Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
Hello,
There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one, are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
Very cool parenthetical remark there, just as an aside.
New simple-language wikis will not be created under the current policy, simply because the policy does not have objective criteria that would allow them. Do we allow any simple wikis, like a "simple Cherokee" Wikipedia? If not, what objective criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving languages? If so, should we also permit scientific-language wikis, and any other arbitrary variant contributors may legitimately propose? If not, what criteria distinguish deserving from non-deserving variants?
I think this is a conundrum, and I tried to offer a shortcut way of proceeding with non-English simples, without thinking about the criteria at all, by just dumping them all into incubator, and following the criteria of viable community size/activity criteria or what have you - I frankly have no idea what they are at all, but I am betting they are getting viable project results, or you would be adjusting them - and hatching them when they meet the criteria.
Don't see why you couldn't have a go at letting non- simples from at least a few of the largest languages have a test at creating a viable community of editors in a simple variant of their language.
I know as a fact that even such a minor language as Finnish, does have many many books in any decent public library worthy of the name (studying as I am Library and information sciences - and paddling very hard below the surface for my "craftsmanship work") here would have a respectable number of books written both in large print, and in simplified form (not always intersecting). But I confess that may be an artifact of being a citizen of one of the nations with the highest literacy rates on record.
There are two ways to create new simple-language wikis. The first, most obvious but most difficult, is to formulate those criteria so that the policy can be changed to allow them. The second is to circumvent the policy, by convincing the Board to accept such a proposal directly. (The second may be possible, but would be very unfair to contributors who want a simple non-English wiki, which won't have the same amount of popular support to sway the Board.)
I frankly don't understand what would be "very unfair" to let larger language projects with more weight behind them, be the ones to do the hard lifting to actually establish the fact gosh-darn it, English is *not* the only simple that can be viable.
Baby steps, baby steps. Get a beach head first, and soon you can haul in smaller languages.
The language committee itself was created by Board approval, and can be dismantled or have its membership changed by Board approval. Without a language subcommittee, requests would need to be processed by the Board or the sysadmins directly. More likely, the membership would be changed in case of problems. I think the language committee does more good than ill, but persons who disagree can certainly gather together and propose a change.
Or of course, people on the committee can grow themselves noses, ears, and other senses, and observe the environment more clearly.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen