Dear Committee,
I am sorry to write this email in this way and I sincerely ask that you consider it in
good faith, I am not attempting to cause trouble, but I would like you to consider it
carefully and thoroughly, and come back with a substantive and not knee-jerk response.
This I think needs attention from the committee Board liason, as some of the issues go
beyond LangCom’s remit, and also reflect on LangCom’s transparency commitments made to the
Wikimedia Board.
Ancient Language policy
The fact of the change of policy for Ancient Languages was made in 2007 and is clear.
However, it appears that the Committee was under a great deal of pressure at the time, and
there may not have been any public consultation or transparency about why this policy took
place, unlike for the Language Proposal policy as a whole, which was discussed.
While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a rationale, people who
feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place are left with no formal explanation
as to why the Language Committee devised the rules as it did.
At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 showing how the
decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that would be great. I have listed
what I know at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions>
Charter and transparency
The Committee’s Charter states that "The whole set of activities of the language
committee is public, and any advice from the community is welcome”. This commitment to
transparency is laudable, however as matters stand we do not have transparency as to the
reasons why the Ancient Language policy is set as it is.
Instead, justifications for it can only be considered to be the Committee member’s opinion
about why people in 2007 set set where it is, as the justification for it made at the
time appears to be unavailable, undocumented, or lost.
This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the upset felt by
people who find their projects are declined. There is a policy, but it is not explained.
the justifications are communicated to them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people
understand why Wikimedia has this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal
document. Instead, people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc
explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and grievance.
If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very helpful.
Clarity about the future of Ancient Languages on Wikimedia
A number of well established Ancient Language Wiki (ALW) projects may be neglected in
policy terms, as they are regarded as something of an abberation. They are not allowed new
Wikis; they are not eligible, This and other structural issues such as a lack geographical
focus may cause them should also be considered, not least to reduce the prospect of
problems emerging with them in the future. It would be useful for Wikimedia as a whole to
reflect on the role and value of ALWs.
Evidence based policy
Wikimedia as a whole I am sure is committed to evidence-based policy and consultation. I
am sure this Committee likewise much prefers to deal with decisions on the basis of
evidence, and has to process many complex problems involving difficult to solve issues.
This work is extremely important and no doubt carried at well, despite the multiple
complexities.
The discussions surrounding the Ancient Language policy are difficult to solve. They also
may result in little change, affecting few wikis if any. This is understandably going to
feel like a low priority for the Committee.
However, the current policy probably lacked an application of evidence gathering and
consultation when it was created; furthermore there is also a large body of evidence on
the performance and potential relevance of these projects to be had, should Wikimedia wish
to gather it. I have written an outline of what evidence I think should be gathered before
deciding a policy and have had a little feedback on it.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient…
The way forward
Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision: I do not think the
committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the 2007 decision, if it turns out
to be unavailable, especially as it probably was made without much public consultation or
evidence gathering.
If the documentation does turn up, it is still twenty years old and there is still a need
to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs and think about how they should be
best supported.
Pause before looking again at the recommendations made on the current RFC. Rather I think
there should be a period of evidence gathering and reflection about ALWs. Once this
evidence is gathered, some observations and recommendations can flow back to the RFC
process.
Meta shoud be used to a small open committee to gather evidence. Ideally, one or two
LangCom members who are interested in the future of these projects could work with some of
the people from the current ALWs to try to gather enough evidence to produce some
reasonable basis to move forward. This should also involve some external ancient language
and linguistics experts with a background in ancient languages to help shape the evidence
gathering and help draw conclusions.
Thank you again for your time
Jim