Hoi, Jimbo will be pleasantly surprised to learn that Northern Sotho has the best localisation of all the South African languages. We hope that this will help the Northern Sotho Wikipedia to attract more readers. Jimbo was in South Africa to promote the creation of content, when sufficient initiatives are undertaken to stimulate good content in African languages they will get to the point where they will succeed.
PS We would also welcome a better localisation for Zulu, Xhosa, Southern Sotho and Afrikaans. Thanks, GerardM
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
On Jan 25, 2008 2:08 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo would cry. South African languages (all but Afrikaans - a dutch hybrid) typicaly have less than 1000 total articles, most less than 100. Hindi, one of worlds most spoken languages hardly has any articles on the wiki. It really is about people having access to the internet and computers. Quality of en.wikipedia content should not have a bearing on weather or not a foreign language wiki is created or not.
I really feel trying to regulate this is like punching water.
- White Cat
On Jan 25, 2008 9:18 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
But, as much as I am sympathetic to constructed languages, I do not think that there is any rational exception that can be made for them, and I doubt that in any argument they can be preserved wholly on the basis of such an arbitrary exception.
Rather, I believe in a reasonable compromise that retains the useful-to-the-modern-world "historical" and constructed languages, and keeps out those that aren't written anymore.
And I know you have been an advocate of Latin Wikipedia. I would not call such a language "reconstructed", but rather, a living and evolving "classical language", with an active contemporary literature. And I do not believe Latin to be unique in this regard.
What do you think of the proposal for using the demonstrated notability of a language's contemporary literature (as demonstrated by a Featured Article on the subject in the English Wikipedia) as the criteria for the approval of a primarily-written language (such as the "historical" and constructed languages)?
On Jan 24, 2008 2:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is no decision against constructed languages. There is a point
of
contention. Constructed languages have a special place in the policy
and
constructed languages are explicitly excluding reconstructed
languages.
The
issue is that this is a point that is not shared. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 24, 2008 3:04 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
There is no real difference between a historical language used by enthusiasts and a constructed language used by enthusiasts.
I agree with this point, but from an opposite, more inclusionary perspective.
If fact, I think I hear echoes of some of the points I raised at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2008 :)
Which is why I must protest the recent decision by the Language subcommittee against any and all Wikipedias in "historical"
languages,
and the possibility of that decision being extended to any and all Wikipedias in constructed languages.
Now, all "historical" languages are not created equal. Some have no contemporary literature, like Anglo-Saxon. Others have an active contemporary literature, like Latin. Languages like Latin I would classify as living "classical languages" that have a contemporary literature, but few or no modern speakers. It is these languages
that
are comparable in application to constructed languages, and that should share the same criteria for inclusion, which IMO should be
the
breadth of their contemporary literature.
Some people would say that languages without native speakers are useless. I disagree profoundly. When Newton wrote Principia, was he writing in a 'useless' language? If a language has an active literature, it is not useless. Yes, primarily written languages are not ideally suited for teaching young children basic facts about the world. But they do have an important place in the intellectual
sphere.
Imagine Catholic seminary students, from different parts of the
world,
writing articles on church history, using the original Latin
sources.
Would not such articles be ripe for translation into many different languages?
And the argument that people are being siphoned off from their
native
language Wikipedia to work on Latin just doesn't make any sense; it
is
far more likely that the unique prospect of a Latin Wikipedia is drawing people in who would not otherwise be associated with
Wikimedia
projects at all.
Of course, the big question is, where do you draw the line? And how
do
you draw it effectively, so that we don't exhaust the resources of
the
resources of the Language subcommittee in fruitless research? As you might have guessed, I'm a strong proponent of requiring active contemporary literatures. ISO doesn't evaluate this, so we need alternate criteria. One way to determine if a contemporary contemporary literature is legitimate, is if its legitimacy is respected by scholars of the "historical" language (as opposed to
just
being a product of amateurs with no connection to mainstream academia).
But if the Language subcommittee wants something really simple and quantifiable, I'll give you this modest proposal: Is a language's contemporary literature notable enough to be the subject of a
Featured
Article on English Wikipedia?
Yup, simple as that. So, can [[Modern Latin literature]] make it?- probably, with some work. [[Modern Anglo-Saxon literature]]?- almost definitely not. [[Modern Ancient Greek literature]]?- maybe. This
way,
-you- don't have to do the research. The Featured Article Candidates team will do it for you.
And of course, these prospective Wikipedias would also still need a significant initial contributing community, like all prospective Wikipedia.
Thanks, User:Pharos
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l