Hoi,
I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
current policy and that will not change.
- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
pictures in Commons in the language they know.
In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
do.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock <jim(a)killock.org.uk> wrote:
Dear Committee,
I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
There are two options along these lines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Compromise_Proposal_Option_Two>
at
the RFC, which seems stable to me.
I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Eliminating_potential_discrimination_against_ethnic_and_religious_identities>
*Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
identities*
*The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against
people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by
placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The
importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be
seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical
Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox
Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the
languages of most important theological debates.*
There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from
the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which
is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be
interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by
Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is
dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and
unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something
which of course it does have.
Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu
politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will
want you to ensure are mitigated.
I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did
not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of
the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to
any particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jim
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list -- langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org