On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg
<mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
(NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a list admin,
because I haven't been able to until now.)
Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk
<mailto:jim@killock.org.uk>>:
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>
I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I have no
knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then. However, I also don't see
how this would help now. Some members have previously commented in the "start
allowing ancient languages" RFC with good reasons as to why such projects
shouldn't be approved. If there are "secret reasons from 2007", they can
only further support not allowing ancient languages, probably.
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.
If this is a legitimate concern, I feel like the already existing short explanation at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues> should be
made more detailed, with some of the reasons already given, if the current
"disallowing" of ancient languages stays in place. That seems better than
digging up 2007 discussions.
That is exacly what I mean by “reverse engineering”. If you don’t have the reasoning
available, and can’t show the consultation process that helped arrive at this, then any
reasoning now is purely gueswork, or the preferred but unconsulted view of the Committee.
In essence, it remains an untransparent process and open to accusations of being
arbitrary.
I don’t think that is a sound way forward.
[...]
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.
As above.
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.
Can I also ask you to take a pause? I, too, mean this in good faith. But every time I try
to follow what is happening at the RFC, new walls of texts have appeared and the RFC now
has 5 appendices - it's like every day a new one pops up, and they all were created by
you. Indeed I like to assess things thoroughly and carefully, which I feel like I cannot
do if the proposals are piling up at such speed.
Yes, absolutely. I am at the end of my own intellectual journey on this. I do appreciate I
have created a lot of material anjd I would appreciate feedback.
The next step IMO is the evidence gathering to see what kind of policy is justifed
But also, I believe there is a way forward which would start to deal with the actual
substantive problems - that is starting a programme of support for the Ancient Language
Wikis or ALWs, once we know what state they are in and what they do well.
As I explain 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_V:_Discussion:_putting_an_''Ancient_Language_strategy''_together>
this would require shifting the current policy in order to tackle a lot of problematic
practice without it looking like an attempt to push those wikis away.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org