There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
- Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
- it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
not exist at the time when the language was alive
- neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
exist at the time when the language was alive
- modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
- Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
- We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Next Thursday's office hours will feature Véronique Kessler, the
Foundation's Chief Financial Officer. If you don't know
Naoko, you can get to know her at
Office hours on Thursday are from 2100 to 2200 UTC (3:00 PM - 4:00 PM PDT).
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It should be all right.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on. Also note, this is
Veronique's first foray into IRC, so lets show her how welcoming we can
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Possibly of interest to Wikimedians: the U.S. Office of Science and
Technology Policy is requesting public comment on making federally
funded scientific research open access. The deadline is Jan. 7.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cwbailey(a)digital-scholarship.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:50:30 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [STS-L] OSTP Request for Comment on Open Access to Federally
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is requesting
input regarding enhanced access to federally funded science
and technology research results, including the possibility
of open access to them. Comments can be e-mailed to
publicaccess(a)ostp.gov. The deadline for comments is January
Here's an excerpt from the announcement
Input is welcome on any aspect of expanding public access to
peer reviewed publications arising from federal research.
Questions that individuals may wish to address include, but
are not limited to, the following (please respond to
1. How do authors, primary and secondary publishers,
libraries, universities, and the federal government
contribute to the development and dissemination of peer
reviewed papers arising from federal funds now, and how
might this change under a public access policy?
2. What characteristics of a public access policy would best
accommodate the needs and interests of authors, primary and
secondary publishers, libraries, universities, the federal
government, users of scientific literature, and the public?
3. Who are the users of peer-reviewed publications arising
from federal research? How do they access and use these
papers now, and how might they if these papers were more
accessible? Would others use these papers if they were more
accessible, and for what purpose?
4. How best could federal agencies enhance public access to
the peer-reviewed papers that arise from their research
funds? What measures could agencies use to gauge whether
there is increased return on federal investment gained by
5. What features does a public access policy need to have to
6. What version of the paper should be made public under a
public access policy (e.g., the author's peer reviewed
manuscript or the final published version)? What are the
relative advantages and disadvantages to different versions
of a scientific paper?
7. At what point in time should peer-reviewed papers be made
public via a public access policy relative to the date a
publisher releases the final version? Are there empirical
data to support an optimal length of time? Should the delay
period be the same or vary for levels of access (e.g., final
peer reviewed manuscript or final published article, access
under fair use versus alternative license), for federal
agencies and scientific disciplines?
8. How should peer-reviewed papers arising from federal
investment be made publicly available? In what format should
the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search,
find, and retrieve and to make it easy for others to link to
it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and
interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these
anticipated to change?
9. Access demands not only availability, but also meaningful
usability. How can the federal government make its
collections of peer- reviewed papers more useful to the
American public? By what metrics (e.g., number of articles
or visitors) should the Federal government measure success
of its public access collections? What are the best examples
of usability in the private sector (both domestic and
international)? And, what makes them exceptional? Should
those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment
or provide feedback?
In "The Obama Administration Wants OA for Federally-Funded
Research" (http://bit.ly/8fZ6Yh), Peter Suber says:
"This is big. We already have important momentum in Congress
for FRPAA. The question here is about separate action from
the White House. What OA policies should President Obama
direct funding agencies to adopt? This is the first major
opening to supplement legislative action with executive
action to advance public access to publicly-funded research.
It's also the first explicit sign that President Obama
supports the OA policy at the NIH and wants something
similar at other federal agencies."
In "Please Comment on Mandate Proposal by President Obama's
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)"
(http://bit.ly/8OQUEF), Stevan Harnad provides his answers
to the OSTP's questions.
Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
Publisher, Digital Scholarship
Hi folks, just curious - is the appeal from Jimmy going to be the
standard banner for the remainder of the fundraiser? Congratulations,
by the way, on the success of the drive thus far - it has raised 92%
of the annual goal, or $6.498M, according to the fundraiser statistics
page. Despite early hiccups with the banner content, this fundraiser
appears to be (by a wide margin) the most successful in Wikimedia's
The next strategic planning office hours are:
Tuesday from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 12-1pm PST
Tuesday, 3pm-4pm EST
There has been a lot of tremendous work on the strategy wiki the past
few months, and Task Forces are starting to finish up their work.
Office hours will be a great opportunity to discuss the work that's
happened as well as the work to come.
As always, you can access the chat by going to
https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel
name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a
security warning. It's fine. More details at:
Thanks! Hope to see many of you there.
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/
A bit of housekeeping, but just to let everyone know: Jan-Bart de
Vreede, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, and Matt Halprin have all been appointed
to additional one-year terms for 2010, by unanimous votes of their
fellow board members. I look forward to working with all of them as we
continue with the strategic planning process and am grateful for their
willingness to serve on the board.
I'm evaluating our legal options around commercially using wikipedia
content, if this is not the right forum, please let me know / forward
the question. It might be that the method I describe is not legally
possible, so if there is any similar situation that does or does not
work, please let me know either. I'd like to play safe in this field
and avoid potential issues.
For the sake of example we would like to automatically convert the
page content to a different text and different format (e.g.
automatically create text extracts and compile it into a pdf document)
and sell it as part of a subscription service or even better as a
standalone product. We include all the attributions / links wherever
possible, and mark that the source of the product is Wikipedia. What
else are we required to do before the sell can happen? Is there any
fee or percentage that shall go back to mediawiki foundation in such
cases? Can we restrict the copy or re-distribution of such product?
For the later, I suppose there is nothing we can do, however this
seems to ruin the whole business model, doesn't it?
Thank you for your help,
The next strategic planning office hours are:
Wednesday from 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 8-9pm PST
Tuesday, 11pm-12am EST
As always, You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net
and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-
strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
Hope to see you there!
Facilitator, Strategy Project
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
I am pleased to announce (a day late) the members of the jury for the
2011 Wikimania bids. The complete page with links can be found at
Voting members of the jury
* Delphine Ménard (Wikimania 2005, 2006 & 2008 organisation, chapters,
* Austin Hair (Wikimania 2005 & 2006 organisation, chapters)
* Mariano Cecowski (Wikimania 2009 organisation, Wikimedia Argentina)
* Joseph Seddon (Wikimedia UK & Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid team)
* James Owen (Wikimedia Foundation Executive assistant to Sue Gardner &
Wikimania 2010 planning)
* Stuart West (Wikimedia Foundation Board)
* Teemu Leinonen (Advisory Board)
* Benjamin Mako Hill (Advisory Board)
* Michael Snow (Wikimedia Foundation Board Chairperson)
* Sue Gardner (Wikimedia Foundation - executive)
Note that Moderators are neutral aides and will not act as representatives.
* James Forrester (Perennial Wikimania attendee)
* Phoebe Ayers (Programme and Wikimania 2006 organisation)