There is a proposal at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Hoi, I totally agree. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 February 2016 at 16:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
At one point LangCom had said that a language which has successfully applied for one project can have any following ones without problems (provided there is a community for it which takes care of it). And of course, we do have a Simple English wikipedia. However, in this particular case, I don't think that the "second projects granted" rule should apply as the very existence of simple:wp is an exception in the first place. So, I vote for rejection on this. Oliver
On 06-Feb-16 12:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I totally agree. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 February 2016 at 16:59, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com> wrote:
There is a proposal at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simple_English> IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code). _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
en-simple.wikipedia.org is now permitted.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simple_English
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Who decided that?
2016-02-06 16:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
en-simple.wikipedia.org is now permitted.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily
be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, That is just a matter of asking for inclusion in the standard. Michael is well placed to do so. Thanks, Gerard
On 6 February 2016 at 16:39, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Who decided that?
2016-02-06 16:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
en-simple.wikipedia.org is now permitted.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily
be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.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
I am well aware of the recent discussion here about a "subtag" for Simple English (at which, however, something like "en-x-wpsimple" was mentioned, not en-simple). However, that doesn't mean it now has an ISO 639-1 or -3 code as our policy requires and that also doesn't prejudice Langcom's decision on the eligibility.
2016-02-06 16:42 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, That is just a matter of asking for inclusion in the standard. Michael is well placed to do so. Thanks, Gerard
On 6 February 2016 at 16:39, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Who decided that?
2016-02-06 16:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
en-simple.wikipedia.org is now permitted.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can
easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
The subtag “simple” is now official, so “en-simple” is as appropriate for use as “be-tarask” is.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
MF: the Simple English wikipedia was approved long before we had regulations about ISO codes and suchlike (cf. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm), and we do not usually "uncharter" active wikis, even if they wouldn't pass our current requirements (I understand that there are a number of European dialects with wiki projects which do not have an ISO code of their own).
However, while our regulations stipulate that subsequent wiki projects are easily granted for languages which already have an active project, I see the need, as I have written, to not allow that for languages without ISO code. So: Simple English *wikipedia* can continue but we shouldn't allow other projects (like the requested wikiversity) for Simple English.
Is that consensus-able? (badly translated from German "konsensfähig")
On 06-Feb-16 6:46 PM, MF-Warburg wrote:
I am well aware of the recent discussion here about a "subtag" for Simple English (at which, however, something like "en-x-wpsimple" was mentioned, not en-simple). However, that doesn't mean it now has an ISO 639-1 or -3 code as our policy requires and that also doesn't prejudice Langcom's decision on the eligibility.
2016-02-06 16:42 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, That is just a matter of asking for inclusion in the standard. Michael is well placed to do so. Thanks, Gerard On 6 February 2016 at 16:39, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com <mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com>> wrote: Who decided that? 2016-02-06 16:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>>: en-simple.wikipedia.org <http://en-simple.wikipedia.org> is now permitted. > On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com <mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com>> wrote: > > There is a proposal at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simple_English> > > IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code). Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
Yes, without a doubt. I did not intend to say anything about suddenly disallowing simple *Wikipedia*. Am 06.02.2016 20:34 schrieb "Oliver Stegen" oliver_stegen@sil.org:
MF: the Simple English wikipedia was approved long before we had regulations about ISO codes and suchlike (cf. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm), and we do not usually "uncharter" active wikis, even if they wouldn't pass our current requirements (I understand that there are a number of European dialects with wiki projects which do not have an ISO code of their own).
However, while our regulations stipulate that subsequent wiki projects are easily granted for languages which already have an active project, I see the need, as I have written, to not allow that for languages without ISO code. So: Simple English *wikipedia* can continue but we shouldn't allow other projects (like the requested wikiversity) for Simple English.
Is that consensus-able? (badly translated from German "konsensfähig")
On 06-Feb-16 6:46 PM, MF-Warburg wrote:
I am well aware of the recent discussion here about a "subtag" for Simple English (at which, however, something like "en-x-wpsimple" was mentioned, not en-simple). However, that doesn't mean it now has an ISO 639-1 or -3 code as our policy requires and that also doesn't prejudice Langcom's decision on the eligibility.
2016-02-06 16:42 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, That is just a matter of asking for inclusion in the standard. Michael is well placed to do so. Thanks, Gerard
On 6 February 2016 at 16:39, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Who decided that?
2016-02-06 16:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
en-simple.wikipedia.org is now permitted.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 15:59, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
There is a proposal at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Simpl...
IMHO, this needs to be rejected, as "Simple English courses" can
easily be hosted on en.wikiversity (also, there is of course no ISO code).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 6 Feb 2016, at 19:34, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
So: Simple English *wikipedia* can continue but we shouldn't allow other projects (like the requested wikiversity) for Simple English.
be-tarask is valid. en-simple is valid and I understand that the simple wiki will be moved to en-simple
I can think of no reason why en-simple.wikiversity.org should be subsumed under en.wikiversity.org
What are you going to do? Here is a page:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genetics/Course
Is this to be duplicated somehow?
How is this to be given in both English and Simple English?
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Blood
en-simple is valid. That’s enough, if people want to work on this. The Simple English Wikipedia is important to a particular user community.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
I have often used snapshots of simple English Wikipedia, for young students learning English as a second language. The simple snapshot was the most popular reading supplement for the youngest OLPC users. It was the best resource on the web with a relatively uniform low-complexity level. (Some of the ELI5 efforts are charming, but more entertaining than practical)
There is no easy way to extract such a subset from a mixed 'simple, normal, and advanced' English Wikipedia. And unfortunately, most mixed-complexity-level wikis do not allow anything at the extremes: to simple or to complex and someone else rewrites it.
So: explicit tags with language complexity are needed. Until we have the tools and social norms to support a variety of different language standards (dialects, language level) on a single wiki, I hope we can sort the clumsy trading that is available —at the level of the entire wiki.
There is surely an audience for simple English wv and wb. And for similar things in other major languages (communities around which exist elsewhere online, if not yet in wikimedia).
I hope that lc-simple is now indeed valid.
SJ On Feb 6, 2016 5:13 PM, "Michael Everson" everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 6 Feb 2016, at 19:34, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
So: Simple English *wikipedia* can continue but we shouldn't allow other projects (like the requested wikiversity) for Simple English.
be-tarask is valid. en-simple is valid and I understand that the simple wiki will be moved to en-simple
I can think of no reason why en-simple.wikiversity.org should be subsumed under en.wikiversity.org
What are you going to do? Here is a page:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genetics/Course
Is this to be duplicated somehow?
How is this to be given in both English and Simple English?
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Blood
en-simple is valid. That’s enough, if people want to work on this. The Simple English Wikipedia is important to a particular user community.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Samuel,
Too many acronyms.
The simple snapshot was the most popular reading supplement for the youngest OLPC users.
OLPC?
It was the best resource on the web with a relatively uniform low-complexity level. (Some of the ELI5 efforts are charming,
EL15?
So: explicit tags with language complexity are needed.
What do you mean?
Until we have the tools and social norms to support a variety of different language standards (dialects, language level) on a single wiki,
That will never happen. en-simple.wikipedia editors work to a stylesheet. en.wikipedia editors write as they wish.
I hope that lc-simple is now indeed valid.
LC?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
2016/02/28 1:16 "Michael Everson" everson@evertype.com:
Samuel,
Too many acronyms.
The simple snapshot was the most popular reading supplement for the
youngest OLPC users.
OLPC?
One Laptop per Children
It was the best resource on the web with a relatively uniform
low-complexity level. (Some of the ELI5 efforts are charming,
EL15?
Explain like I'm five
So: explicit tags with language complexity are needed.
What do you mean?
which mean Samuel think there should be a way to find Wikipedia article according to their difficulty/level, and/or it's needed to have different version of same article for different audience base on the degree of expertise they have on the language/subject.
Until we have the tools and social norms to support a variety of
different language standards (dialects, language level) on a single wiki,
That will never happen. en-simple.wikipedia editors work to a stylesheet.
en.wikipedia editors write as they wish.
I hope that lc-simple is now indeed valid.
LC?
language code
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 27 Feb 2016, at 22:17, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
So: explicit tags with language complexity are needed.
What do you mean?
which mean Samuel think there should be a way to find Wikipedia article according to their difficulty/level, and/or it's needed to have different version of same article for different audience base on the degree of expertise they have on the language/subject.
Since anyone can edit, an article’s level of complexity can be changed in seconds by anyone. This goal doesn’t seem feasible.
We should approve Simple English projects like Wikiversity. en-simple isn’t the same as en.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 27 Feb 2016, at 22:17, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
So: explicit tags with language complexity are needed.
What do you mean?
which mean Samuel think there should be a way to find Wikipedia article
according to their difficulty/level, and/or it's needed to have different version of same article for different audience base on the degree of expertise they have on the language/subject.
Since anyone can edit, an article’s level of complexity can be changed in seconds by anyone. This goal doesn’t seem feasible.
We should approve Simple English projects like Wikiversity. en-simple isn’t the same as en.
I agree with your conclusion, and it realizes my goal.
Sam