Hi,
For as long as I remember being involved with the Language committee, there hasn't been a clear definition of what does "active in the Incubator" exactly mean. Is there a specific number of articles, number of users, or number of weeks or months of continuous activity?
My impression is that the committee does it by intuition. It's not necessarily bad, because every language community has its own story. Quite often, however, various people ask me about it, and I would really love to have a better answer than "intuition".
Unless I'm missing something, a precise definition cannot be found on any of these pages: * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(requesters) * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)
Something a bit closer to a definition appears on language request pages on Meta through the template: "The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months."
The words "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors" are quite precise, but "the previous few months"—not really.
Some things to consider: * If "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months" is the policy, can it be copied to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy ? * Is "three active, not-grayed-out editors" good as it is? Too strict? Too lax? Too easy to game? * Should we perhaps write something like "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months, ^but every case will be checked manually by Language committee members separately^"? This is the actual practice anyway, as far as I can tell.
Other suggestions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
It is very difficult to set specific criteria for this, as this risks forming a minimum set of behaviors to meet the criteria.
From my perspective of posting requests for approval, I generally use somewhat safe and conservative criteria. 1. At least 6 months of activity, unless there are special linguistic circumstances (special = the number of speakers is significantly lower than in other languages, etc) 2. There must be at least 3 users with valid edits in a month of activity, which is a very minimal standard; excluding all edits by users of other projects for bot editing, lint error fixing, and LTA editing, etc 3. Reevaluate whether 6 months is appropriate, taking into account whether there is a previous log of activity, whether there are more than 3 editors who are consistently active, or whether there are temporary bursts of activity, etc.. It may be down(6-) or up 4. Whether only the minimum behavior to meet the number of editors continues
It's very difficult to put a specific number on this because there are so many factors that go into modifying this 6 month period, even though I've only listed the factors that come to mind. But generally speaking, if the 6 months criterion is met, at least in Wikipedia's case, it is rare for it to be abandoned after approval.
Sotiale
2025년 3월 3일 (월) 오전 8:44, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il님이 작성:
Hi,
For as long as I remember being involved with the Language committee, there hasn't been a clear definition of what does "active in the Incubator" exactly mean. Is there a specific number of articles, number of users, or number of weeks or months of continuous activity?
My impression is that the committee does it by intuition. It's not necessarily bad, because every language community has its own story. Quite often, however, various people ask me about it, and I would really love to have a better answer than "intuition".
Unless I'm missing something, a precise definition cannot be found on any of these pages:
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(requesters)
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)
Something a bit closer to a definition appears on language request pages on Meta through the template: "The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months."
The words "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors" are quite precise, but "the previous few months"—not really.
Some things to consider:
- If "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections
for the previous few months" is the policy, can it be copied to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy ?
- Is "three active, not-grayed-out editors" good as it is? Too strict? Too
lax? Too easy to game?
- Should we perhaps write something like "at least three active,
not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months, ^but every case will be checked manually by Language committee members separately^"? This is the actual practice anyway, as far as I can tell.
Other suggestions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org