qui rendrait la situation gérable. Mais ceci n'est qu'une spéculation sur l'avenir, et il vaudrait mieux alors tenir compte du contributeur existant, et demander un nombre de contributions plus élevé. Cela dit, même un contributeur très impliqué ne peut surveiller tous les jours un sous-domaine ; on pourrait donc proposer une sorte de parrainage : pour commencer, un contributeur seul gère le domaine, et ce domaine est en même temps placé sous la surveillance de contributeurs volontaires qui participent à un autre domaine, jusqu'à ce qu'il y ait un ou deux contributeurs réguliers de plus. Je ne pense pas que d'autres critères soient nécessaires. Marc 13:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. While I'm keeping away from the main debate (yes or no to language domains), I'd like to make two suggestions about this. When the vote is concluded, language domains may or may not be adopted. But if they are adopted, then a policy will be needed for when and how to set them up.

Here are my two suggestions:

• In my opinion, no absolute, binding policy on this need be decided now. It can be done later, if the vote on allowing domains says yes.
• Nevertheless, should others disagree and want to decide this already within the context of the current vote, I respectfully suggest a slightly different policy than the one suggested above. I agree with the idea that serious Wikisource contributors should assume responsibility for new domains in languages that are already active here. But I think a different policy is needed for languages that have very little content on Wikisource so far.

My suggestion for the latter (languages with not much on Wikisource right now) is simple: Let us adopt the policy that has already been put into place and used for Wikinews: m:Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition. The point is to encourage new domains, but at the same time to verify, before a new domain is launched, that enough activity will be generated to keep it clear of vandalism and give it a good start as a living community.Dovi 13:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early to decide on a binding policy now. and it is probably not a good idea to have a binding policy at all. let me remove this from the above rules. ThomasV 13:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

he.wikisource

Hi folks! As I mentioned to ThomasV, I do not plan to get involved in the current discussion of subdomains. My opinion (support) is already well-known, as are the reasons for it, and the important thing now is for other people to have their own say.

That being said, I do plan to add my vote when the time comes, and certainly would expect that contributions/edits to he.wikisource be counted towards whatever policy is worked out regarding voting. I wish everyone here good luck! Dovi 03:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

contributions to he.wikisource.org definitely are contributions to wikisource, and they sould be taken into account. your contributions to the debate are welcome. Please also note that the campaign should not take place on this page. ThomasV 14:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the campaign

I think the pages where the first debate took place are quite difficult to read. I guess we should setup a new page. In this page, I would like people to avoid adding their comments in the middle of somebody else's text. This makes reading difficult for newcomers.--ThomasV 14:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je n'avais même pas vu ce message... Ce qui m'inquiète dans cette discussion, c'est qu'il semble y avoir peu de participants par rapport au premier vote. Marc 21:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the page for the campaign has been created (see link on top of page) ThomasV 16:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link?

obviously this has been discussed at length before. where? Wolfman 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

links are provided at 'why a new vote?'ThomasV 22:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who will be the admin of a created subdomain?

Can anybody help us? In Spanish wikisource tehere is a candidate to burecraut but we don´t know if she can do it. What are the rules?

as you can read from this page, the rules have not been defined yet. I will decide of the rules based on the feedback posted on this page, so it is important that you tell me what you think the rules should be (there has not been a lot of feedback so far). concerning your question, each subdomain will need at least one administrator (whether this admin is a bureaucrat or just a sysop not might depend on the board, but I guess a bureaucrat will be needed). my opinion is that this administrator could be anyone, provided he has the support from his community (and he is allowed to vote). ThomasV 15:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose the following: an administrator should be allowed to vote (see above) and be supported by his community. ThomasV 16:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the candidate is supported by her community, but we thought the candidature might not be correct. Thanks--FAR 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

En essayant de comprendre cette page la question que je me pose, c'est comment nous allons faire pour parvenir à un accord sur les conditions de vote. Sur ce, je vais dormir. Marc 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

il n'y aura pas d'accord: je me réserve le droit de fixer les conditions. si on vote, ca veut dire qu'on accepte les conditions du vote. si je les fixe mal, les gens risquent de refuser de voter, et le vote sera un échec. c'est pour cela que j'ai besoin de commentaires. ThomasV 23:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lingua dei contenuti

I documenti contenuti i Wikisource dovranno essere nella lingua originale i cui sono stati creati o tradotti nella lingua di Wikisource. Come si farà per i titoli? Alcune traduzioni d'autore sono poi anch'esse dei documenti importanti. Come bisognerà regolarsi?

could somebody translate this to English, please? I tried with Google but it does not work so well...ThomasV 15:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is translation

Language of content

Wikisource documents placed in Wikisource will have to be in original language of creation or translated in Wikisource language. What to do for titles? Some translation made by important author are themseleves important documents. What general policy could we use?

Past contribution by IP

Although I have been editing Wikisource as IP133.205.163 since February 2005, my vote was deleted without detailed explanation. I follow it if it is a rule, but I want you to stipulate it. The rule of not taking the past contribution by IP seems not to be written to the present page. "Voters must have made their first contribution to Wikisource before or on March 12th, 2005."

By the way, how is a contributor who logs in by two or more accounts proving that they are the same person? --Kasuga 14:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I am sorry that I had to delete your vote. The reason is that your account has been created too recently. If you check the history of this page, you'll find out that you are not the first person whose vote is deleted for that reason.

Everybody has agreed on not allowing votes by anons, and this rule is stipulated on this page. Concerning earlier contributions made anonymously by somebody who now logs in under an identity, I agree that the rule of not taking them into account them is not stated on this page. However, it is common sense to do so, because there is no way to prove that a given IP belongs to a particular user. That is the point about creating accounts.

A person who logs in under different identities can prove they are the same person, by making the statement that they are the same, under those identities.

ThomasV 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite answer, I understood vote rule in Wikisource.

However, isn't the description in the present article page ambiguous?　Although it may be the rule which does not need to be explained for older contributors, I had not known it until I read this discussion page. --Kasuga 15:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand the description is a bit incomplete. however, I do not think it is necessary to change it now; the voting period is almost over, and nobody else was confused by this minor point. ThomasV 11:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I was taking a look

And I say, Meh, we're just going through the motions. We should start preparing for the after effects of this vote: all the splicing it's going to require and interlanguage bridging it's going to need. Ambush Commander 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikisource:Language domain requests. Dovi 03:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)