Finding experts is usually possible but we don't necessarily explore all
possible avenues because these are time-consuming. For example, we could
access academic articles on the language in question at GoogleScholar
[1] or in public bibliographies like OLAC [2] and contact their authors
for potential leads on people qualified to verify the language. However,
I for one seldom have the energy to do that kind of research (I've done
it a couple of times, though). Sorry!
Fwiw,
Oliver
[1]
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ingush+langu…
[2]
http://www.language-archives.org/language/gor
On 13-Dec-17 22:09, Steven White wrote:
MF-W, I asked both projects for new names of experts again
(relatively) recently, and sent them to Milos. I will forward that
message to you separately, and if any of the experts are different,
then by all means contact them.
Separately (all), these projects have me thinking about the question
of what to do about really long-standing Incubator projects that are
otherwise ready for approval when we cannot reach experts, even after
serious effort. The Ingush project has edits going all the way back to
March 2007, and the Gorontalo project back to March 2009 (though most
of the work on that was in the last two years). Someone might want to
run a CU on them to make sure there's no repeat of the Khowar
situation, of course. But assuming that there is no such problem,
don't we need to assume good faith at some point and approve these
projects?
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom