Hoi,
Now who is trolling?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but remember that IMHO stands for "in my
HUMBLE opinion".
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
You are wrong when you think that we do not know of the process of
getting
recognition in the ISO or IANA standards. We
have been instrumental in
getting linguistic entities considered. This is something that we do
when we
feel there is merit. The ISO may be a big
bureaucracy but it is
interested
in learning from us.
Again, we can and we do get recognition for linguistic entities if
there is
a need. We prefer not to, so the need must be
convincing. It does not
negate
any of the arguments however about allowing for
Wikipedias for dead
languages. They are imho not a good thing to have.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <
wknight8111(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Pharos <
pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I've proposed the "Can
> > > someone write an FA on the language's modern literature?"
criterion
> as
> > > a useful surrogate for the types of criteria you suggest.
> >
> > But just saying that a person "can" do something doesn't mean
that
the
> > person "will" do it.
Volunteers work on what they want to work on,
and
> > if nobody wants to write a particular
article or class of article,
it
> > will never get written.
> >
> > Through Wikipedia policy, if the article exists then the topic
must
be
> > notable. However if the article
doesn't exist, that doesnt mean
that
> > the topic is non-notable. What this
is, is a test with potential
false
> > negatives.
>
> What I'm saying is, we have to allow an outlet for people proposing a
> new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language to prove their
case.
> Right now, the subcommittee tells them,
"Don't bother me kid, go to
> the International Organization for Standardization", which is an
> impossible task, because the ISO is a big bureaucracy that just
> doesn't deal with categorizing "historical" languages that are still
> alive in a written form.
>
> Writing an FA would not be easy, but it is a task that the proposers
> of a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language could be
> reasonably expected to be able to accomplish to prove their case (or
> not). The time-scale for writing an FA would typically be a few
> months, which is quite comparable to the time-scale of the -vastly
> unproductive- back-and-forth arguments that characterize a typical
> request to the subcommittee of this type.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l