Hello,
Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of
speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned
the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the
freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried to
point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I asked
whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when he
said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a
decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an objection
to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him
declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more
transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its
members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of
discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a
discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt necessarily
mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt.
Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of langcom
becomes inactive?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi Gerard,
This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are taking
the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process. I
really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it
provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people
collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hoi,
There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic
Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have used
all
kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is
after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will
fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is not
their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much
is
written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this
is no different for
many
languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem
is that their view of a
world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is
perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line and
with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have demonstrated
their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
they
do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear
testament to their wish to
do
well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide on
these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not agree
what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be no
public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian
Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself into
doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the
first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and
constructed
languages and you write that such languages are
created, I think you
should
create the
arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International
> > Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
>
> Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer
> appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be
> referred to with a standardized code.
>
> Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a
> bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of
> larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national and
> subnational variants.
>
> Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language
> variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard
> orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written
> communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
frequently
> given wikis where they have a long written
historical context.)
>
>
> I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
>
> a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at
the
> top of the pile
>
> b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz,
so
> we're making sure everything's clear
before setting it up
>
> c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not
> yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
>
> If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it up.
> But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
wiki
to
create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz
IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC
=A5X/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l