On 29/03/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wikipedias probably wouldn't inform anyone needing informing. Wikisources might be very valuable. - d.

Allow--indeed, encourage--for every language in which there's enough of a community to support it. How large a community is needed is the only real question. On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

If the purpose of a Wikipedia or wiki in general is to communicate information... then creating a wiki to serve a small group of people who are already fluent in other major languages does not serve the purpose. I wouldn't object to a wiki of a type "Wikilang" if the idea is only to save the crucial and various aspects of the language itself for historical purposes in a way not conducive to a Wikipedia article, but a full Wikipedia or other project seems unnecessary. On the other hand, the question should be asked: are we saving significant resources by denying the creation of dead or constructed language projects? Would the folks creating these projects otherwise be contributing more constructively, and do these projects require significant meta-resources if the local communities remain small and isolated? Particularly in the areas of PR risk and legal liability for projects that are WMF-hosted, the answer could easily be that significant resources are theoretically devoted to each project. In that case, it makes sense to continue to deny these projects. Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote: Certainly not in every extinct language. But whether the language is extinct or not is largely irrelevant; what really matters is whether there would be a large enough community to sustain a Wikipedia in that language. If it's an extinct language that doesn't have a lot of support and the wiki would languish in obscurity, don't create a new Wikipedia for it. If it's an extinct language with widespread interest and the potential for a large community (such as Latin, which I see we already have), go for it. - -- Ben "Cyde Weys" McIlwain ( http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/ )

You're right in that, identity is not enough. But to a Sorabian, his community is a part of his life. It would be inappropriate to tell him something like that he should not waste his time with that useless language but speak German only (or English only). Ziko van Dijk

Hoi, Ancient languages, languages that used to be spoken by people that are dead cannot be used to discuss the modern concepts; they just lack the words. When you insist on reviving a language, it is not the language it used to be. Stating that it is indeed old greek or whatever when new words have to be invented all the time makes it a language that is not what it is said to be, it is not what is defined in the ISO-639 standard. This is in marked contrast to constructed languages. Constructed languages ARE modern languages, they DO allow for the creation of new words when the words are lacking in that language. The whole notion that constructed languages should not have new projects is something I have always objected against. It is wrong and the stance is in my opinion dogmatic. The issue is typically very much one of labelling. When Latin is considered an ancient language, it is so because there is no people who speak the language. However, it has been continuously spoken and new words have been continuously added. This in my opinion is why there is no problem with having a Latin Wikipedia. It is also the reason why we have a committee and not a blind process that deals with requests for new languages. When people want to write in a particular language, a language that allows for new terminology, they can as far as I am concerned have a project as long as it has its ISO-639 code. An ISO-639 code because it codifies what language we are talking about. A ISO-639 code because it prevents disasters like the one we suffered with "Siberian". When people learn about subjects, a different presentation can make a difference in learning and understanding. It is for this reason that I welcome all living languages including constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) < pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, You attempt to answer a question that is not asked. The question is about Wikis not about Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Claus Färber &lt;GMANE(a)faerber.muc.de&gt; wrote:

Hoi, When a Wikisoure is considered for an extinct language, I do want to waive the requirement for the localisation of the system messages. This cannot be done without the creation of neologisms. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Birgitte SB &lt;birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language have a contemporary literature? Are new articles or books still be written in it? And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the "historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian hobbyists)? Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is not truly extinct in the written form. When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being", we must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full- accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include all languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve native speakers or not. Pharos

Latin phrases are often used in American, UK, and Australian law, as well. Such a usage was actually one of the first contacts I ever had with latin wikipedia. -Dan On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Aphaia wrote:

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: In terms of "obviousness" and simplicity, one guidepost I've suggested is that the language demonstrates the notability of its contemporary literature, by having a Featured Article, on e.g. [[Modern Latin literature]], on the English Wikipedia or another major-language Wikipedia. This type of guidepost might make things easier and more "obvious" for the Language subcommittee. Thanks, Pharos

The fact that the Coptic church may or may not issue their documents in Coptic is not enough alone to state that this is a "dead language". We must look at all facets of modern use (and lack thereof), rather than just the issuance of new documents by a particular church in a specific language. Mark On 01/04/2008, Aphaia &lt;aphaia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Yes, well then, what does make a language alive? An Ethnologue or ISO classification as a living language? Or is this determined based on some set of objective criteria we don't know about? Is it only the question of native speakers, or is there something else? Also, what if there are conflicting sources? For example some sources state that there are native speakers of Coptic; others state that it is completely dead since the 18th century. On 01/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Pharos &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What is "notable"? -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) &lt;pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Notable enough to have a Featured Article about [[Modern Latin literature]] or [[Modern Coptic literature]] on English Wikipedia or another major-language Wikipedia. Thanks, Richard

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Pharos &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think this proposed criteria is too subjective and naive. Specially regarding to the fact English Wikipedia is not always good at humanities, in particular non European literatures. Having a FA may too be occasionally I'm afraid. But I like the idea of "notable authors". They are notable since they have a decent size of readership. It means their writings are read and surrounded by the reader community which the language in question is actively, at least, read and have a possibility to be written again. And even if we still use Wikipedia again, "having an article of that author" is a less opportunity driven criteria, I think. -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) &lt;pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm proposing a standard for languages that don't have native speakers, which must be judged solely on the output of their written literatures. This would not restrict Wikipedias for languages with native speakers. (Obviously [[Modern English literature]] is notable enough a subject to be FA-worthy anyway, and it would hardly need to be demonstrated) Thanks, Pharos

Hoi, Nobody ever categorised Volapuk as an extinct language... Also there is NOTHING being discussed about existing projects. What is discussed are new projects. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Fajro &lt;faigos(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

An arbitrary measurement of importance. Sadly, it's entirely subjective according to each person's feelings. -Chad On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) &lt;pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Gerard Meijssen ha scritto: I think a reasonable inclusion criterium would be whether a language with no native speakers is used anyway as a lingua franca to communicate between people of different native languages. This definitely applies to Latin, and I guess it could be applied to Classical Greek. At the end of the day, if the Wiki* in my native language is deficient in the argument I'm interested in, I'll try to read about it in a language I know. I don't know if Classics scholars communicate in Classical Greek if they haven't got any other communal language, but I wouldn't be too surprised. Cruccone

Ziko van Dijk hett schreven: I read much about "notable literature", "taught at university level", "scholars" and all this in the posts here on the list (I don't address only you, Ziko van Dijk, I only quoted you, cause you name a whole row of that points). Please keep in mind, that the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to bring knowledge to the people. Knowledge which was previously not available to them (if it would have been available, Wikipedia and the other projects would have been pointless). Not available cause companies/publishers wanted to/had to make money with it and they couldn't afford it. Or not available cause they spoke the wrong language or their society not being wealthy enough, so that no publisher even tried to publish works providing this knowledge. Wikimedia wants to include them, give them the opportunity to aquire knowledge. Wikimedia wants to give. Without requiring. In the past it was like: "You want to aquire knowledge? Well, then learn English/German/Russian/French/Chinese/Spanish/Portuguese/whatever may be the dominant language in your country!" Wikimedia aims to overcome this barrier. "You want to aquire knowledge? Here's the material, start right away!" Without forcing the people to first spend a year on learning how to read the material. This should be done for every language. Regardless of whether there already is scholarly work in the language. If _we_ aim at providing knowledge to them, why should we demand existing "knowledge providers" like universities or newspapers? "You want to aquire knowledge? Okay, please furnish proof that you have enough knowledge first!" Ten enthusiasts in a language cannot build a university. They perhaps can write a newspaper or a batch of novels, fiction and textbooks, but if their language's society is poor, who will buy the newspaper, who will buy their textbooks and novels? But ten enthusiasts can create a good start in a Wikipedia and provide knowledge to the whole language community. Wikipedia is the easiest, the most efficient way to start the business of providing knowledge. There are many languages with no knowledge providers at all, but who have a language community large enough to be able to form an own Ausbausprache.Don't put obstacles in their way. Marcus Buck

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Are you denying the usefulness of the wiki model? To become a Featured Article, a literature article would have to go through the very serious Featured Article Candidates Review. This is the best process we have -anywhere- on Wikimedia to weed out fake and non-notable things. I'll tell you one thing, there was never a Featured Article on [[Siberian language literature]]. This is just one way for the Languages subcommittee to farm out the research work, to let an established review process advise their opinion on these particular cases, and spare the subcommittee many pages of useless back-and-forth arguments and spurious "facts" supporting different sides. And it's about literary relevance, not linguistic relevance. Neither is there a reason to privilege English: an FA is any major-language Wikipedia would demonstrate the same point. Thanks, Pharos

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Pharos &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: But just saying that a person "can" do something doesn't mean that the person "will" do it. Volunteers work on what they want to work on, and if nobody wants to write a particular article or class of article, it will never get written. Through Wikipedia policy, if the article exists then the topic must be notable. However if the article doesn't exist, that doesnt mean that the topic is non-notable. What this is, is a test with potential false negatives. --Andrew Whitworth

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth &lt;wknight8111(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What I'm saying is, we have to allow an outlet for people proposing a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language to prove their case. Right now, the subcommittee tells them, "Don't bother me kid, go to the International Organization for Standardization", which is an impossible task, because the ISO is a big bureaucracy that just doesn't deal with categorizing "historical" languages that are still alive in a written form. Writing an FA would not be easy, but it is a task that the proposers of a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language could be reasonably expected to be able to accomplish to prove their case (or not). The time-scale for writing an FA would typically be a few months, which is quite comparable to the time-scale of the -vastly unproductive- back-and-forth arguments that characterize a typical request to the subcommittee of this type. Thanks, Pharos

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: A featured article on a dialect is quite different from a featured article on a dialect's literature. For example, my native dialect is [[New York dialect]], also known as "Brooklynese". This dialect is spoken by millions of people in the New York metropolitan area. And, although the dialect appears sometimes in fiction (usually spoken by gangsters!) to add "local color", it is clearly not a standard literary language of any kind. [[New York dialect literature]] would not be notable. I don't know the case with "Westfries"; maybe it is similar, maybe it is different. Anyway, my proposal is directly about "historical" languages that still have active literatures; the scope is important because this is a category that the ISO chooses not to assess. OK, so the only remaining issue then, appears to be the metadata codes. Let me just say that I think the metadata issue should be distinctly secondary, and that our -priority- should be recognizing the full diversity of contemporary human expression. We can file it under our own code for the time being, and we could easily move it if the ISO ever chooses to change their procedures on this, in say 10 years. Thanks, Pharos

New York has less of a "dialect" than what is known in linguistics as a regional variety. Dialects differ from each other more than New York English does from most other American English varieties. Mark On 02/04/2008, Pharos &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Yes, but remember that IMHO stands for "in my HUMBLE opinion". Mark On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

That's a good question :-) On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I would say there's not a clearing dividing line, but anyway it's not this particular case that matters. Surely the general point stands, no? That a dialect or language can be notable without having a notable modern written tradition. And that this is a useful way of distinguishing "historical" languages that merit a Wikipedia, and those that don't. (I actually don't think we should be so strict on languages that -do have- native speakers, though.) Thanks, Richard

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) < pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If there are people willing to develop and administer the language edition of the encyclopedia, sure. At worst it is their time to waste. Such users should be willing to operate the wiki as in take care of vandalism and etc. If the wiki somehow successfully resurrects a dead language, no harm done. It would be great publicity too. I see this as a no risk endeavored we should take. The role of the language subcommittee in my view should be to determine weather or not there is enough of a community to launch a new language edition of a project.

Hoi, When Gothic was never written in the Latin script, the line is crossed when it is written in the Latin script. When a encyclopaedia cannot be written in a language because there is not enough vocabulary and consequently neologisms have to be created to write the text or when words are given a meaning that they did not originally have the line is crossed. Certainly Gothic and probably Anglo-Saxon language have crossed the line already. Thanks, GerardM On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Note also that most pages are available in the Gothic alphabet... the main page is almost exclusively in Gothic, and the main interface messages (though not all of them) are written in Wulfilas' alphabet again. Mark On 03/04/2008, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I never said it is acceptable. I said I have been one of the prime advocates within that project for using Wulfilas' alphabet. However, I do not think that using the Latin alphabet (which it doesn't even do on all pages... just some of them) means it departs from the corpus. Mark On 03/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild <pathoschild@...> writes: Hi, sorry to but in late on. I am LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs and was one of the main advocates for the Ancient Greek wikipedia and contributed to the test project and interface translation. I have a few comments to add to this thread. Firstly, I agree with some of the posters here that the mission of the Foundation to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being" does fit with the creation of wikipedias in ancient languages. "Providing knowledge" is quite a broad concept; I think that creating a wikipedia in a language that is widely studied, that does not have a modern encyclopaedia, but that can be used to make one, does aid the provision of knowledge to some human beings. In any case, even if it only help to provide knowledge of the language itself, it surely does more to help with the aims of the project than to hinder them. Secondly, it does not follow that if we take the mission statement to mean that a new project should only be allowed if it makes the project accessible to more human beings we should ask whether there are any first-language speakers; instead we should ask whether there is anyone who can only understand that language: there are many living languages whose speakers are all able to read in another language. It may be true that everyone who can speak an ancient language can understand another language, but if we take that to mean that an Ancient Greek wikipedia does not fit with the project's aims then one could also argue that most of the wikipedias are unnecessary. If we had always forbade languages whose speakers can all speak another language we might not have any Celtic language wikipedias, we certainly would not have any of the wikipedias in dialects of Dutch or German whose speakers can all understand the standard written dialect and we might even have only one wikipedia in a Scandinavian language. If you would reject the argument that we should not have a Gaelic language wikipedia because all the speakers of that language understand written English and that such a project would only serve to promote the language, then you should think carefully about whether we should reject Greek wikipedia on those grounds. Obviously here is a difference insofar as the languages I have mentioned do have native speakers, but the mission statement does not have anything to do with native speakers: whether a language is someone's first, second or third is irrelevant when we are talking only about imparting knowledge (one could say that standard written English is just a learned dialect for most English speakers). Thirdly, wikipedias can still be created in artificial languages. All of the above arguments apply here, and I really can not see why a wikipedia in an artificial language which is not used by anyone as a native language and whose speakers all speak another language is deemed to fit with the goals of the Foundation, but a wikipedia in an ancient language which is still used often by thousands of people but which is not used by anyone as a native language and whose speakers all speak another language is deemed to not fit with them. If the mission statement had been to "do what is absolutely necessary to provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being and nothing else" then we would have to forbid languagres with no native speakers (I refuse to call Ancient Greek dead: it is just in a persistent vegetative state. Latin" just smells funny" ;)). But it doesn't so we don't. On another point, a few people have stated that some ancient languages can not be used to write about the modern world. This might only have been an argument against the wikipedias in certain ancient languages such as Akkadian and Egyptian, but I would still like to show that one can not say this about Ancient Greek. Because there is a great deal of literature written in ancient Greek about science, mathematics and philosophy, because Ancient Greek can, did and still does create new compound words and because Ancient Greek authors were able to use understandable circumlocutions when writing about things alien to their society, Greek would probably better than any other ancient language for writing an encyclopaedia. I do no foresee any major problems writing about telephones and triskaidekaphobia. If Vicipaedia can cope with the modern world, Οὐκιπαιδεια will be able to as well. In fact there is evidence of Ancient Greek being used to write about the modern world: look at the Greek Harry Potter and the "Akropolis world news" website which discusses nuclear weapons and football; at my university it is not unusual for examiners to set prose composition exams to second year undergraduates which require us to write about the modern world, so it is not something which only professions can do. Now, I appreciate that some members of the language subcommittee are reluctant to allow the creation of language which do not have a valid ISO-639 code lest people take advantage of the precedent that would be set, but I think that there should be some flexibility, especially as the request was made before this rule was introduced. The fact that rules are applied retrospectively seems very unfair. We could prevent people from citing precedent by pointing out that, if a Greek wikipedia (which was conditionally approved) were finally approved, it would have been approved according to the rules as they were when the request was made. The new rules would only apply to projects proposed after they were made. Thank you, LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs

Wikimedia Foundation mission to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being". Sometimes people ask me how many languages I know, because they hear me using several. My answer is that I can say "hello, please and thank you" in many languages, but can only speak English properly. I then add that I can *read* many more languages than I can speak, but most of these are dead languages. So, I am better at *listening* to dead people than *speaking* to living ones. But why is this so? Why do I spend so much time listening to dead people? It is because I want *knowledge*, that only they can tell me. But my point is this. AnCiEnT LaNgUaGeS ArE NoT DeAd. They are not *spoken* any more, but many of them are READ every day. They are read for the sake of knowledge -- unique perspectives on human life. And believe me, much is lost in translation. These languages have their own subtle ways of saying things -- it's awesome! If Wiki, as I hope, relaxes its stance on exclusively WRITTEN languages, indeed these will be demonstrably living entities, written and read every day, with an edit history to prove it! It is precisely because many written (not dead) languages are still alive, still understood, still bearing information, that people want to join with others in using them. If this language community is small, it is still volunteering its own services, what does it cost Wiki? Why discriminate against a minority group on the grounds they do not speak their language? End prejudice! End censorship! Give WRITTEN languages their voice! No more discriminatory speaker-ism! No more rude words like "dead" languages! Aiding the growth of knowledge of written languages _by their use_ is a very progressive project, and Wiki an ideal medium for it. This decision is even more profound than transcribing reliable sources, to aid human knowledge.