Hoi, When we are to support languages, we have to support them well and, we have to support them in an equal way. With Incubator we have the potential of having people prove that there language is viable as a new language. For users the ability of having support of their user interface is an important factor of this.
The technical procedures of creating new languages are faulty because they do not create message files for these languages and when new projects are created, the only place where these language files are created are the new projects. When you ask for these message files to be imported into MediaWiki proper, there are too many hoops to jump through.
It is for this reason that we explicitly want the message files to be created in the Incubator and have the messages created in this way supported in MediaWiki. At this moment we are waiting for the developers to create the missing message files in the Incubator.
If you can find a friendly developer to create these message files in Incubator, when the basic messages have been translated, we LOVE to have more projects.
You have to appreciate that by having a committee, a committee that spends a lot of time to come up with some sensible policies, they have to have a certain authority because only this will make things move forward. The requirement of the message files has been communicated on many occasions. It is the one thing stopping projects becoming full projects.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/26/07, Arbeo M arbeo.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Jesse.
2007/3/26, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
The policy is not at fault for the delays.
Correct
but we still have to get the policy development out of the way first.
You mean the subcommittee itself considers [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] not final? Is that what you're saying? If so, why did it reject requests (e. g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ladin) "in accordance with the Language proposal policyhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy" for incompatibility with the same?
I've said this so many times I'm starting to doubt whether it's possible, but it should not take much longer. Assuming nobody suddenly notices another all-important problem and forces a full halt, we should begin processing requests within a week or two.
So what exactly is the problem?
Although the current delays are unacceptable, please be careful not to mistakenly hearken back to the good old days before the subcommittee;
We agree that there's no going back to the old, often chaotic system. I still think that a language subcommittee _can_ play a positive role in fostering multilingualism. But unfortunately that's only a potentiality so far, while the reality is far from it. So let's see to changing that.
Feedback on the policy would be much appreciated. Is there anything in particular you oppose or dislike?
The policy is not bad, especially since it picks up many criteria that had previously been applied already, in a less formalized manner. Of course, one could always place a slightly different emphasis here and there but the very last thing we need now is another endless, tedious policy discussion.* What we really need now are _results_. What I'm really dreading is a new, infinite discussion of principles locking out all those fellow Wikipedians who speak Kabyle, Lower Sorbian and forth for another, dunno, three years.
So I'd suggest to work with what we have. Let's apply the Language proposal policy _judiciously_, not prohibitively. Especially, let's not expect potential new Wikipedians to do things that are not part of the policy and then wonder why highly promising new projects never come to live. Let's always bear in mind that proposers of new Wikipedias from remote regions of the earth might not necessarily have ten years of Internet experience and be wiki-savvy and that many of them don't understand English as well as you and I. Let's support them proactively. Let's never forget that there's tens of millions of people out there who are currently excluded from our treasure of free knowledge because they cannot understand any of the languages we're using at the moment.
And above all: Let's put aside un-wikilike nitpicking and boldly say: "Yes, you can. Go ahead. Welcome aboard, good to have you here!"
Have a good day everybody --Arbeo
- Just one small suggestion. Policy says under section "Conditional
approval": "At least five active users must edit that language regularly before a test project will be considered successful." I'd set a lower requirement (e. g. 3 users) here for small languages (under, say, 100,000 speakers or so) in order to make the policy non-discriminatory. While it might be fairly easy for communities like the Kabyle to round up a start-up team of five editors, it is probably disproportionately difficult for small language communities. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l