On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This sounds reasonable. However the beauty of the current system is its simplicity and the way in which things can be considered "obvious". The beauty is that we use an external authority that does its best to define languages. The way they categorise languages is not one that I think is absolutely great. This is why Latin is deemed an "ancient" language.
Then again I also think that the current policy is deliberately ambiguous in the way it expresses opinions about constructed languages. The notion that native speakers are needed is a complete road block even when it is said that a level of importance is to be determined. Any and all constructive suggestions have been stonewalled so far. Thanks, GerardM
In terms of "obviousness" and simplicity, one guidepost I've suggested is that the language demonstrates the notability of its contemporary literature, by having a Featured Article, on e.g. [[Modern Latin literature]], on the English Wikipedia or another major-language Wikipedia.
This type of guidepost might make things easier and more "obvious" for the Language subcommittee.
Thanks, Pharos
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think it depends on the community.
For example, in the case of Coptic, it is very much alive in certain senses of the word - it is a thriving liturgical language, and it represents their unique cultural heritage.
In the case of the Massachusett-Narragansett language, there is a community actively working at reviving it as a living language in some form.
In the case of, say, Old English, however, for which we already have a Wikipedia, there is little interest in language revival, and most people interested in the language are hobbyists.
I would thus personally recommend approval of Coptic and Massachusett-Narragansett if they had enough "fluent speaker" supporters, but against the approval of something analagous to Old English.
Mark
Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language have a contemporary literature? Are new articles or books still be written in it?
And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the "historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian hobbyists)?
Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is not truly extinct in the written form.
When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being", we must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full- accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include all languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve native speakers or not.
Pharos
On 29/03/2008, 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)
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