Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... precissely for its native condition.
That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a local variety, there are a small number whose native language is indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian, and they were raised in Yemen.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... precissely for its native condition.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a local variety, there are a small number whose native language is indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian, and they were raised in Yemen.
This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be evaluated individually based on the population of content producers and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the language and it's speaking population, and other factors. Arabic, if there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is indeed worthy of having a project.
--Andrew Whitworth
There is already an Arabic Wikipedia - I'm assuming its in Standard Arabic. I think Crazy Lover's point was that the native speaking audience requirement was flawed, because few people speak Standard Arabic as a native language.
I think that falls under the "exceptions can be made" rule of common sense, and the language policy itself is, I think, flexible enough to make use of a major language even if the number of native speakers is small.
This was discussed previously, but can anyone point me to the thread where GerardM and others discussed what proportion of the world's population did not have a Wikimedia project in a language they speak, and also what proportion is unrepresented with a native language project? It seems like the focus ought to be on recruiting people who speak the languages of the projects we already have, rather than tweaking our policies to get the maximum number of empty projects.
Stupid question, perhaps - I know Wikimedia projects don't accept advertising, but do we advertise ourselves? Main page banners of popular projects asking for native speakers to contribute in other projects, banners on websites of local or national popularity in areas where the number of our contributors are small, etc.? I'm thinking of the CIA's banner ads, like the one with an Arabic phrase and then an English one that says "If you can read this, and you're an American citizen, you could work for the CIA."
Nathan
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
Arabic, if there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is indeed worthy of having a project.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If we had the 347 most-spoken languages of the world covered (that is, all those languages with over 1 million speakers), we would still be missing 6% of the world.
Someone asked on this list once which tiny number of languages we could translate documents into to reach the whole world. They seem to forget the Tower of Babel - even with the 75 most-spoken languages, you're still missing 20% of humans. When you use a more convenient number like 8, you're missing a whopping 60%.[1]
Of course, all of these statistics ignore the fact that adults on Earth are only 82% literate.[2]
We have relatively good coverage of about the 100 most-spoken languages, and after that, it gradually gets spottier and spottier.
Mark
[1] http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size [2] http://earthtrends.wri.org/
On 11/08/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There is already an Arabic Wikipedia - I'm assuming its in Standard Arabic. I think Crazy Lover's point was that the native speaking audience requirement was flawed, because few people speak Standard Arabic as a native language.
I think that falls under the "exceptions can be made" rule of common sense, and the language policy itself is, I think, flexible enough to make use of a major language even if the number of native speakers is small.
This was discussed previously, but can anyone point me to the thread where GerardM and others discussed what proportion of the world's population did not have a Wikimedia project in a language they speak, and also what proportion is unrepresented with a native language project? It seems like the focus ought to be on recruiting people who speak the languages of the projects we already have, rather than tweaking our policies to get the maximum number of empty projects.
Stupid question, perhaps - I know Wikimedia projects don't accept advertising, but do we advertise ourselves? Main page banners of popular projects asking for native speakers to contribute in other projects, banners on websites of local or national popularity in areas where the number of our contributors are small, etc.? I'm thinking of the CIA's banner ads, like the one with an Arabic phrase and then an English one that says "If you can read this, and you're an American citizen, you could work for the CIA."
Nathan
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
Arabic, if there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is indeed worthy of having a project.
--Andrew Whitworth
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
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a local variety, there are a small number whose native language is indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian, and they were raised in Yemen.
This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be evaluated individually based on the population of content producers and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the language and it's speaking population, and other factors.
[snip]
...and without prejudiced assumptions about what languages are the "right" or "best" for a person based on the accident of their geographic location or ethnic heritage.
Thank you for making your point.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be evaluated individually based on the population of content producers and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the language and it's speaking population, and other factors.
[snip]
...and without prejudiced assumptions about what languages are the "right" or "best" for a person based on the accident of their geographic location or ethnic heritage.
Thank you for making your point.
That is exactly my point, we shouldn't be taking these preconceived rules (call them "prejudices" if you want) and using them as the ultimate standard for selecting new projects. Any time you create a rule on this issue, people are going to find that one counter-example and throw a fit. Common sense is hardly common, but I have a high degree of faith in our languages subcom to make good informed decisions without needing to be held to some mechanistic rule set.
--Andrew Whitworth
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an Arab project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... precissely for its native condition.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an Arab project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... precissely for its native condition.
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
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
of
classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
Please, please, both of you, have this intelligent interaction on a private mailing. I cant really follow it.
Lodewijk
2008/8/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
of
classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I said I *thought* you had missed the point, and you assured me that you hadn't. It seemed like you did, based on what I thoughed the point was. Your reaction just seems awfully arrogant to me, as the only way to know whether you've truly missed the point is to talk it over with the person who made the point in the first place, which you didn't do.
Let me explain in more detail: This is just an example, much like the one that I once made (and many people failed to get) about how many of our present Wikipedias would not have been started if current requirements had been in place a long time ago. You are insulting Crazy Lover's intelligence, of course Crazy Lover knows that there is already an Arabic Wikipedia.
What Crazy Lover is saying, I believe (and I could be wrong, but I think my way makes much more sense than your way, as your way seems to presuppose that Crazy Lover believes we have no Arabic Wikipedia), is that "Any system of rules which would disallow such a language as Arabic, if it didn't already have a Wikipedia, is bad."
I agree with that - we may already have an Arabic Wikipedia. It's not necessary to have rules which would make possible ALL current Wikipedias to have been created, but some of them would not be OK. If current rules would have excluded, for example, English, or Chinese Wikipedias, they would similarly be rejected as unacceptable rules. Yes, we already have those Wikipedias, but that is immaterial because we are talking about something more abstract than that.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
of
classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No, I merely stated that I *thought* you were missing the point. Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but you stated flatly that you were not.
I don't think the point is worrying about Arabic in particular not being able to have a Wikipedia, I think it's more of a theoretical thing, that if Arabic hadn't had a Wikipedia, it wouldn't be able to have one under these rules, and that this somehow invalidates the rules because such a major language should be automatically approved by our rules.
It's a sort of test for any language rules. Not ALL of our existing languages must pass it, but some of course must - Chinese, English, Arabic, Spanish, for example, we expect would be considered valid languages under any reasonable criteria.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
of
classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Standard Arabic is recognised under the ISO-639-3 with the code arb. Were Standard Arabic started today, the ar code would not be available because it signifies something different. Thanks, GerardM
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=arb
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No, I merely stated that I *thought* you were missing the point. Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but you stated flatly that you were not.
I don't think the point is worrying about Arabic in particular not being able to have a Wikipedia, I think it's more of a theoretical thing, that if Arabic hadn't had a Wikipedia, it wouldn't be able to have one under these rules, and that this somehow invalidates the rules because such a major language should be automatically approved by our rules.
It's a sort of test for any language rules. Not ALL of our existing languages must pass it, but some of course must - Chinese, English, Arabic, Spanish, for example, we expect would be considered valid languages under any reasonable criteria.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There
is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Reviewing the requirements of current policy > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy > i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
> this > language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
> as > first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
> and > it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation > is > similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd:
the
> rejection of any new project in this useful language. > > on the other hand, there are several native languages, all
daugthers
of
> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose > proposal has been approved > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
> precissely for its native condition. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... precissely for its native condition.
Arabic is the language, Egyptian Arabic (and the rest of ~20) are the dialects, regardless of what people say that it is a different language. please don't compare medieval Latin with Arabic.
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia is a playground, lets hope it becomes something useful someday.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org