Hoi, Now who is trolling? Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but remember that IMHO stands for "in my HUMBLE opinion".
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong when you think that we do not know of the process of
getting
recognition in the ISO or IANA standards. We have been instrumental in getting linguistic entities considered. This is something that we do
when we
feel there is merit. The ISO may be a big bureaucracy but it is
interested
in learning from us.
Again, we can and we do get recognition for linguistic entities if
there is
a need. We prefer not to, so the need must be convincing. It does not
negate
any of the arguments however about allowing for Wikipedias for dead languages. They are imho not a good thing to have. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <
wknight8111@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Pharos <
pharosofalexandria@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've proposed the "Can someone write an FA on the language's modern literature?"
criterion
as
a useful surrogate for the types of criteria you suggest.
But just saying that a person "can" do something doesn't mean that
the
person "will" do it. Volunteers work on what they want to work on,
and
if nobody wants to write a particular article or class of article,
it
will never get written.
Through Wikipedia policy, if the article exists then the topic
must be
notable. However if the article doesn't exist, that doesnt mean
that
the topic is non-notable. What this is, is a test with potential
false
negatives.
What I'm saying is, we have to allow an outlet for people proposing a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language to prove their
case.
Right now, the subcommittee tells them, "Don't bother me kid, go to the International Organization for Standardization", which is an impossible task, because the ISO is a big bureaucracy that just doesn't deal with categorizing "historical" languages that are still alive in a written form.
Writing an FA would not be easy, but it is a task that the proposers of a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language could be reasonably expected to be able to accomplish to prove their case (or not). The time-scale for writing an FA would typically be a few months, which is quite comparable to the time-scale of the -vastly unproductive- back-and-forth arguments that characterize a typical request to the subcommittee of this type.
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