[Foundation-l] "Historical" languages and constructed languages

[White Cat]

Jimbo would cry. South African languages (all but Afrikaans - a dutch
hybrid) typicaly have less than 1000 total articles, most less than 100.
Hindi, one of worlds most spoken languages hardly has any articles on the
wiki. It really is about people having access to the internet and computers.
Quality of en.wikipedia content should not have a bearing on weather or not
a foreign language wiki is created or not.

I really feel trying to regulate this is like punching water.

   - White Cat


On Jan 25, 2008 9:18 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:

> But, as much as I am sympathetic to constructed languages, I do not
> think that there is any rational exception that can be made for them,
> and I doubt that in any argument they can be preserved wholly on the
> basis of such an arbitrary exception.
>
> Rather, I believe in a reasonable compromise that retains the
> useful-to-the-modern-world "historical" and constructed languages, and
> keeps out those that aren't written anymore.
>
> And I know you have been an advocate of Latin Wikipedia.  I would not
> call such a language "reconstructed", but rather, a living and
> evolving "classical language", with an active contemporary literature.
>  And I do not believe Latin to be unique in this regard.
>
> What do you think of the proposal for using the demonstrated
> notability of a language's contemporary literature (as demonstrated by
> a Featured Article on the subject in the English Wikipedia) as the
> criteria for the approval of a primarily-written language (such as the
> "historical" and constructed languages)?
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 2:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > There is no decision against constructed languages. There is a point of
> > contention. Constructed languages have a special place in the policy and
> > constructed languages are explicitly excluding reconstructed languages.
> The
> > issue is that this is a point that is not shared.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2008 3:04 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >There is no real difference between a historical language used by
> > > >enthusiasts and a constructed language used by enthusiasts.
> > >
> > > I agree with this point, but from an opposite, more inclusionary
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > If fact, I think I hear echoes of some of the points I raised at
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee and
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2008
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Which is why I must protest the recent decision by the Language
> > > subcommittee against any and all Wikipedias in "historical" languages,
> > > and the possibility of that decision being extended to any and all
> > > Wikipedias in constructed languages.
> > >
> > > Now, all "historical" languages are not created equal. Some have no
> > > contemporary literature, like Anglo-Saxon. Others have an active
> > > contemporary literature, like Latin. Languages like Latin I would
> > > classify as living "classical languages" that have a contemporary
> > > literature, but few or no modern speakers. It is these languages that
> > > are comparable in application to constructed languages, and that
> > > should share the same criteria for inclusion, which IMO should be the
> > > breadth of their contemporary literature.
> > >
> > > Some people would say that languages without native speakers are
> > > useless. I disagree profoundly. When Newton wrote Principia, was he
> > > writing in a 'useless' language? If a language has an active
> > > literature, it is not useless. Yes, primarily written languages are
> > > not ideally suited for teaching young children basic facts about the
> > > world. But they do have an important place in the intellectual sphere.
> > > Imagine Catholic seminary students, from different parts of the world,
> > > writing articles on church history, using the original Latin sources.
> > > Would not such articles be ripe for translation into many different
> > > languages?
> > >
> > > And the argument that people are being siphoned off from their native
> > > language Wikipedia to work on Latin just doesn't make any sense; it is
> > > far more likely that the unique prospect of a Latin Wikipedia is
> > > drawing people in who would not otherwise be associated with Wikimedia
> > > projects at all.
> > >
> > > Of course, the big question is, where do you draw the line? And how do
> > > you draw it effectively, so that we don't exhaust the resources of the
> > > resources of the Language subcommittee in fruitless research? As you
> > > might have guessed, I'm a strong proponent of requiring active
> > > contemporary literatures. ISO doesn't evaluate this, so we need
> > > alternate criteria. One way to determine if a contemporary
> > > contemporary literature is legitimate, is if its legitimacy is
> > > respected by scholars of the "historical" language (as opposed to just
> > > being a product of amateurs with no connection to mainstream
> > > academia).
> > >
> > > But if the Language subcommittee wants something really simple and
> > > quantifiable, I'll give you this modest proposal: Is a language's
> > > contemporary literature notable enough to be the subject of a Featured
> > > Article on English Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Yup, simple as that. So, can [[Modern Latin literature]] make it?-
> > > probably, with some work. [[Modern Anglo-Saxon literature]]?- almost
> > > definitely not. [[Modern Ancient Greek literature]]?- maybe. This way,
> > > -you- don't have to do the research. The Featured Article Candidates
> > > team will do it for you.
> > >
> > > And of course, these prospective Wikipedias would also still need a
> > > significant initial contributing community, like all prospective
> > > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > User:Pharos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>