Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to discuss approval of Latin projects.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we are discussing, I am done talking. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
academic
exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l