I just want to clarify the following:
On Mapuche Wikipedia (Wp/arn), there have been six or seven users who have had a noticeable amount of activity over the last twelve months. At that, none had as many as 100 edits on the test over the last twelve month period.
On Mapuche Wiktionary (Wt/arn), excluding a couple of administrative edits by me, there were -0- edits on the project at all between December 2011 (that’s correct) and January 2017. Then two users appeared and were active during that month. They have since disappeared.
Steven
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:08 pm
To: langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Langcom Digest, Vol 44, Issue 29
Send Langcom mailing list submissions to
langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
langcom-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Langcom digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Notes from the Berlin meeting (Milos Rancic)
2. Re: Notes from the Berlin meeting (Milos Rancic)
3. Re: Notes from the Berlin meeting (Karen Broome)
4. Re: Voting changes (MF-Warburg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 00:33:30 +0200
From: Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
<langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Notes from the Berlin meeting
Message-ID:
<CAJuBPbpfguygByjvYe=YzEUi3RdwKrBWn58oi_nuwrzVkOJGKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Maor Malul <maor_x@zoho.com> wrote:
> For Wayuunaiki speakers, GUC comes from Guajiro, also a derogatory term
> imposed by the Spaniards. Again, the definition of maturity is clear, this
> issue has been going around for years, and they prefer not to have a
> Wikipedia with a code they find derogatory...a code, for Pete's sake!
Cultures are different and "maturity" is a very subjective term. Our
job *is* to be culturally sensitive.
> I will check again with Wikimedia Chile, but I know the answer already: No
> Wikipedia in ARN.
Maybe because they know Mapuche culture better than you? Talk in
detail with them. It would be good that you write here the report
based on what Chileans told you.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 00:38:08 +0200
From: Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
<langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Notes from the Berlin meeting
Message-ID:
<CAJuBPbotAye9B0fDZ5jvqowHZQ-8pjyEoampEZ_oA_iOCNm4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:27 AM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com> wrote:
> By the way, I find it interesting that Steven mentioned that there are some
> editors on Incubator currently at Wp/arn. It seems like not all the speakers
> object that strongly to it that they feel they can't contribute.
No. Their society is not centralized and one group can't tell the
other one what to do. However, there is a general high level of
animosity towards anything coming from the Spaniards and Chilean
government.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:41:19 -0700
From: Karen Broome <klbroome@pacbell.net>
To: "langcom@lists.wikimedia.org" <langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Notes from the Berlin meeting
Message-ID: <8EAE0E77-2435-4C66-AD8A-DC1716C4F19D@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I share the view of Oliver, Gerard, and Michael for all the reasons stated. Gerard’s statement was compact and to the point.
Regards,
Karen Broome
> On May 18, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:
>
> For the record:
> I'm opposed to changing arn to qmp for the reasons given by Gerard and Michael already.
>
> Otherwise, I have no time to follow the unacceptable exchanges. I do expect appropriate apologies from Milos.
> For now, I will remain silent on LangCom until proper behaviour has returned.
>
> Oliver
>
>
> On 18-May-17 13:43, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 17 May 2017, at 22:14, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is response to Oliver, as well.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Karen Broome <klbroome@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> I agree that pressuring the JAC to adopt a less offensive code is futile. There are national libraries and government-funded software systems that use these codes that cannot be updated in any kind of timely way. Lots of countries would like representations
that more closely resemble the native language names. I can’t remember the issue, but I have been up against something like this before and gave up, as interop and compatibility with legacy systems was paramount. 639-2 codes are not likely to change for that
reason.
>>> Here is the background of the story…
>> Some of us were actually there.
>>
>>> This is not about "closer representation", but about replacing the code based on *offensive* language name.
>>
>> What about code stability in a widespread international standard?
>>
>>> Replacing code names because of more trivial (and racist reasons, BTW) have happened in at least in the case of ROM=>RON change.
>> When do you think that change was made? What evidence do you have for it?
>>
>> In 1996, a ballot went out where some language codess were changed. The ballot had gd gae/gdh for Scottish Gaelic, ga iri/gai for Irish, and nothing for Manx. Ireland lobbied for gd/gla, ga/gle, and gv/glv which were accepted. On that ballot at that time
the codes for Romanian were already rum/ron. 1996. TWENTY YEARS AGO.
>>
>>> (Poor Romanians were offended because the code had a meaning of a member of Roma ethnicity.)
>> ROM is now used in ISO 639 as a macrolanguage term for the Romany languages.
>>
>>> Allowing a racist-based change requested by white people
>> Kindly stop this racist bullshit. The very concept of “white” vs “non-white” is largely meaningless in South America, compared to the use of those categories in North America. In Europe we do not share the baggage that they do in the United States, and encouraging
it as you are doing is not constructive.
>>
>> The correct terms to use are “endonym” and “exonym”. You maintain that at least some Mapuche dislike an exonym so much that they refuse to use a Wikipedia prefixed with “arn”. They live in Chile, right? In a region called Araucanía. They may call it something
else in their language, but it would appear that this term would be widespread and visible everywhere.
>>
>>> and not allowing offensive-name-based change by indigenous people is a typical institutional racist behavior, no matter of particular excuse
>> What about code stability in a widespread international standard?
>>
>>> I know there are always pretty valid excuses as long as it's not about interests and money of white people.
>> This has nothing to do with melanin content of human beings of indigenous and European extraction in Chile.
>>
>>> We could, for example, see that in relation to not fixing many scripts inside of Unicode because of "reasons", while adding tons of nonsense emoticons afterwards because
>>> "it's cool”.
>> Whatever are you on about? “Fixing” scripts implies that some are “broken”. The addition of characters of all kinds proceeds every year. I just got 84 characters approved for Fairy Chess, an important intellectual activity to some humans.
>>
>> Please note that ISO/IEC 10646 and ISO 639 are unrelated standards.
>>
>>> It is not about ISO 639-2, but about ISO 639-3. We are using ISO 639-3 codes. If there is the rule which fixes ISO 639-3 to ISO 639-2,
>> I don’t think you understand the relation between the standards. Firstly, ISO 639-2 is essentially fixed and frozen. No additional codes are to be added to it. This is for stability of the code set, which is implemented in billions of devices worldwide.
>>
>>> that’s definitely unfortunate and requires changes of the rules inside of JAC to avoid widespread institutional racism.
>> Stop using this terminology. Clearly you don’t know how to do so.
>>
>>> A note to Oliver: First, thank you for really reading the document and finding the relevant part.
>> You might thank him too for pointing out your error.
>>
>>> At the other side, can we or not JAC's and Unicode's behavior
>> Unicode has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THIS.
>>
>>> put under the definition "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount
to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”?
>> Their language has been recognized and given a three-letter identifier which serves to identify texts written for the benefit of the 260,000 native speakers.
>>
>>> If *you* think not, please send me a private email with the reasons. I would be happy to be convinced by you in opposite and will apologize here. If convinced, will do that partially for JAC, as well, because I think that it's not possible to defend Unicode's
institutional racism.
>> Miloš Rančić, I hereby request an immediate formal apology from you right now, here, in public, for having attacked the Unicode Consortium as perpetrating “institutional racism”. The Unicode Consortium, along with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2, maintains the Universal
Character Set, known as the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646. This standard has nothing whatever to do with the language codes of ISO 639.
>>
>> It appears to me that you do not understand the development of these international standards.
>>
>> Michael Everson
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 01:08:16 +0200
From: MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
<langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Voting changes
Message-ID:
<CAJKMOMUD3q8qiB6xwDakYKZemi-27gT+-j3kZvJZffu_OA27MA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a
valid BCP 47 code.''
This would be a novelty.
2017-05-19 0:33 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>:
> I put my draft on <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/
> Voting_policy>, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below.
> It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before.
> Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here.
>
> {{draft}}
>
> The Language Committee, with the approval of the Board, decided to change
> its rules for decision-making. So far, every decision required "consensus",
> defined as "no objections".
> * Decisions of the Language Committee will continue to be made on the
> mailing list and the committee will continue to try to achieve consensus
> for them. If there has been no objection to a proposed decision one week
> (two weeks for policy changes?) after the proposal was made, it is so
> decided.
> * When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call
> for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the
> question was discussed thoroughly.
> * A vote will last for one week (two weeks for policy changes?). A vote
> starts when a member sends a mail with the exact question to the list. The
> subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can
> easily filter and notice such important mails.
> * The following majorities of participating members are needed for a
> decision to be adopted by vote:
> **Simple majority
> ***[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility|Eligibility]] of
> projects in languages that have a valid ISO 639-3 code
> ***Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a
> valid BCP 47 code.
> ***Final approval
> **2/3 majority
> ***Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible
> changes of the [[Language proposal policy]] and [[Closing projects policy]].
>
> Some special provisions:
> * The procedures according to the [[closing projects policy]] are
> unchanged.
> * Full consensus is still required for accepting new members. Like all
> personal issues, they will be discussed on the non-public mailing list.
> * Any committee member can mark clearly eligible [[requests for new
> languages]] as eligible. Requirements are: the language has a valid ISO
> 639-3 code, there are no significant issues with regard to the language
> itself, the population of speakers is significant.
> ** If a request turns out to be contentious, the commitee can remove the
> eligibility status again.
> * It is not possible to vote on approving a project which doesn't meet the
> [[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_final_approval|requisites for
> final approval]].
>
> ==Comments==
> :''(two weeks for policy changes?)''
> Yay or nay?
>
> :''When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call
> for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the
> question was discussed thoroughly.''
> I added this to prevent a voting is started immediately after someone says
> something against an idea/proposal. Because of the current system,
> discussions pretty much stop at that point, but under the new system, it
> would be good if they went on first before everyone has to take a side.
>
> :''The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member
> can easily filter and notice such important mails.''
> This was requested in Berlin.
>
>
> 2017-05-18 9:00 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org>:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we
>> met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to
>> our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened
>> yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)
>>
>> Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet,
>> Oliver
>>
>> On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us
>> to take stock and not rush on.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we
>>> could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final
>>> decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't
>>> worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
>>> >
>>> > I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online
>>> > document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list
>>> with
>>> > stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <
>>> mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which
>>> >>> includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you very much! :)
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Langcom mailing list
>>> >> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> >> http://www.avg.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Langcom mailing list
>>> > Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> <#m_-4221379748092000586_m_3111046316371638656_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/langcom/attachments/20170519/55d25c66/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
------------------------------
End of Langcom Digest, Vol 44, Issue 29
***************************************