Hi,
I found Jan's exposition most helpful and actually convincing - thanks!
In response, I am no longer opposed to make lfn eligible. Go ahead! (And
may it thrive.)
Oliver
On 02-Feb-17 10:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I like the argument put forward by Jan and Michael. Personally I do not
mind when people are busy with knowledge in any language and we do know
that some say that the WMF is in the business of education.. Surely people
get educated in this way.
The problem is in two parts. How do we prevent an environment that is out
of control ... (This is not specific to a conlang) and two, what does it
take to prevent death by lack of attention in the future.
The first is not really a problem we have a precedent whereby a project
can be closed. The second does not need to be a problem when there is
attention for its quality (also automated).
So I am rather positive to allow for a change of heart.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 1 February 2017 at 12:57, Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren.jan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not a member of the Langcom, but I've
been subscribed to this
mailing list for quite a while now. Since my primary field of interest is
constructed languages, let me tell you why I am inclined to support this
request. Mind, I am in no way involved with LFN itself.
My point of view is that there is only one criterion that should really
matter for allowing a project to exist, namely the question: is it
sustainable?
At present, we have Wikipedias in seven constructed languages:
Esperanto, Volapük, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Novial and
Lojban. Of these, only Esperanto has native speakers, albeit an extremely
low number compared to virtually all ethnic languages with a Wikipedia.
Yet, the project is thriving. With >236,000 articles it is #32 on the list,
which is more than Wikipedias in for example Greek, Danish, Bulgarian and
Hindi. Ido and Interlingua (#98 and #109) are doing fine as well, in spite
of the fact that both languages have no native speakers and less than a
thousand users. The number of Volapük users is not more than a few dozens,
but the "Vükiped" is doing reasonably well anyway. Even Interlingue seems
to manage somehow, although its number of users (I always avoid the word
"speakers" in the case of constructed languages) is probably less than ten.
The only project that IMO has become a failure is Novial. Currently it
has 1,644 articles. About 50 of them have some real critical mass, perhaps
another 200 are more than just one or two lines of text, tables and
infoboxes. After its foundation it had a few enthusiastic, active users,
but they all seem to have vanished a long time ago. Since 2011 practically
nothing has been happening over there. New articles still appear every once
in a while, but most of these are the work of people who don't even know
the language and just copy info from other articles, giving articles whose
sole content is: "George Clooney is an American actor".
Wikipedia projects in three other constructed languages have been closed
in the past, for different reasons: Siberian because it turned out a hoax,
Toki Poni because it is a minimalistic language with just ±120 words,
Klingon because it is a work of fiction with a vocabulary too small for
creating a viable project in it. For the same reason, Quenya and Sindarin
are not suitable either.
Anyway, compare all this to Wikipedias in African languages, for example
Oromo: a major language with 60 million speakers, but only 726 articles,
most of which are oneliners like "Germany is a country in Europe" or even
empty. Where's the educational value in that?
Speaking about educational value, I think this boils down to two things:
communicating valuable content, and working with the language itself.
When it comes to perusing Wikipedia because one is looking for info, a
vast majority of the projects we have are quite unnecessary. Speakers of
Bavarian, Luxemburgish, Rhaeto-Romance, Belarusian, Bashkir or Pennsylvania
German won't be looking for information in their native language, they will
look for info where they can find it, and in a language they speak
fluently, i.e. in German, Russian, English etc. Wikipedias in languages
like that serve an entirely different purpose: they offer a platform for
generating content in a particular language, for practicing it, developing
it, showcasing it. In other words, these projects are there for the sake of
the language itself rather than the information presented in it.
And in this respect, numbers of native speakers are completely
irrelevant. Latin has no native speakers, but its Wikipedia is still a
success. What really matters, in other words, is whether there are people
willing to write in it and read in it.
LFN is of more recent date than the other auxlang projects, but
remarkably vivid nonetheless. I don't know if it really has 100 active
users; numbers like that are notoriously difficult to verify, and the only
persons who really have an idea about these figures are the same ones who
have a vested interest in exaggerating them. But it is clear that there is
a large number of people involved in it anyway, enough to generate quite
some content. Of course, nobody knows what will happen when the author of
the languages stops being involved with the language for whatever reason:
it might go down the same road as Novial, but that would be a worst case
scenario. In any case, the LFN wiki at Wikia (
http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Paje_xef) has 3,774 pages at present, and
keeps growing. Quite a lot of these pages are substantial articles, some of
them having even more content than their equivalents in the major European
languages. Obviously, not all pages could be moved to a Wikipedia in LFN,
as they also contain translations of poetry and prose, but still, even at
the very start this Wikipedia would be at a higher level than those in
Interlingue, Novial, Volapük and Lojban. Not only in terms of numbers, but
also in terms of substance and quality. So why not give it a chance?
Best regards,
Jan van Steenbergen (User:IJzeren Jan)
2017-02-01 10:15 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> We had in the past really well functioning languages that were also
shifted
> to Wikia. It is all part and parcel of the original idea of the
policy to
> prevent the easy creation of new projects. This was needed because at
the
> time there was a groundswell of sentiment to prevent new projects all
> together.
>
> When one member of the committee says "NO", it will not happen. Wen
doubts
> are raised it is not no. So please be clear what your intentions are.
True. Here is my more precise position.
My basic position is on the Amir's line: So weak against ("Wikia
should be good enough") that I don't want to be the one who blocks it.
However, for me it *is* mandatory to have a good reasoning in favor.
That's why I asked Michael to make one. I see that as mandatory
because of the future request.
There is a tiny line, invisible from both sides, which differs
relevant institutions from irrelevant ones. LangCom exists to keep
Wikimedia relevant institution in relation to the languages. I would
define relevancy as.
We are still on the relevant side and LFN is one of the possible lines
and we need to make a good decision here. And I have to say that what
Amir's said about LFN doesn't sound promising at the moment.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing
listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org