A lot of people, in the development world don't have a computer, also have no internet access. It isn't really realistic for a large number of languages with millions of native speakers (capable in sharing knowledge), think about starting a Wikimedia project, much less to succeed.
unfortunately, in these circumstances, the purpose of the foundation will not be able to achieve, despite our wishes.
it is absurd that the langcom insist on maintaining a policy highly inaccessible, when the world is already extremely restrictive
C.m.l.
What is the motivation for this complaint? Isn't the community writing a new policy to address such concerns? I know you've made a lot of edits to it, at least.
< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft >
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
A lot of people, in the development world don't have a computer, also have no internet access. It isn't really realistic for a large number of languages with millions of native speakers (capable in sharing knowledge), think about starting a Wikimedia project, much less to succeed.
unfortunately, in these circumstances, the purpose of the foundation will not be able to achieve, despite our wishes.
it is absurd that the langcom insist on maintaining a policy highly inaccessible, when the world is already extremely restrictive
The fact is that, let's say, Yoruba language will have more native speakers during this century than all classical, constructed and art languages together. The fact is, also, that the number of native speakers of Yoruba with access to Internet *today* is much greater than the number of native speakers of all classical, constructed and art languages. So, if we have some problems with hardware or so, the first languages about we shouldn't care are classical, constructed and art languages. If it is about some urgency, English and other world (natural) languages are enough as lingua francas.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org