On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Pharos
<pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think it depends on the community.
For example, in the case of Coptic, it is very much alive in certain
senses of the word - it is a thriving liturgical language, and it
represents their unique cultural heritage.
In the case of the Massachusett-Narragansett language, there is a
community actively working at reviving it as a living language in some
form.
In the case of, say, Old English, however, for which we already have a
Wikipedia, there is little interest in language revival, and most
people interested in the language are hobbyists.
I would thus personally recommend approval of Coptic and
Massachusett-Narragansett if they had enough "fluent speaker"
supporters, but against the approval of something analagous to Old
English.
Mark
Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language
have a contemporary literature? Are new articles or books still be
written in it?
And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the
"historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian
hobbyists)?
Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is
not truly extinct in the written form.
When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being", we
must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full-
accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include all
languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve
native speakers or not.
Pharos
On 29/03/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a living
> native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist nature).
> This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation
mission
> to "provide the sum of human
knowledge to every human being". Thus,
> the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is to
make
> it accessible to more human beings. If a
language has no native
users,
> allowing a wiki in that language does not
fit our mission because it
> does not make that project accessible to more human beings. Instead,
a
> wiki in their native languages should be
requested if it doesn't
> already exist.
>
> Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language don't
> want to provide educational material to more people at all, but only
> want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble goals,
> they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki
should
> not be created simply to fulfill them.
>
> But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be allowed
in
> every extinct language?
>
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: