In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a response from language experts.
I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone:
RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, add the following:
4. If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not respond, the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as above.
5. If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have passed since the first request for language verification, the following procedure applies:
5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number of different contributors that have participated over time.
5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, with at least five positive votes, agree.
5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue working on the test project for another six months, at which time another attempt will be made for language verification.
Again, these are just ideas for now.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be found to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian Wikipedia case. So far we always found someone.
That said, funnily < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Final_approval%3E says "If all requirements have been met and a detailed investigation finds no unresolved problems", but does not explicitly mention the expert verification which we do as part of the "detailed investigation". So it's already possible to do this in a different way if we really really want to in a justified case.
2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com:
In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a response from language experts.
I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone:
RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, add the following:
- If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not respond,
the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as above.
- If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have
passed since the first request for language verification, the following procedure applies:
5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number of different contributors that have participated over time.
5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, with at least five positive votes, agree.
5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue working on the test project for another six months, at which time another attempt will be made for language verification.
Again, these are just ideas for now.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Good news at the end of the year: From Nurdin Kodzoev, the head of the history department of the 'Ingush Research Institute of Humanities' http://ingnii.ru/ I got the following confirmation:
“We reviewed the texts from this project and confirmed that they were written in the correct literary Ingush language. They uses the current rules of grammar of the Ingush language. I express my gratitude to Language Committee, and I hope that this section of Wikipedia in the Ingush language will be approved.“
Do we need a proposal for approval, or did we already have it?
Am 27.12.2017 12:40 vorm. schrieb "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be found to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian Wikipedia case. So far we always found someone.
That said, funnily https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Final_approval says "If all requirements have been met and a detailed investigation finds no unresolved problems", but does not explicitly mention the expert verification which we do as part of the "detailed investigation". So it's already possible to do this in a different way if we really really want to in a justified case.
2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com:
In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a response from language experts.
I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone:
RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, add the following:
- If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not
respond, the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as above.
- If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have
passed since the first request for language verification, the following procedure applies:
5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number of different contributors that have participated over time.
5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, with at least five positive votes, agree.
5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue working on the test project for another six months, at which time another attempt will be made for language verification.
Again, these are just ideas for now.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Yay, finally. Thank you so much for doing this. It took years!
בתאריך 31 בדצמ׳ 2017 17:26, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com כתב:
Good news at the end of the year: From Nurdin Kodzoev, the head of the history department of the 'Ingush Research Institute of Humanities' http://ingnii.ru/ I got the following confirmation:
“We reviewed the texts from this project and confirmed that they were written in the correct literary Ingush language. They uses the current rules of grammar of the Ingush language. I express my gratitude to Language Committee, and I hope that this section of Wikipedia in the Ingush language will be approved.“
Do we need a proposal for approval, or did we already have it?
Am 27.12.2017 12:40 vorm. schrieb "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be found to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian Wikipedia case. So far we always found someone.
That said, funnily https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Language_proposal_policy#Final_approval says "If all requirements have been met and a detailed investigation finds no unresolved problems", but does not explicitly mention the expert verification which we do as part of the "detailed investigation". So it's already possible to do this in a different way if we really really want to in a justified case.
2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com:
In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a response from language experts.
I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone:
RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, add the following:
- If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not
respond, the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as above.
- If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have
passed since the first request for language verification, the following procedure applies:
5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number of different contributors that have participated over time.
5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, with at least five positive votes, agree.
5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue working on the test project for another six months, at which time another attempt will be made for language verification.
Again, these are just ideas for now.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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