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:
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
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
On 25/01/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Comparing Volapuk to Esperanto is interesting in this regard. (Not considering the issues of concern about the Volapuk Wikipedia.) Volapuk is a conlang which is actually older than Esperanto and was designed to fill a similar need. However, Esperanto has retained its popularity and is actively used as an auxiliary language, with a reasonable number of speakers and an active community using and writing in it - whereas Volapuk has all but fallen into disuse. A Wikisource and Wiktionary in Volapuk would arguably be useful to the world, a Wikipedia not so much.
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)?
I think it's a bit too subjective to make it a criterion, but it may be a useful indicator if such an article has reached some sort of quality status (e.g. FA or GA in en:wp) in a large natural language Wikipedia.
- d.
Hoi, For a constructed language writing an encyclopaedia is in many ways the holy grail. Being able to do so succesfully proves that the constructed language can be used to express about any subject. Both a Wikisource and a Wiktionary are static resources while the value of constructed languages is in active resources.
As you indicate that there are arguments why you come to exactly the opposite viewpoint, I am interested in learning them. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 11:49 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Comparing Volapuk to Esperanto is interesting in this regard. (Not considering the issues of concern about the Volapuk Wikipedia.) Volapuk is a conlang which is actually older than Esperanto and was designed to fill a similar need. However, Esperanto has retained its popularity and is actively used as an auxiliary language, with a reasonable number of speakers and an active community using and writing in it - whereas Volapuk has all but fallen into disuse. A Wikisource and Wiktionary in Volapuk would arguably be useful to the world, a Wikipedia not so much.
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)?
I think it's a bit too subjective to make it a criterion, but it may be a useful indicator if such an article has reached some sort of quality status (e.g. FA or GA in en:wp) in a large natural language Wikipedia.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 25/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
For a constructed language writing an encyclopaedia is in many ways the holy grail. Being able to do so succesfully proves that the constructed language can be used to express about any subject. Both a Wikisource and a Wiktionary are static resources while the value of constructed languages is in active resources. As you indicate that there are arguments why you come to exactly the opposite viewpoint, I am interested in learning them.
I'm speaking in terms of reader usefulness. It's not a question of the writing so much as the reading. I do agree it's an important milestone for a conlang to be useful enough to write an encyclopedia, particulary a living wiki-based one.
(Getting back to the question of machine-generated articles, these seem to me to be more like building infrastructure for further development rather than creating useful work - I didn't think the Rambot US placename articles on en:wp were very useful when created, but lots have had good stuff added to them by humans since then.)
- d.
Hoi, When you are a reader, a student of a constructed language, encyclopaedic content provides the material that allows you to learn the language in the most optimal way. It is exactly the reading of content in a particular subject matter what allows you to learn the vocabulary. This is not achieved by finding the words in a dictionary. This makes an encyclopaedia educational on several levels and Wikipedia the best project for a constructed language.
NB I do not speak any constructed language.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 12:13 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
For a constructed language writing an encyclopaedia is in many ways the
holy
grail. Being able to do so succesfully proves that the constructed
language
can be used to express about any subject. Both a Wikisource and a
Wiktionary
are static resources while the value of constructed languages is in
active
resources. As you indicate that there are arguments why you come to exactly the opposite viewpoint, I am interested in learning them.
I'm speaking in terms of reader usefulness. It's not a question of the writing so much as the reading. I do agree it's an important milestone for a conlang to be useful enough to write an encyclopedia, particulary a living wiki-based one.
(Getting back to the question of machine-generated articles, these seem to me to be more like building infrastructure for further development rather than creating useful work - I didn't think the Rambot US placename articles on en:wp were very useful when created, but lots have had good stuff added to them by humans since then.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/1/25, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When you are a reader, a student of a constructed language, encyclopaedic content provides the material that allows you to learn the language in the most optimal way. It is exactly the reading of content in a particular subject matter what allows you to learn the vocabulary. This is not achieved by finding the words in a dictionary. This makes an encyclopaedia educational on several levels and Wikipedia the best project for a constructed language.
I think you're getting into WP:NOT territory. Wikipedia is there for giving information - information about the subject being discussed. Although I would of course not at all mind people using Wikipedia in the way you describe, it is not what Wikipedia in any language is for - or should be for, in my opinion.
Hoi, I have read the WP:NOT on the English Wikipedia and I fail to see how it might apply. A Wikipedia in any language is there to provide information. This is no different for a Wikipedia in a constructed language. The provisions of this policy can be applied without any need for change.
One of the applications for using Wikipedia is reading in the language that you are learning. This is a valid use and it is as valid for constructed languages. People who construct a language typically state that everything can be expressed by it. The only way of proving this is by expressing about everything hence an encyclopaedic approach makes sense to them as it is the only way they can prove people that deny their ability to do so. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 1:10 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/25, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When you are a reader, a student of a constructed language,
encyclopaedic
content provides the material that allows you to learn the language in
the
most optimal way. It is exactly the reading of content in a particular subject matter what allows you to learn the vocabulary. This is not
achieved
by finding the words in a dictionary. This makes an encyclopaedia educational on several levels and Wikipedia the best project for a constructed language.
I think you're getting into WP:NOT territory. Wikipedia is there for giving information - information about the subject being discussed. Although I would of course not at all mind people using Wikipedia in the way you describe, it is not what Wikipedia in any language is for
- or should be for, in my opinion.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 25/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have read the WP:NOT on the English Wikipedia and I fail to see how it might apply. A Wikipedia in any language is there to provide information. This is no different for a Wikipedia in a constructed language. The provisions of this policy can be applied without any need for change.
And the same doesn't apply for "dead" languages?
WP:NOT is an en.wikipedia policy and cannot be used on interwiki affairs. While WP:NOT logical it isn't the law. :)
- White Cat
On Jan 25, 2008 3:01 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have read the WP:NOT on the English Wikipedia and I fail to see how
it
might apply. A Wikipedia in any language is there to provide
information.
This is no different for a Wikipedia in a constructed language. The provisions of this policy can be applied without any need for change.
And the same doesn't apply for "dead" languages?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/1/25, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, I have read the WP:NOT on the English Wikipedia and I fail to see how it might apply. A Wikipedia in any language is there to provide information. This is no different for a Wikipedia in a constructed language. The provisions of this policy can be applied without any need for change.
I don't think it's on WP:NOT, but that's more because noone has tried to get material into Wikipedia for this reason. A Wikipedia is there to provide information, yes. But a Wikipedia article is there to provide information ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PAGE. NOT to provide information ON THE LANGUAGE IT IS WRITTEN IN.
One of the applications for using Wikipedia is reading in the language that you are learning. This is a valid use and it is as valid for constructed languages. People who construct a language typically state that everything can be expressed by it. The only way of proving this is by expressing about everything hence an encyclopaedic approach makes sense to them as it is the only way they can prove people that deny their ability to do so.
Wikipedia is not an area for proving points about a language you constructed. It is an area for providing information on subjects.
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
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
On Jan 25, 2008 8:08 AM, 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
Oh, no, that is not my intention at all! I would always support the -most- liberal policy for languages with living native speakers, because that is our most important mission.
This is a proposal specifically for primarily-written languages ("historical" languages and constructed languages), and whether they deserve a Wikipedia.
I only chose the proposed criterion (an FA on the subject of "Modern X literature" on the English Wikipedia), because that is a -quantifiable- criterion as to notability of contemporary literature, and my understanding is that the Language subcommittee is tired of aimless research they don't feel qualified to pursue.
Of course, I would have no problem (and would in fact prefer) expanding that to cover FAs and GAs in any of the major Wikipedias, per David Gerrard's suggestion. What we're really looking for here is demonstrability of the notableness of contemporary literature.
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
On 25/01/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I suppose the difference between modern versions of Latin and, say, modern versions of Sumerian (and I know a couple of people who could attempt to write in the latter) is that Latin is the product of an unbroken line of use - maybe a rather minor one at times, but there's always been a continuing usage of it since the year dot. Sumerian, however, is reconstructed from surviving fragments; we know how it works, but there's no "connection", it's just a philological curiosity for researchers.
So acceptable ancient languages would presumably be things like Latin, or classical Greek, or the various languages mostly known for liturgical purposes.
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)?
I wouldn't go so far as to specify "an article on enwp", but some similar kind of positive demonstration of widespread contemporary literature, in the absence of a large "native" population, feels like a good measure.
The converse, a large native-speaking population and not much contemporary literature isn't a problem, of course - these are exactly the cases where we need to put lots of effort into helping kickstart the project.
In how many languages is Wikipedia the *only* major encyclopedia? I know there's at least one smallish European language where we're the first general encyclopedia in most of a century...
I agree that Sumerian is unacceptable, at least at this point in time, for a Wikipedia.
I do not think it is OK that we can exclude Coptic, Ancient Greek, Old Javanese, &c, as long as they meet all other requirements already established (which I personally think are arbitrary and too harsh anyways, but oh well)
Mark
On 25/01/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I suppose the difference between modern versions of Latin and, say, modern versions of Sumerian (and I know a couple of people who could attempt to write in the latter) is that Latin is the product of an unbroken line of use - maybe a rather minor one at times, but there's always been a continuing usage of it since the year dot. Sumerian, however, is reconstructed from surviving fragments; we know how it works, but there's no "connection", it's just a philological curiosity for researchers.
So acceptable ancient languages would presumably be things like Latin, or classical Greek, or the various languages mostly known for liturgical purposes.
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)?
I wouldn't go so far as to specify "an article on enwp", but some similar kind of positive demonstration of widespread contemporary literature, in the absence of a large "native" population, feels like a good measure.
The converse, a large native-speaking population and not much contemporary literature isn't a problem, of course - these are exactly the cases where we need to put lots of effort into helping kickstart the project.
In how many languages is Wikipedia the *only* major encyclopedia? I know there's at least one smallish European language where we're the first general encyclopedia in most of a century...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If people want to write a wiki in a constructed language like Esperanto or a long defunct language like ancient Egyption language or Latin (Vatican doesn't count :P), let them. For example a "Wikisource" edition for ancient texts in their original language feels like an excellent idea. Consider a wiki for ancient Greek for example. If I Google for an ancient Greek phrase from a text I would hit the actual text which I can then access it in other languages via interwiki links.
A wikipedia edition or wikinews edition for language hardly anyone speaks however feels like a waste of time - though if people really want to spend time on such a project, who am I to stand in the way.
On Jan 24, 2008 4:04 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
On Jan 24, 2008 11:49 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to write a wiki in a constructed language like Esperanto or a long defunct language like ancient Egyption language or Latin (Vatican doesn't count :P), let them. For example a "Wikisource" edition for ancient texts in their original language feels like an excellent idea.
I would consider a wikisource to be an exception to this rule. People on wikisource aren't creating new content, they are simply uploading and preserving it. I would venture to suggest that the "language" of a wikisource project should only represent the language that the members speak and use for organization, and not necessarily the language in which the texts need to be. For instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include old latin texts on en.wikisource. A multilingual wikisource, similar to commons but for source texts, still might be the far better option then the current implementation.
A wikipedia edition or wikinews edition for language hardly anyone speaks however feels like a waste of time - though if people really want to spend time on such a project, who am I to stand in the way.
This is a great continuation of the above point. Maybe we need to be considering language strategies on a per-project basis. The language needs of Wikipedia are different from wikisource, wikinews, and wikibooks. Wikipedia, as a repository of information, can still be effective if presented in few languages. However, a project like Wikibooks or Wikiversity really needs to be presented in a natural language, because academic performance is dependent on it. Of all the projects, I think that Wiktionary is probably the one that should be presented in as many languages as possible (including conlangs).
--Andrew Whitworth
--- Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 11:49 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to write a wiki in a constructed
language like Esperanto or a
long defunct language like ancient Egyption
language or Latin (Vatican
doesn't count :P), let them. For example a
"Wikisource" edition for ancient
texts in their original language feels like an
excellent idea.
I would consider a wikisource to be an exception to this rule. People on wikisource aren't creating new content, they are simply uploading and preserving it. I would venture to suggest that the "language" of a wikisource project should only represent the language that the members speak and use for organization, and not necessarily the language in which the texts need to be. For instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include old latin texts on en.wikisource. A multilingual wikisource, similar to commons but for source texts, still might be the far better option then the current implementation.
It is not acceptable to put latin texts on en.WS. Seriously such a policy have a famous laitn text repeated over all subdomains with various editions proofread while others have errors. Having interwiki link to the ONE version on la.WS, as is currently done, works much better. However some one what you say is true as Middle English and Anglo-Saxon texts are perfectly acceptable on en.WS with a regular english interface. And el.WS has texts in ancient greek while the interface is modern.
You might be interested to know a multilingual WS does already exist and hosts a number of texts which do not and active community warranting their own wiki. I imagine some of these texts will never have a wiki of there own, and the multilingual WS will always have a niche for them. However it was not the best idea to keep everything there, like Commons, with an English interface. After splitting off the subdomains into wikis with native interfaces, many of the languages like French and German had a great amount of success.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Hello,
There have been a few mistaken assumptions, so here is a very brief summary.
The language subdomain policy is at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy >. It requires that the language have "a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience" (this is interpreted very inclusively). This blocks wikis in ancient, extinct, historical, and constructed languages. Constructed languages are being discussed by the language subcommittee, so comment is welcome.
There is already an exception to this rule for Wikisource, which is allowed in such languages (although texts in such languages should preferably be on a modern wiki if possible, like Old English on the English Wikisource). There is a good argument to exempt Wiktionary too, which is something we can look at in the near future.
Hoi, Pathoschild is mistaken. The policy reads "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion." Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 3:57 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
There have been a few mistaken assumptions, so here is a very brief summary.
The language subdomain policy is at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy >. It requires that the language have "a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience" (this is interpreted very inclusively). This blocks wikis in ancient, extinct, historical, and constructed languages. Constructed languages are being discussed by the language subcommittee, so comment is welcome.
There is already an exception to this rule for Wikisource, which is allowed in such languages (although texts in such languages should preferably be on a modern wiki if possible, like Old English on the English Wikisource). There is a good argument to exempt Wiktionary too, which is something we can look at in the near future.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) (All messages by members of the subcommittee are unofficial.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, GerardM is mistaken. There is majority subcommittee agreement that this requirement (as an exception) is vague and unacceptable, and should be replaced.
He is also misusing it as an exception, as I explained below in an email I sent to a different thread (which GerardM conveniently ignored).
------------ The exception for constructed languages that GerardM mentions is not an exception at all.
...
That phrase has been in the policy since the very beginning, before there was a requirement for native speakers. You can see this in the very first draft written on 11 November 2006, at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?oldid=466496
. (This draft predates my joining the subcommittee, so no
subcommittee discussion shaped it.)
That original draft reads as such: "The proposal has a sufficient number of speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion."
It was then intended not as an exception, but as an _additional requirement_. The requirement for native speakers was introduced nearly a year later on 17 October 2007 (see < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=711692
). The _extra requirement_ for constructed languages did not then
exempt them from the new requirement; it was simply left behind by accident, and only noticed recently and misinterpreted.
As such, the current policy prohibits constructed languages *and* has a special requirement for them (which is contradictory, but that's because it's just an omission), it does *not* exempt them from needing native speakers.
This is the current matter of discussion: should we have an exception for constructed languages after all? If we exempt them from needing native languages, do we apply a special requirement for them or not? ------------
Hoi, As long as there is no alternative, the current policy stands. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 4:28 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, GerardM is mistaken. There is majority subcommittee agreement that this requirement (as an exception) is vague and unacceptable, and should be replaced.
He is also misusing it as an exception, as I explained below in an email I sent to a different thread (which GerardM conveniently ignored).
The exception for constructed languages that GerardM mentions is not an exception at all.
...
That phrase has been in the policy since the very beginning, before there was a requirement for native speakers. You can see this in the very first draft written on 11 November 2006, at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?oldid=466496
. (This draft predates my joining the subcommittee, so no
subcommittee discussion shaped it.)
That original draft reads as such: "The proposal has a sufficient number of speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion."
It was then intended not as an exception, but as an _additional requirement_. The requirement for native speakers was introduced nearly a year later on 17 October 2007 (see < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=711692
). The _extra requirement_ for constructed languages did not then
exempt them from the new requirement; it was simply left behind by accident, and only noticed recently and misinterpreted.
As such, the current policy prohibits constructed languages *and* has a special requirement for them (which is contradictory, but that's because it's just an omission), it does *not* exempt them from needing native speakers.
This is the current matter of discussion: should we have an exception for constructed languages after all? If we exempt them from needing native languages, do we apply a special requirement for them or not?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sounds like something you should work out through the language subcommittee before quoting competing policy interpretations on Foundation-l.
~Nathan
On Jan 25, 2008 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As long as there is no alternative, the current policy stands. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 25, 2008 4:28 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, GerardM is mistaken. There is majority subcommittee agreement that this requirement (as an exception) is vague and unacceptable, and should be replaced.
He is also misusing it as an exception, as I explained below in an email I sent to a different thread (which GerardM conveniently ignored).
The exception for constructed languages that GerardM mentions is not an exception at all.
...
That phrase has been in the policy since the very beginning, before there was a requirement for native speakers. You can see this in the very first draft written on 11 November 2006, at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?oldid=466496
. (This draft predates my joining the subcommittee, so no
subcommittee discussion shaped it.)
That original draft reads as such: "The proposal has a sufficient number of speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion."
It was then intended not as an exception, but as an _additional requirement_. The requirement for native speakers was introduced nearly a year later on 17 October 2007 (see < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=711692
). The _extra requirement_ for constructed languages did not then
exempt them from the new requirement; it was simply left behind by accident, and only noticed recently and misinterpreted.
As such, the current policy prohibits constructed languages *and* has a special requirement for them (which is contradictory, but that's because it's just an omission), it does *not* exempt them from needing native speakers.
This is the current matter of discussion: should we have an exception for constructed languages after all? If we exempt them from needing native languages, do we apply a special requirement for them or not?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
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
Nathan,
I agree, which is why I mention it as simply "under discussion, comments welcome" when I'm not addressing GerardM's claims otherwise.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org