40:
not going to be playable. If the enemy is strong enough, they will be able to gather more and more allies to join their group and advocate their ideal. Beating the powerful boss boosts their self-esteem greatly. That's why Jimbo is under fire due to his global notability. And branding you as a minion of your government also makes a perfect enemy to be beaten by. I thought only the
Chinese would make moral judgment, but it turns out to be the nature of every human being. And the sad thing is, there is no way to stop them however you reason with them. That's their only way to live on their political game. --
87:. I am struggling with a translation, but hope to be hiring someone shortly, or asking someone from a human rights organisation. The two main questions are (1) is the article βneutralβ; (2) if not, what would happen to an editor who tried to incorporate balance into the article. Would it even be allowed? If the editor was located in KZ, would there be any repercussions for them? Regards
158:
Anyone involved higher up in something political will sometimes be asked for clarifications. It can feel like they're being attacked from their own side. But when this conversation dies down you will know that there are people globally who are not just watching you, but watching for you. All the best
119:
Anyone can edit any article in Kazakh WP. I can't imagine any repercussions for those who do, as far as I know it is impossible from technical point of view. If there was any repression from the government for KZ WP contributors WikiBilim would be the first who would ask protection from international
39:
There are many ways to motivate a group of people (organized or not) to do one's bidding, but the most effective one is to find an enemy and attack it openly and loudly. A political party without a definite enemy is incohesive. Just imagine in a hack and slash video game, lacking any enemy or boss is
142:
Not sure if the commenter a couple threads up has any direct experience with politics, but I assume you understand that most people bringing up these points are on your side, Rauank. It's obvious that you're a person who cares about helping your fellow human beings gain access to knowledge, and
120:
community. We ask people to contribute to WP and train them how to do it, but we can't ask them to pick particular topics and to develop them in certain way. If WP community would agree, we could come up with list of topics to be changed in order to reflect a more neutral point of view.
155:. People who may have come across as "rude" are fighting for the freedom of this project and the human spirit... and those who care about the three names mentioned above may look really fucking annoying to some, but where would the world be without that kind of person?
101:
Follow up: human rights activists tell us that the article on the massacre linked to above is not neutral. Moreover it was written mostly by a bureaucrat working for
Wikibilim. What would happen if the article was changed to reflect a more neutral point of view?
180:
PhnomPencil, I'm not trying to judge, but when you have little power to change the human rights issues of your own country, it amazes me that you're so eager to talk and urge improvement of the human rights of other countries. This never seems justifiable. --
19:
I see you have never been properly welcomed to
English Knowledge. What a shame!! Thank you for all you have done developing the Kazakh Knowledge community and WikiBilim. I hope to learn more about it some day -- maybe at Wikimania!
143:
you've had an effect many of us can only dream of. This isn't some childish game about fighting a "big boss", this is about worrying that
Wikimedia could potentially have a role in causing another round of what's happened to
80:
103:
88:
107:
92:
167:
25:
84:
186:
152:
45:
161:
21:
148:
144:
182:
41:
121:
58:
190:
174:
129:
111:
96:
66:
49:
29:
8:
83:(I hope) the article corresponding to
7:
14:
57:Thanks for your understanding
1:
191:01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
175:19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
130:07:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
112:22:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
97:13:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
67:06:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
50:03:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
207:
30:04:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
125:
62:
35:Some random philosophy
85:2011 Mangystau riots
153:Ramazan Yesergepov
198:
173:
206:
205:
201:
200:
199:
197:
196:
195:
160:
149:Yevgeny Zhovtis
140:
77:
37:
12:
11:
5:
204:
202:
194:
193:
145:Sergei Duvanov
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
76:
73:
72:
71:
70:
69:
36:
33:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
203:
192:
188:
184:
183:Sameboat - εθ
179:
178:
177:
176:
171:
170:
165:
164:
156:
154:
150:
146:
137:
131:
127:
123:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
109:
105:
104:86.171.239.43
99:
98:
94:
90:
89:86.171.234.81
86:
82:
75:2011 massacre
74:
68:
64:
60:
56:
55:
54:
53:
52:
51:
47:
43:
42:Sameboat - εθ
34:
32:
31:
27:
23:
17:
168:
162:
157:
141:
100:
78:
38:
18:
15:
163:PhnomPencil
16:Hi Rauank,
159:for 2013,
138:On motives
81:located
122:Rauank
59:Rauank
151:, or
79:Iβve
187:talk
126:talk
108:talk
93:talk
63:talk
46:talk
26:talk
22:Pete
189:)
147:,
128:)
110:)
95:)
65:)
48:)
28:)
185:(
172:)
169:β
166:(
124:(
106:(
91:(
61:(
44:(
24:(
20:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.