Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
Hoi, As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the language works as designed.
While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie crumbles.
So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person that is enabled to say no.
It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face with the current policy. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard.
So effectively you are part of what we do.
Not entirely. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee writes explicitly:* "Non-members should generally not participate in discussions. When it is necessary however, they can send a mail which a list administrator will need to accept manually."* Not that I mind being moderated, but to put it bluntly, writing a message feels pretty much like being an intruder.
The language committee was created to say "no".
Hm, perhaps I am wrong, but isn't the language committee also there to say "yes" every once in a while? Mind, I can follow your logic. If one member saying "no" means the whole committee says "no", it makes sense to limit the number of members to a bare minimum, because otherwise saying "no" is likely to become all the committee will ever do. I agree that for normal issues a majority vote would be a much better solution. While I agree with Amir that voting is not the solution for all problems, giving each individual member the right to veto any progress is a solution even worse.
Besides, I read that a quite a few members are completely inactive, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider that members are basically appointed for life. Given the fact that (except for Satdeep Gill) not a single new member has been added since 2012, I thought it might be a good idea to change that. That's why I am offering my expertise and help in speeding things up.
Cheers, Jan
2017-02-07 7:46 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the language works as designed.
While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie crumbles.
So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person that is enabled to say no.
It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face with the current policy. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
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 not a member of LangCom (just a volunteer list-admin), so I will not offer an opinion on Jan's request to join.
However, I *will* offer an opinion about the committee's governance: the current structure still bears the signs of the committee's genesis, out of ad-hoc need, in a very different time for the movement. Today, it behooves this committee, like all WMF committees (and others across the movement), to adopt some measures of good governance to ensure it remains fit-to-purpose and active.
The first such measure that comes to mind is agreeing upon participation expectations (which should of course be appropriate for this particular committee's tasks and the understandable delays they often carry, such as waiting on external experts, etc.), and, after due notice, eventually removing members who do not meet those expectations. This is a relatively easy way to address the "membership for life" issue without setting actual (renewable) membership terms.
Another measure would be agreeing upon some desired size (or range) for committee membership, and then upon some process and criteria for soliciting and accepting new members.
I am bringing this up as advice in my personal capacity as observer of this committee, resting though it does on much observation and work with other Wikimedia committees. My advice does not carry any coercive force, of course; I just invite the committee to consider improving its governance along these or similar lines.
Cheers,
Asaf
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:49 PM Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are
heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
Not entirely. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee writes explicitly:* "Non-members should generally not participate in discussions. When it is necessary however, they can send a mail which a list administrator will need to accept manually."* Not that I mind being moderated, but to put it bluntly, writing a message feels pretty much like being an intruder.
The language committee was created to say "no".
Hm, perhaps I am wrong, but isn't the language committee also there to say "yes" every once in a while? Mind, I can follow your logic. If one member saying "no" means the whole committee says "no", it makes sense to limit the number of members to a bare minimum, because otherwise saying "no" is likely to become all the committee will ever do. I agree that for normal issues a majority vote would be a much better solution. While I agree with Amir that voting is not the solution for all problems, giving each individual member the right to veto any progress is a solution even worse.
Besides, I read that a quite a few members are completely inactive, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider that members are basically appointed for life. Given the fact that (except for Satdeep Gill) not a single new member has been added since 2012, I thought it might be a good idea to change that. That's why I am offering my expertise and help in speeding things up.
Cheers, Jan
2017-02-07 7:46 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the language works as designed.
While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie crumbles.
So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person that is enabled to say no.
It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face with the current policy. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
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
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am not a member of LangCom (just a volunteer list-admin), so I will not offer an opinion on Jan's request to join.
However, I *will* offer an opinion about the committee's governance: the current structure still bears the signs of the committee's genesis, out of ad-hoc need, in a very different time for the movement. Today, it behooves this committee, like all WMF committees (and others across the movement), to adopt some measures of good governance to ensure it remains fit-to-purpose and active.
The first such measure that comes to mind is agreeing upon participation expectations (which should of course be appropriate for this particular committee's tasks and the understandable delays they often carry, such as waiting on external experts, etc.), and, after due notice, eventually removing members who do not meet those expectations. This is a relatively easy way to address the "membership for life" issue without setting actual (renewable) membership terms.
Another measure would be agreeing upon some desired size (or range) for committee membership, and then upon some process and criteria for soliciting and accepting new members.
I am bringing this up as advice in my personal capacity as observer of this committee, resting though it does on much observation and work with other Wikimedia committees. My advice does not carry any coercive force, of course; I just invite the committee to consider improving its governance along these or similar lines.
Agreed. I would put on hold any new membership requests before the solution of the issues Asaf listed.
I would also say that we should solve these issues as soon as possible; i.e. to put this thread as priority for our present work.
Agreed from my side, too. Here are my suggestions.
Re participation expectations: I expect LangCom members to read messages in a timely fashion (as we have a 7-day deadline on decisions, that would mean at least twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (These times could be shortened if we have a consensus on shortening them - I wouldn't mind.)
Re committee size: That's a bit more difficult as we strive to have good potential contacts covering the entire world (e.g., I'm a member mainly for African languages but also for my contacts in SIL). Possibly, we still have a few gaps in coverage (our membership is still a bit Euro-centric). Would a maximum of twelve members be sufficient? In any case, it would mean to be strategic about membership, and possibly recruit new members for a specific field (as Jon Harald did in my case back in 2011).
Just my 2p's worth for starters. Oliver
On 08-Feb-17 02:09, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am not a member of LangCom (just a volunteer list-admin), so I will not offer an opinion on Jan's request to join.
However, I *will* offer an opinion about the committee's governance: the current structure still bears the signs of the committee's genesis, out of ad-hoc need, in a very different time for the movement. Today, it behooves this committee, like all WMF committees (and others across the movement), to adopt some measures of good governance to ensure it remains fit-to-purpose and active.
The first such measure that comes to mind is agreeing upon participation expectations (which should of course be appropriate for this particular committee's tasks and the understandable delays they often carry, such as waiting on external experts, etc.), and, after due notice, eventually removing members who do not meet those expectations. This is a relatively easy way to address the "membership for life" issue without setting actual (renewable) membership terms.
Another measure would be agreeing upon some desired size (or range) for committee membership, and then upon some process and criteria for soliciting and accepting new members.
I am bringing this up as advice in my personal capacity as observer of this committee, resting though it does on much observation and work with other Wikimedia committees. My advice does not carry any coercive force, of course; I just invite the committee to consider improving its governance along these or similar lines.
Agreed. I would put on hold any new membership requests before the solution of the issues Asaf listed.
I would also say that we should solve these issues as soon as possible; i.e. to put this thread as priority for our present work.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Re participation expectations: I expect LangCom members to read messages in a timely fashion (as we have a 7-day deadline on decisions, that would mean at least twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (These times could be shortened if we have a consensus on shortening them - I wouldn't mind.)
Agreed. I think six months are OK, as the dynamics of our work allows us not to require less time.
Re committee size: That's a bit more difficult as we strive to have good potential contacts covering the entire world (e.g., I'm a member mainly for African languages but also for my contacts in SIL). Possibly, we still have a few gaps in coverage (our membership is still a bit Euro-centric). Would a maximum of twelve members be sufficient? In any case, it would mean to be strategic about membership, and possibly recruit new members for a specific field (as Jon Harald did in my case back in 2011).
We could work efficiently with more than usual number of members if the rule is not consensus. However, we should keep in mind that we should meet from time to time and that more than 10-15 members would be hard to organize to meet in real life.
If we are able to recruit linguists of your profile, I see that we need three more profiles: (1) South America; (2) Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages); and (3) New Guinea (both Paupa New Guinea and Indonesian part of the island). Everything else has been covered explicitly (with linguistic knowledge) or implicitly (with social connections).
Hoi, We do say "yes" occasionally and while we were created to stop a flood we are happy to say this happens. The policy says what it does. The fact is that when people write thoughtful stuff, they are welcome to write so Jan, happy to have seen and read your thoughts.
There are people who want to change the policy.. As long as it is in a comprehensive way I do not mind but when it is only to change our voting ways I object. It does not make sense to do that; it should be part of something larger. It will also be something where the board has to give its approval. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 18:57, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are
heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
Not entirely. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee writes explicitly:* "Non-members should generally not participate in discussions. When it is necessary however, they can send a mail which a list administrator will need to accept manually."* Not that I mind being moderated, but to put it bluntly, writing a message feels pretty much like being an intruder.
The language committee was created to say "no".
Hm, perhaps I am wrong, but isn't the language committee also there to say "yes" every once in a while? Mind, I can follow your logic. If one member saying "no" means the whole committee says "no", it makes sense to limit the number of members to a bare minimum, because otherwise saying "no" is likely to become all the committee will ever do. I agree that for normal issues a majority vote would be a much better solution. While I agree with Amir that voting is not the solution for all problems, giving each individual member the right to veto any progress is a solution even worse.
Besides, I read that a quite a few members are completely inactive, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider that members are basically appointed for life. Given the fact that (except for Satdeep Gill) not a single new member has been added since 2012, I thought it might be a good idea to change that. That's why I am offering my expertise and help in speeding things up.
Cheers, Jan
2017-02-07 7:46 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the language works as designed.
While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie crumbles.
So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person that is enabled to say no.
It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face with the current policy. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
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
I support Jan’s membership.
On 7 Feb 2017, at 00:48, Jan van Steenbergen ijzeren.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable decisions.
Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
A short introduction:
My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom