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> wrote:
Dear Gerard and Committee
Given that
1. 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,
2. 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
3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
solve
*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>
wrote:
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 apply
- 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> wrote:
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
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Compromise_Proposal_Option_Two>
at
the RFC, which seems stable to me.
I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Eliminating_potential_discrimination_against_ethnic_and_religious_identities>
*Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
identities*
*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 progress.
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