The RFC in past have suffered from fear-mongering
by some users on
multiple Wikiprojects both internally on sites like Chinese Wikipedia and
Chinese Wikisource and then also via some other channels, describing the
RFC as a conspiracy to enable the creation of a Literal Chinese Wikisource
and to tear apart Chinese Wikimedian communities, despite later
clarification that the RFC isn't intended to alter the circumstances around
Wikisource since the current language policy already allow creation of
Wikisource in ancient languages, yet such misunderstanding generated a lot
of unnecessary debate inside the page.
在 2021年9月7日週二 18:44,MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com> 寫道:
News from this RFC. The ultra-long discussion was
archived by this user
in favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
jim(a)killock.org.uk>gt;:
Dear LangCom,
I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and
Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong
to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own
Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that
Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this
is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still
employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that
some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar
position.
You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes
an auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be
revisited
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Discussion>
.
After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is
something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of
general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the
policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages
which are *historic, learnt, but in use*.
I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your
archives, which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach
while constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but
an ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed.
This I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for
which a discussion is still open.
I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the
constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most
historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless,
in some important exceptions, where there is a *credibly large enough
number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external
usage of that language,*, these languages could be allowed without
opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy.
I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help
frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest.
Thank you for your time,
Jim
Definition of *ancient or historic language*[edit
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=12>
]
1. For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an *ancient or historic
language* is one which
1. Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works;
2. Is typically acquired by formal learning;
3. Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and
documented while the language was in common usage;
4. May or may not not be used in modern linguistic domains, such
as: trade; education; academic discourse; music; poetry; religious
discourse; etc.
Qualification of an *ancient or historic language* for a Wiki project[
edit
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=13>
]
The same basic eligibility criteria should apply in a similar but
somewhat stricter manner than artificial languages, recognising that
acquisition is likely to be harder than is typical for constructed
languages, but also that acquisition *may* be more common and
resources more developed; and also that practical usage is likely to be
*lower* than for many contemporary natively-acquired languages.
Therefore I propose that:
1. *Wikis* are allowed in ancient or historical languages despite
having no native speakers; although these should be on a wiki for the most
widely used form of the language, when possible;
2. There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and
evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for
instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language;
3. There should be a significant historical corpus *and usage for
modern authors to draw upon, for instance, a large volume of extant texts
or a large volume of recordings, sufficient to understand the idiom as well
as the grammar of the language*; whether generated as an auxiliary
language, domain specific language or a native language;
4. The language must have a reasonable degree of contemporary usage
as determined by discussion. (Some recognition criteria include, but are
not limited to: independently proved number of speakers or writers, use as
an auxiliary or domain-specific language outside of online communities
created solely for the purpose, usage outside of Wikimedia, publication of
works in the language for general sale, publication of academic papers in
the language, availability of courses or training which aim at fluent
compositional or oral usage.)
_______________________________________________
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