I never said it is acceptable. I said I have been one of the prime advocates within that project for using Wulfilas' alphabet.
However, I do not think that using the Latin alphabet (which it doesn't even do on all pages... just some of them) means it departs from the corpus.
Mark
On 03/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you learn a language, the language should be learned warts and all. I disagree with you that writing in the Latin script should be qualified as acceptable at all. A WMF project is written for the benefit of the READERS of that project Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What are these neologisms you are talking about? Please give multiple examples. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just skeptical of your claims.
As far as Gothic goes, that is a project I was involved with closer to the beginning and I advocated for the use of Gothic script. However, people became lazy and resorted to using Latin script. It is really not as difficult to use the Gothic script as they make it seem... and in the future I hope we can overcome this nasty anachronism. Script alone is not an argument enough to say that they are departing from the corpus, however.
Mark
On 03/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When Gothic was never written in the Latin script, the line is crossed
when
it is written in the Latin script. When a encyclopaedia cannot be
written in
a language because there is not enough vocabulary and consequently neologisms have to be created to write the text or when words are given
a
meaning that they did not originally have the line is crossed.
Certainly Gothic and probably Anglo-Saxon language have crossed the
line
already.
Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
This is essentially my position.
However, there is a line to be crossed - when we are writing a language based on existing materials, and when we are writing in a language that we have made up. A Gothic or Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia
could
possibly stay on the proper side of this line, but a Sumerian Wikipedia probably could not and a Carian Wikipedia definitely could not.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a
living
native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist
nature).
This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation
mission
to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being".
Thus,
the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is
to
make
it accessible to more human beings. If a language has no native
users,
allowing a wiki in that language does not fit our mission
because it
does not make that project accessible to more human beings.
Instead,
a
wiki in their native languages should be requested if it doesn't already exist.
Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language
don't
want to provide educational material to more people at all, but
only
want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble
goals,
they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki
should
not be created simply to fulfill them.
But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be
allowed in
every extinct language?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
If there are people willing to develop and administer the language
edition
of the encyclopedia, sure. At worst it is their time to waste.
Such
users
should be willing to operate the wiki as in take care of vandalism
and
etc.
If the wiki somehow successfully resurrects a dead language, no
harm
done.
It would be great publicity too. I see this as a no risk
endeavored we
should take.
The role of the language subcommittee in my view should be to
determine
weather or not there is enough of a community to launch a new
language
edition of a project.
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