Similar to Talysh, Amis Wikipedia also is a longstanding project which I
now propose to approve. <
In "strict terms", it is now in the 3rd month of activity, but continuous
activity has been happening since the beginning of 2020.
For verification, maybe someone who already took care of it in recent times
for other Taiwanese languages could look into it?
There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
and raising expectations.
- We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This sense
of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
- With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion
that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is
reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for results that
are globally relevant ..
- We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define
what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to
increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and
discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve the
service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is
good but not enough.
Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to
document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an
important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two
projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer
ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these
benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.
For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the
current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the
data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own
software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept
that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may
find a partner in this endeavour.
The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no
urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is
lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF
raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project
and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient
for who,for what and for how long.
Thank you for the personal attacks.. They make me look good.
What people do in any language is not the remit of the language committee.
The period of Erasmus, More and Newton is before the date the Wikimedia
language policy was enacted. Everything before that time is not part of the
remit of the language committee.. You may like to know that new
taxonomic descriptions may still be written in Latin and English.
As to Pāṇini , read the article, it is not unlikely that he spoke and
wrote Sanskrit on a daily basis. My first thoughts about a Wikipedia in
Sanskrit would be about the NPOV...
How languages are used is not relevant to the WMF language policy nor its
language committee. What is relevant is that the language used has to be
appropriate for a general purpose encyclopaedia.and has as its intended
public people who will find encyclopaedic information in their language.
That is the scope of a Wikipedia and it is of a higher order than what the
language policy or committee is there for.
You noted that I do not pronounce on the likelihood of new projects. That
is not up to me, it is up to the entirety of the language committee in the
face of a bona fide proposal. The reason why the committee works so well is
because so many points of view are expressed.
On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 18:34, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk> wrote:
> (I note Gerard hasn’t answered the question about new Latin projects, so I
> assume these are denied under the current policy.)
> I think the argument that "*People may bastardise a dead language and
> come up with anything*" is quite flimsy, if I may say.
> Back to the 99.99% of Latin, Sanskrit and Classical Chinese that will be
> written outside their Classic period, by second langauge authors, *they
> will be full of non-Classical neologisms.*
> By Gerard’s formula, Erasmus, Newton and More were writing “bastardised”
> Latin which would be unacceptable for a Wikimedia project.
> Panini presumably is even worse because he constructed new grammatical
> forms for Sanskrit, invalidating nearly the entire Sanskrit corpus.
> Has Langcom every consulted with any users about the way that these
> languages are used? Because it does not feel like it.
> From that perspective the currrent process could be an ideal chance to
> gain some more knowldge and accomodate these languages in a sensible manner.
> On 22 Sep 2021, at 15:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
> not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
> analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
> are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
> and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
> Quran is well defined and is static.
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick <c933103(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
>> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
>> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
>> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
>> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
>> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
>> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> 於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
>> > Hoi,
>> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
>> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
>> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
>> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick <c933103(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
>> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
>> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
>> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
>> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
>> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
>> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
>> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
>> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> 寫道：
>> >>> Hoi,
>> >>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek
>> a solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule
>> bases they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the
>> world is better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what
>> languages fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to
>> new terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me
>> it means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>> >>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> GerardM
>> >>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk>
>> >>>> Dear Gerard and Committee
>> >>>> Given that
>> >>>> consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
>> by defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as
>> nativelangs and conlangs,
>> >>>> this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven
>> second language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
>> language speakers; and
>> >>>> this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>> >>>> as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in
>> order to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
>> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?
>> >>>> Classical languages
>> >>>> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
>> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
>> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
>> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
>> for new Wikis in these languages.
>> >>>> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit
>> “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>> >>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> Signed PGP part
>> >>>> Der Gerard
>> >>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
>> >>>> Hoi,
>> >>>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing
>> language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>> >>>> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to
>> >>>> Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>> current policy and that will not change.
>> >>>> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
>> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>> >>>> When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>> arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>> >>>> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy
>> and hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
>> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>> >>>> The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
>> ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
>> defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
>> the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
>> introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
>> terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
>> >>>> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
>> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
>> current policy.
>> >>>> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does
>> not have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native
>> speakers”, so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>> >>>> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose
>> is a waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a
>> productive way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids
>> cannot find pictures in Commons in the language they know.
>> >>>> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is
>> expected to do.
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> GerardM
>> >>>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk>
>> >>>>> Dear Committee,
>> >>>>> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the
>> very limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific
>> Classical Languages, where they are and have long been second language
>> vehicles, with proven methods of educating second langauge users and
>> contemporary usage. There are two options along these lines at the RFC,
>> which seems stable to me.
>> >>>>> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
>> >>>>> Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
>> >>>>> The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination
>> against people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may
>> occur by placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects.
>> The importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be
>> seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical
>> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox
>> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the
>> languages of most important theological debates.
>> >>>>> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as
>> unfairness) from the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly
>> Sanskrit, which is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could
>> quite reasonably be interpreted from the policy and some of the
>> justification made for it by Committee members to mean that Wikimedia
>> believes that Sanskrit is dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness
>> in a modern setting and unworthy of an active place in the modern world of
>> education; something which of course it does have.
>> >>>>> Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu
>> politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will
>> want you to ensure are mitigated.
>> >>>>> I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these
>> statements did not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the
>> impliation of the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient
>> languages, apply to any particular one, as all are currently blocked from
>> >>>>> Thank you for your consideration,
>> >>>>> Jim
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar position.
You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes an auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be revisited <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient…>.
After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages which are historic, learnt, but in use.
I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your archives, which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach while constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but an ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed. This I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for which a discussion is still open.
I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless, in some important exceptions, where there is a credibly large enough number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external usage of that language,, these languages could be allowed without opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy.
I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest.
Thank you for your time,
Definition of ancient or historic language[edit <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_all…>]
For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an ancient or historic language is one which
Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works;
Is typically acquired by formal learning;
Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and documented while the language was in common usage;
May or may not not be used in modern linguistic domains, such as: trade; education; academic discourse; music; poetry; religious discourse; etc.
Qualification of an ancient or historic language for a Wiki project[edit <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_all…>]
The same basic eligibility criteria should apply in a similar but somewhat stricter manner than artificial languages, recognising that acquisition is likely to be harder than is typical for constructed languages, but also that acquisition may be more common and resources more developed; and also that practical usage is likely to be lower than for many contemporary natively-acquired languages.
Therefore I propose that:
Wikis are allowed in ancient or historical languages despite having no native speakers; although these should be on a wiki for the most widely used form of the language, when possible;
There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language;
There should be a significant historical corpus and usage for modern authors to draw upon, for instance, a large volume of extant texts or a large volume of recordings, sufficient to understand the idiom as well as the grammar of the language; whether generated as an auxiliary language, domain specific language or a native language;
The language must have a reasonable degree of contemporary usage as determined by discussion. (Some recognition criteria include, but are not limited to: independently proved number of speakers or writers, use as an auxiliary or domain-specific language outside of online communities created solely for the purpose, usage outside of Wikimedia, publication of works in the language for general sale, publication of academic papers in the language, availability of courses or training which aim at fluent compositional or oral usage.)
Trust this email finds you well.
My name is Tochi Precious, one of the founding members of the Igbo
Wikimedians User Group.
I'm writing to find out the update about Igbo Wiktionary which is a project
in the incubator. There has been active contributions and we were told at
the end of last year that the project has been approved to leave the
Incubator. Since then, we've tried to reach out and no response.
We would like to find out what's happening and what we have to do next.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
I would like to propose approving Talysh Wikipedia. All the relevant links,
as usual, can be accessed from <
This is a perennially active project on Incubator since 2012. The most-used
messages are translated.
There has been an approval attempt proposed by yours truly in 2014 (see the
archives), but back then there seems to have been a script issue which now
looks to have been resolved in favour of the Latin script.
If approved, we would need verification of the content.
According to the RFC page on "start allowing ancient language", someone
mentooned that Classical Chinese Wikipedia is actually developing an entire
Wiktionary for Classical Chinese inside Classical Chinese Wikipedia by
using slashes to indicate words are subpage of the Wiktionary subproject
inside Classical Chinese Wikipedia.
The editor writing the comment seems to be happy about the situation and
suggest other wikis can take a similar approach, especially for projects
with limited volunteers, and adopted pending change system to safeguard
Is this a good idea for other smaller lanbuage wikiprojects to copy from?