Hello,
Several people in the recent discussions, most recently Brian and
Dovi, have asked about how the subcommittee reaches decisions and
whether they can join to present their viewpoint. Here's a brief view
into the wonderful world of the language subcommittee. Being a
productive member of the subcommittee requires a very large investment
of continuous time and effort.
The language subcommittee operates by consensus. This means that most
proposed decisions are discussed at length, and many tend to be
compromises. Virtually every aspect of the approval policy is a
compromise between very different positions in the subcommittee.
Although it's possible to make a decision over the objections of one
member, this requires lengthy discussion to attempt a consensus, and a
complete consensus of the rest of the participating members. This is a
very time-consuming and stressful process, so that a single member can
block a decision for a long time. However, it ensures that all
viewpoints are heard and fairly represented.
The members of the subcommittee hold some significantly different
opinions on several issues, and have significantly different
priorities. As such, monthly discussion frequently outstrips many
public mailing lists, and is sometimes heated. Discussion in January
alone totaled some 20000 words.
Many discussions can be very technical, particularly those concerning
language code classification and technical accommodations for
particular languages (like sign languages). This requires research and
a good understanding of the subject at hand, and is a further drain on
time and effort.
Furthermore, after investing so much of your free time and effort on
this, you must then defend yourself from public criticism for being
slow, lazy, corrupt, arbitrary, and a sekrit cabal. When you're done
with that, you then spend more of your free time answering requesters'
questions and queries.
New members are chosen by consensus as well. Interested users tend to
desist when I explain how much fun it will be. A number of our members
are inactive; I want to ensure that new members know what they're
getting into, and won't freak out and vanish when they're approved.
All this is why GerardM said "When the only reason to become a member
of the LC is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can
discuss on this list as effectively". Being a member of the
subcommittee involves more than simply arguing your favourite subject.
If all that sounds fun to you, you're welcome to apply.
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> >sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is by
> >using the mother tongue of people.
>
> Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of
> the great classical languages of Western civilization is also
> a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably
> more useful than a few of the current European languages that
> are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have
> any objection to those either).
>
> You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a
> project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource
> up and running, currently with many active contributors
> and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue
> but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be
> said for contributors in many languages. What you need are
> active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother"
> tongue.
>
> Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length,
> adding nothing new, and then conclude:
>
> >The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published and
> >they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we
> >use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make a
> >difference.
>
> No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are
> not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community
> at large that your arguments are correct.
>
> >We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are
> >welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
>
> No need, "grc" will do just fine!
>
> I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever
> in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great
> respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And
> I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process
> has been handled need improvement.
>
> I again repeat my request for information about the language
> committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity
> of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
>
> Dovi
>
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> In the language committee things are done by consensus. If you want to
> become a member of the committee, you will find that there are things that
> are at best a compromise. When the only reason to become a member of the LC
> is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can discuss on this list
> as effectively.
>
> If you are interested in doing the work that we do in the LC, you will want
> to know about all the esoterica that are part of understanding how languages
> are dealt with technically, its different standards and their interaction.
> If you do not care for that, you can implement the procedures as they are.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Brian McNeil
<brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Congratulations on responding without answering any of the points or
> questions raised... Again.
>
> This, Gerard, is you, and you alone. I am not aware of the language
> committee appointing you as a spokesperson and you do a fine impersonation
> of Ian Paisley as "Dr. No". I've never seen you concede a point or accept
> anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the basis
> for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language committee
> allegedly works.
>
> There was one clear and unambiguous question in the email you responded to;
> it came in two parts, and was a repeat of an earlier query. It would be most
> civilised to answer the question and not assert that the discussion should
> simply continue here. The option you offer is a complete and utter waste of
> time for everyone else on the list. I am none the wiser about how the
> language committee operates than I was nearly a year ago when I signed up,
> but by golly! Have I had to read a lot of messages from you that tell other
> people they're not qualified to give input.
>
>
> Brian McNeil
Is this better?
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION.
I. Both Employer and Employee agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees, contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
II. Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client or supplier of company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers.
III. Additionally, and in consideration of Employee's covenants in this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of the Board of Trustees of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of Employee.
IV. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to supersede the whistleblower protection laws of the United States of America and the whistleblower protection policy of this Organization.
V. No provision of this agreement shall be considered to preclude complaints to appropriate supervisory personnel
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:15:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)
Agree. That's a godawful policy. For instance, "shall not....make any
statement that ....is derogatory of employer" means that they cannot
say "Wikimedia Foundation is not good at this". The reciprocal
agreement is just as bad. For instance, it only prevents "directory
senior officer[s] of Employer or member[s] of the Board of Trustees"
from criticizing the employee. It does not prevent, for instance,
independent contractors from being critical and disparaging of
employees, something that, according to some accounts that I've heard,
has been an issue before.
-Dan
On Apr 13, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> - begin quote -
>> NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. Both Employer and Employee
>> agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information
>> among employees,
>> contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
>> Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three
>> years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any
>> communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client
>> or supplier of
>> company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement
>> that personally
>> disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of
>> their respective directors,
>> trustees, or senior officers. Additionally, and in consideration of
>> Employee's covenants in
>> this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of
>> the Board of Trustees
>> of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally
>> criticize, ridicule or make any
>> statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of employee.
>> - end quote -
>
> That's lawyerspeak for "You mustn't say bad things about your boss
> (and vice versa)." I would never have signed that. It doesn't even
> acknowledge the Whistleblowing policy, which is directly contradicts
> (presumably that policy takes precedence, but I would have expected it
> to be made explicit). The Whistleblowing policy only applies if what
> you're complaining about is actually illegal. If you just think your
> boss has been doing an appalling job, you're not allowed to do
> anything about it. Saying untrue, or purely hurtful things is clearly
> unacceptable, but anyone should be able to stand up and tell the truth
> as they see it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hoi,
For quite some time, we have had people arguing for the closure of projects.
I have seen many arguments pro and against closures. What has been missing
in all these projects are objective criteria why it makes sense to find
fault with a project.
I have come up with three objective arguments.
- A project is not what it is advertised to be. For instance when a
language is always written in a particular script, a project in any other
script is problematic.
- A project does not have at least 90% of the most relevant messages
localised. For your information there are only 498 messages in this category
at the moment.
- A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there is nothing
to see what is the point ?
The first argument is an absolute, never mind the size.
For the second and third I would argue for closure when both conditions are
not met. When there is activity in either it may be reason for giving an
ultimatum. The ultimatum would be that both conditions need to be met within
three months.
The most important reason why we need viable projects is because it is sad
to see so much time wasted by good people on projects that have little or no
objective value. No value because nobody actively cares. Yes, people may
come along and get an interest and eventually they will, but time of
valuable people is wasted now and that provides in my opinion a really
strong extra argument.
Thanks,
GerardM
>"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
>sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is by
>using the mother tongue of people.
Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of
the great classical languages of Western civilization is also
a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably
more useful than a few of the current European languages that
are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have
any objection to those either).
You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a
project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource
up and running, currently with many active contributors
and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue
but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be
said for contributors in many languages. What you need are
active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother"
tongue.
Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length,
adding nothing new, and then conclude:
>The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published and
>they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we
>use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make a
>difference.
No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are
not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community
at large that your arguments are correct.
>We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are
>welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
No need, "grc" will do just fine!
I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever
in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great
respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And
I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process
has been handled need improvement.
I again repeat my request for information about the language
committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity
of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
Dovi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I second Anthere's expression of gratitude for the two years of the language
committee's work. Thanks also to Pathoschild for his description. I apologize if my query about its internal workings offended anyone. That was not my intention.
On a practical level, it seems that the language committee has two basic functions:
1. To decide language policy.
2. To implement language policy (e.g. guiding the process for each proposed wiki
in a new language from initial proposal to implementation according to policy). The comments about hard work and massive investments of time would seem to be mostly a function of this second part.
The recent discussion has mostly been about #1, and it is understandable that
members who have done a lot of hard work will be miffed if their opinions are
questioned by people who have never participated in #2, or who don't even realize
that such work is being done!
My query about diversity on the committee was not to propose myself as a
member, but was indeed about diversity. At present Gerard is a very prominent
voice with some firmly held positions: Very supportive of artificial languages,
absolute rejection of classical languages (for the reasons he has explained).
He is entitled to his opinions and his logic, but I was asking how those with
alternative positions could also be part of the consensus that is formulated by
the committee. I was thinking not specifically of myself, but rather that in
general, people with strong backgrounds in classical languages might be able
to add further perspectives to the group that are currently lacking (or that at least
seem to be lacking in the formulated consensus).
The idea that new members are added to the committee by consensus of the committee is something good to know; that was not clear to me before. Whether
this is the best policy or not can be debated; every system has its pluses and
minuses.
A further question is regarding the consensus of the committee: What happens
when that consensus is greeted by a lack of consensus in the Wikimedia
community? Does that mean they must be accepted even though "you may
not like them" in Gerard's words? Or is the committee ultimately responsible
in some way to the larger community of contributors?
Are the discussions within the committee that lead to consensus open to the
public in some sort of an archive? If not, then perhaps they should be, in the
interests of transparency. If they are (and I'm just ignorant about it) it would be
a public service to post the location.
To Gerard: I am a secret admirer of the wonderful work you do on Omegawiki. It is quite evident that the functionality you are working towards is what will
ultimately turn Mediawiki into fully multilingual software (for projects such as
Commons), and will do a great deal for languages around the world. I also notice
your strongly worded positions on many issues at this mailing list. Sometimes I
agree and sometimes (like this time) I don't, but that does not detract in any way
for the admiration that myself and others have for your expertise and your hard
work. My apologies again if the impression I left was otherwise.
Dovi
The following was just posted to the Veropedia.com blog,
and I am copying it to Foundation-l as much related
discussion regarding pending projects has been occurring
here. Additionally, many of those seeking a project in the
WMF will find this interesting. Thanks.
>>
>> A Veropedia for a Wikipedia
>>
>> Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia available in
>> various languages. However, it is up to the Language
>> Committee (LangCom) to decide the appropriateness
>> of a language prior to its inclusion in the set.
>>
>> Recently, it has become more difficult for a language to
>> get approved, and people wishing to write in languages
>> such as Ancient Greek, Erzya, Extremaduran and Gan
>> cannot do so.
>>
>> As a sign of good faith and cooperation, Veropedia
>> would be happy to host wikis (*pedias or other projects)
>> for any languages that have not yet been accepted by the
>> Language Committee or are otherwise "on hold." Should
>> they get accepted and a wiki is created for them, we will
>> be happy to assist them in moving over any content that
>> they have developed on the Veropedia site to the
>> Wikimedia-based project.
>>
>> We realize that this does not compensate for a fully
>> integrated Wikimedia project, but hope that it will enable
>> users to create content while their projects are being
>> approved. If you have any questions or wish to request a
>> wiki to be set up, please contact Chad or Danny at
>> <veropedia.info(a)gmail.com>. Thanks.
>>
(Link: http://blog.veropedia.com/a-veropedia-for-a-wikipedia/)
Always,
Chad
GerardM strongly feels the following,
an argument he has made countless times
as the reason the Ancient Greek Wikipedia
was cancelled (even after being approved
with the sole remaining condition of finishing
the interface translation):
>When you write in a dead language you will invariably start to
>use neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that they
>originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language as
>it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language...
>In contrast to historic languages neologisms are fine
>in constructed languages.
This, however, is a conceptual point that may not be
a good reason to deny a Wikipedia, and indeed many of us
do not feel it is, nor that it is even correct.
What is so terrible about neologisms?
What makes them so distasteful to you that you were willing
to go so far as to close down an approved project with some
highly educated and qualified people contributing to it?
Why, Gerard, must a Wikipedia represent a language exactly
as it was "at the time of its demise"? (Can you define,
exactly, the exact state of the "demise" of a classical
language like Greek?)
As previous posters have mentioned, Greek is still to this
very day a basic part of a classical education, and "creative
writing" in such a rich language is par for the course when
studying it. So are "neologisms" really so foreign to it?
And is it really completely "dead" for the purposes of an
encyclopedia?
On the contrary, I posit that the issue of neologisms has
nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of a
Wikimedia project. There is no reason not to have a project
with neologisms, and there are languages without neologisms
that may not be appropriate. That neologisms must be foreign
to Wikipedia language projects is Gerard's firm conviction,
but it is a value judgement like any other, and not shared
by many others. There is nothing objective about it.
On the contrary, *all* languages have adapted to the technical
needs of Wikipedia and even changed as a result. This includes
English itself and other major European languages. The English
of Wikipedia today is different than the English language of
2001 precisely because it has been used in a Wikipedia environment.
On a larger scale, I would like to know more about the language
committee and how it is appointed. It seems to have very dedicated
and highly qualified members. But from recent discussion it also
appears to be somewhat monolithic and might benefit from a greater
diversity of voices.
Dovi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I noticed that the present discussion started as an answer to the rejection of the ancient greek wikipedia. and i haven't seen a hard defence like this project.
i think is due to the ancient greek is always a special case. as the quote of Edward Sapir found in the classical language article of wikipedia; the ancient greek is with latin, classical chinese, arabic and sanskrit is the foundation of all the culture of the whole world,
and the modern world refers to them, all the time.
I ask to the subcommitte:
if the discussion provide good reason to the project of ancient language. it's possible a reconsideration of the rejection of ancient greek Wikipedia, and others projects of ancient language like classical japanese or ottomanic turkish that were proposed, too?.
J. case
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:15:46 +0400
> From: "A.M.D.F." <amdf00(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] New wiki creation moratorium
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <48023FC2.4050909(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
>
> Hello.
>
> Brion Vibber, the Foundation's Chief Technical Officer said that
> "Currently, no new wikis will be created until GFDL 1.3 is released.".
>
> Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
>
> These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> maybe few months?
>
> I think that license changing is completely unrelated to the process of
> creating new wiki projects.
>
> Why new wikis will not be created? Many people are waiting.
>
> Links:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (see "approved")
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13264 (Opened: 2008-03-06)
>
>
These are good questions. In my opinion it would seem very unfair for
these projects to be affected by such a 'rule', if one exists. I am not
sure why licenses would be an issue. As for wikinews, I thought the
content was CC-by? What would that have to do with the GFDL? I cannot
speak for the Wikipedias as they do use GFDL.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The
issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to
non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I
am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a
synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear
future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our
priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread
free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and
to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue
without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is
possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically,
but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some
very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I
don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific
conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like
wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages,
including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even
lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages.
(4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue;
some other institutions should take care about such languages before
they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project may
be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria
about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking
should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care
about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
1. (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English Wikipedia.
1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of
humans: German Wikipedias.
1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the
biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those
are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have
that number relatively soon.
1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000
articles and living communities.
1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000
articles at least and a a couple of active contributors.
1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than
around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors.
1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without
active contributors.
1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
2. (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang
community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data
added by one person).
2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?)
2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a
Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually
copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be
read by any educated person which native language is one of the Slavic
languages.)
2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project
because of the policies.
2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies.
3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church
Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church
Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman Catholic
(in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin.
3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon...
3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a
lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge
written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other
languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself.
2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group,
but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care
about itself.
3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of
some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the
importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those
projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them
possibility to take care about themselves.
4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority:
They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well
developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of
people are talking those languages.
5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have
some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia
in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the
project.
6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone
came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should
try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that
language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is
a matter of WMF and their contacts.
7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have
projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the
project in their language are very important: it means that they would
be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At
this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages
should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW
messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really
willing to create their project.
8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter of
the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to
make written forms of non-written languages.
9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least,
some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And
we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this
category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is.
However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its
similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the category
for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if
Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to
be useful -- it should go into this category.
10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have
resources, and there are people who are willing to do some
neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow).
11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of
them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for
communication ;)
12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to
enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we have
resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be used
for real communication sometime in the future.
* 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted
languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are
doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the
process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are finishing
the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities,
first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure
that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to the
priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our
possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually,
steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic
language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However,
if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for
useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving
$10.000 per one African language for making five relevant
encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second
choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we
are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices
to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect
construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks
than arguing for one or another option.