One more :) Of course that arguments exist. However, I realized that they are pointless not because your position is not a valid one (you have much better arguments than calling on WFM goals), but because the most of conversations with you have the ultimate end: your interpretation of WMF goals. And isn't it pointless to argue about something where nobody may be better than you?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What better reason to call it a sophism then having no arguments to refute it? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF
is
to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written
does
not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and
consequently we
do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed
more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word
and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not
reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it something
else.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is
a
"dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: > Hoi, > The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to
start
historic > languages. When you write in a dead language you will
invariably
start
to > used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a
words
that
they > originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn
the
language
as > it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that
language.
> > There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who
are
already
> working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project
is of
a
quality > that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar
size. The
only > reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is
politics; the
> widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In
contrast
to > historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed
languages.
> Thanks, > GerardM > > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic <
millosh@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated
similarly.
The
> > issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to > > non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias
(note
that I
> > am not talking about other projects; treat the word
"project" as
a
> > synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a
clear
> > future at Wikimedia. > > > > I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our > > priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is
to
spread
> > free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
> > to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat
this
issue
> > without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as
it
is
> > possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, > > but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of
our
future.
> > > > So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according
to
"some
> > very predictable parts of our future" as I see them. > > > > Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the
issues:
(1) I
> > don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of
specific
> > conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't
like
> > wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European
languages,
> > including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my
opinion,
even
> > lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical
languages.
> > (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a
Wikimedia
issue;
> > some other institutions should take care about such
languages
before
> > they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some
project
may > > be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a
criteria
> > about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but
unlocking
> > should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to
take
care
> > about that project. > > > > But, let's see what do we have: > > > > 1. (Projects in) natural and living languages: > > 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans:
English
Wikipedia. > > 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the
history
of
> > humans: German Wikipedias. > > 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to
become
the
> > biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too.
Generally,
those
> > are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which
will
have
> > that number relatively soon. > > 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at
least
5000
> > articles and living communities. > > 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around
1000
> > articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. > > 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less
than
> > around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active
contributors.
> > 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and
without
> > active contributors. > > 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have
a
Wikipedia. > > 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't
have
a
> > Wikipedia. > > > > 2. (Projects in) conlangs: > > 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant
conglang
> > community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot
of
data
> > added by one person). > > 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) > > 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't
have a
> > Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons,
usually
> > copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language;
it
may be
> > read by any educated person which native language is one of
the
Slavic > > languages.) > > 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
> > because of the policies. > > 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project
because
of
the > > policies. > > > > 3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages: > > 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a
Church
> > Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old
Church
> > Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated
Roman
Catholic > > (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. > > 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
> > 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of
our
policies. > > > > And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
> > > > 1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority.
This
is
> > not because I like English, but because of the fact that it
is a
> > lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some
knowledge
> > written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in
other
> > languages, too. However, this project may take care about
itself.
> > 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the
next
group,
> > but it share one characteristics with English one: it may
take
care
> > about itself. > > 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua
franca
of
> > some region, or even more widely. Their importance is
similar to
the
> > importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of
those
> > projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give
them
> > possibility to take care about themselves. > > 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next
priority:
> > They need a lot of technical and other help to become a
stable,
well
> > developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that
a lot
of
> > people are talking those languages. > > 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias
which
have
> > some activity. If we see that some people are interested in
Wikipedia
> > in their language, we should encourage them to participate
in
the
> > project. > > 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some
time
someone
> > came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language.
We
should
> > try to find some people who are interested in writing
project in
that
> > language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community
and
it is
> > a matter of WMF and their contacts. > > 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't
have
> > projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks
for
the
> > project in their language are very important: it means that
they
would > > be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near
future. At
> > this point I really support Gerard's position that
MediaWiki
messages
> > should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers
to
read MW
> > messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons
are)
really
> > willing to create their project. > > 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again,
a
matter
of > > the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international
efforts to
> > make written forms of non-written languages. > > 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority.
At
least,
> > some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
> > we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However,
in
this
> > category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto
is.
> > However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because
of
its
> > similarity with English and a work of one person. This is
the
category > > for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is.
Also, if
> > Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
> > be useful -- it should go into this category. > > 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we
have
> > resources, and there are people who are willing to do some > > neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). > > 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are
a
lot of
> > them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even
for
> > communication ;) > > 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone
wants
to
> > enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language
and
we
have > > resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages
would
be
used > > for real communication sometime in the future. > > * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs
(artistic
> > or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are
copyrighted
> > languages. > > > > And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While
we
are
> > doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are
now in
the
> > process of making Volunteer council, which means that we
are
finishing > > the third global task out of 12. > > > > And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our
possibilities,
> > first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC.
I am
sure
> > that the most of use will accept to take care about
projects up
to
the > > priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an
analysis of
our
> > possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours
(usually,
> > steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an
artistic
> > language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable.
However,
> > if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per
year
for
> > useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of
giving
> > $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant > > encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the
second
> > choice. > > > > So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues
about we
> > are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from
arbitrary
choices
> > to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a
perfect
> > construction. I just hope that we may move toward more
rational
talks
> > than arguing for one or another option. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
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