Sep11wiki/Babel thread

This thread moved from Meta:Babel. --Kernigh 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Memoriam: September 11, 2001


By chance I have found In Memoriam. I'm deeply astounded by the extent of POV in Wikimedia and protest against this kind of chauvinism. I suggest: let's open one sister project for Jewish victims of Auschwitz, another one for German victims of Dresden bombing, another for Stalin's dictature, another one for Rwandan genocide and one for the former Yugoslavia. Are all innocent people killed in these slaughterings worth of anything less? Or just merge the content of 11/9 into Wikipedia and other projects. By the way, this post can be discussed elsewhere, if this is appropriate. I just want to bring attention to it. --Eleassar777 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and mostly agree. Maybe it's just because:
  • Wikipedia is run from the US
  • None of those other things happened while the wiki was active
We had some coverage of how to donate to victims of the tsunami, if that counts for anything...
Search through the histories and figure out how the september 11th wiki was started. Maybe it should just be moved to its own server or something to disassociate from Wikipedia? - Omegatron 14:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar777, it is just because when 9/11 occured, the english wikipedia already hosted a very big community and because most of this community suffered a bad shock. Some people (not necessarily old contributors) started adding pages on their beloved ones, and many felt we could not just wiped these pages into nowhere. Hence the 11/9. The pages were later moved to 11/9 wiki, and will not be merged back into wikipedia, simply because of these people are not "famous" people. I think that if a huge disaster occured now in France, we have enough coverage in the country, that we would get similar memorial pages. I do not think it reflects a volunteer biais, just a disastrous event which occurred when wikipedia was still mostly english. Anthere 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The homepage itself points to a few different places to discuss the fate of the In Memoriam wiki. All of your apparent concerns have already been addressed elsewhere. BTW, on a personal note, perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on whether the real "chauvinism" lies in the existence of the wiki or your reaction to it.... - dcljr 06:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the last month, I have been thinking much about it and long ago realized that I misunderstood the problem and overreacted. It is not POV, but systemic bias. Nevertheless, I would be thankful if you provided links to pages where the

In Memoriam (2)


Transferred from above.

(Why? - dcljr)
Whatever decision will be taken, the most important thing is that it is not part of Wikipedia anymore. Namely, the Wikipedia's policy says: "Memorials. It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." From w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
the 9/11 wiki is not currently part of Wikipedia. +sj | Translate the Quarto |+
It is not? Perhaps, but after seeing its logo saying: "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" and having a look at its address: "", I got the impression that it is. --Eleassar777 09:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)