On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If I were not to believe in the usefulness of the Wiki model, I would not invest so much in it. There is however a limit to its usefulness. For one when we publish a text, we indicate in the meta data for that text that it is in a specific linguistic entity. This list is based on standards, these standards are shared and as a consequence things are inferred from the correct usage of these standards. It is perfectly possible to write a featured article on "Westfries". Westfries is a dialect of the Dutch language. Writing a fa about this does not make for a standard that is recognised by others.
A featured article on a dialect is quite different from a featured article on a dialect's literature. For example, my native dialect is [[New York dialect]], also known as "Brooklynese". This dialect is spoken by millions of people in the New York metropolitan area. And, although the dialect appears sometimes in fiction (usually spoken by gangsters!) to add "local color", it is clearly not a standard literary language of any kind. [[New York dialect literature]] would not be notable.
I don't know the case with "Westfries"; maybe it is similar, maybe it is different.
Anyway, my proposal is directly about "historical" languages that still have active literatures; the scope is important because this is a category that the ISO chooses not to assess.
OK, so the only remaining issue then, appears to be the metadata codes.
Let me just say that I think the metadata issue should be distinctly secondary, and that our -priority- should be recognizing the full diversity of contemporary human expression. We can file it under our own code for the time being, and we could easily move it if the ISO ever chooses to change their procedures on this, in say 10 years.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Having a criterion that is dependent on the English language Wikipedia
is
not and cannot be seriously considered as a standard. What it considers
note
worthy is not necessarily relevant from a linguistic or otherwise point
of
view.
Are you denying the usefulness of the wiki model?
To become a Featured Article, a literature article would have to go through the very serious Featured Article Candidates Review. This is the best process we have -anywhere- on Wikimedia to weed out fake and non-notable things.
I'll tell you one thing, there was never a Featured Article on [[Siberian language literature]].
This is just one way for the Languages subcommittee to farm out the research work, to let an established review process advise their opinion on these particular cases, and spare the subcommittee many pages of useless back-and-forth arguments and spurious "facts" supporting different sides.
And it's about literary relevance, not linguistic relevance.
Neither is there a reason to privilege English: an FA is any major-language Wikipedia would demonstrate the same point.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
> What is "notable"?
Notable enough to have a Featured Article about [[Modern Latin literature]] or [[Modern Coptic literature]] on English
Wikipedia or
another major-language Wikipedia.
English should not have a wiki? I don't think it's a very good criteria if even our most prolific non-extinct language doesn't qualify.
I'm proposing a standard for languages that don't have native speakers, which must be judged solely on the output of their written literatures.
This would not restrict Wikipedias for languages with native
speakers.
(Obviously [[Modern English literature]] is notable enough a subject to be FA-worthy anyway, and it would hardly need to be demonstrated)
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l