I think we may want a "historic texts" wikisource/wikibooks particularly for
texts in now extinct languages. Something sort of like commons for historic
texts for all extinct languages. I do not know something like this was
proposed before.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> > <pathoschild(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l