Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project may be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
1. (Projects in) natural and living languages: 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English Wikipedia. 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a Wikipedia. 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
2. (Projects in) conlangs: 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the Slavic languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies.
3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages: 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman Catholic (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they would be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter of the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the category for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we have resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be used for real communication sometime in the future. * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are finishing the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to the priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start historic languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably start to used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that they originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language as it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are already working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of a quality that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar size. The only reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is politics; the widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In contrast to historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project may be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English Wikipedia. 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a Wikipedia. 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the Slavic languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman Catholic (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they would be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter of the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the category for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we have resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be used for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are finishing the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to the priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start historic languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably start to used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that they originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language as it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are already working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of a quality that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar size. The only reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is politics; the widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In contrast to historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project may be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English Wikipedia. 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a Wikipedia. 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the Slavic languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman Catholic (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they would be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter of the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the category for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we have resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be used for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are finishing the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to the priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed more then a vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word and you start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not reflect the language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese; obviously they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to understand the finer points of that extinct language and you make it something else. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start
historic
languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably start
to
used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that
they
originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language
as
it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are already working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of a
quality
that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar size. The
only
reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is politics; the widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In contrast
to
historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
synchronically,
but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project
may
be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English
Wikipedia.
1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a
Wikipedia.
1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the
Slavic
languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of
the
policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman
Catholic
(in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our
policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they
would
be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter
of
the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the
category
for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we
have
resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be
used
for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are
finishing
the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to
the
priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed more then a vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word and you start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not reflect the language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese; obviously they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to understand the finer points of that extinct language and you make it something else. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start
historic
languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably start
to
used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that
they
originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language
as
it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are already working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of a
quality
that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar size. The
only
reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is politics; the widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In contrast
to
historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
synchronically,
but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project
may
be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English
Wikipedia.
1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a
Wikipedia.
1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the
Slavic
languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of
the
policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman
Catholic
(in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our
policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they
would
be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter
of
the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the
category
for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we
have
resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be
used
for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are
finishing
the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to
the
priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi,
From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF is
to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written does not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and consequently we do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it something else. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start
historic
languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably
start
to
used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words
that
they
originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the
language
as
it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are
already
working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of
a
quality
that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar
size. The
only
reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is
politics; the
widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In
contrast
to
historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly.
The
issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note
that I
am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as
a
synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a
clear
future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to
spread
free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this
issue
without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it
is
possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
synchronically,
but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our
future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to
"some
very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues:
(1) I
don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of
specific
conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European
languages,
including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion,
even
lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical
languages.
(4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia
issue;
some other institutions should take care about such languages
before
they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some
project
may
be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a
criteria
about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take
care
about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English
Wikipedia.
1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history
of
humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become
the
biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally,
those
are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will
have
that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least
5000
articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a
Wikipedia.
1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have
a
Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of
data
added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it
may be
read by any educated person which native language is one of the
Slavic
languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because
of
the
policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman
Catholic
(in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our
policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This
is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some
knowledge
written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about
itself.
- 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next
group,
but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take
care
about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca
of
some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to
the
importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next
priority:
They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable,
well
developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot
of
people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which
have
some activity. If we see that some people are interested in
Wikipedia
in their language, we should encourage them to participate in
the
project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time
someone
came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We
should
try to find some people who are interested in writing project in
that
language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and
it is
a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for
the
project in their language are very important: it means that they
would
be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near
future. At
this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki
messages
should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to
read MW
messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are)
really
willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a
matter
of
the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international
efforts to
make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At
least,
some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in
this
category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of
its
similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the
category
for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a
lot of
them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants
to
enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and
we
have
resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would
be
used
for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs
(artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are
copyrighted
languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we
are
doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in
the
process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are
finishing
the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am
sure
that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up
to
the
priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of
our
possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours
(usually,
steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an
artistic
language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable.
However,
if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year
for
useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of
giving
$10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues
about we
are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary
choices
to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational
talks
than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF is to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written does not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and consequently we do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it something else. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start
historic
languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably
start
to
used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words
that
they
originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the
language
as
it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are
already
working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of
a
quality
that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar
size. The
only
reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is
politics; the
widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In
contrast
to
historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly.
The
issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note
that I
am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as
a
synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a
clear
future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to
spread
free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this
issue
without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it
is
possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
synchronically,
but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our
future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to
"some
very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues:
(1) I
don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of
specific
conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European
languages,
including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion,
even
lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical
languages.
(4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia
issue;
some other institutions should take care about such languages
before
they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some
project
may
be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a
criteria
about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take
care
about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English
Wikipedia.
1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history
of
humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become
the
biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally,
those
are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will
have
that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least
5000
articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a
Wikipedia.
1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have
a
Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of
data
added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it
may be
read by any educated person which native language is one of the
Slavic
languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because
of
the
policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman
Catholic
(in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our
policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This
is
not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some
knowledge
written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about
itself.
- 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next
group,
but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take
care
about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca
of
some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to
the
importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next
priority:
They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable,
well
developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot
of
people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which
have
some activity. If we see that some people are interested in
Wikipedia
in their language, we should encourage them to participate in
the
project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time
someone
came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We
should
try to find some people who are interested in writing project in
that
language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and
it is
a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for
the
project in their language are very important: it means that they
would
be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near
future. At
this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki
messages
should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to
read MW
messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are)
really
willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a
matter
of
the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international
efforts to
make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At
least,
some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in
this
category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of
its
similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the
category
for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a
lot of
them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants
to
enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and
we
have
resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would
be
used
for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs
(artistic
or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are
copyrighted
languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we
are
doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in
the
process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are
finishing
the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am
sure
that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up
to
the
priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of
our
possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours
(usually,
steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an
artistic
language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable.
However,
if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year
for
useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of
giving
$10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues
about we
are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary
choices
to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational
talks
than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What better reason to call it a sophism then having no arguments to refute it? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF
is
to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written
does
not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and
consequently we
do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed
more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word
and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not
reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it something
else.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is
a
"dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to
start
historic
languages. When you write in a dead language you will
invariably
start
to
used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a
words
that
they
originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn
the
language
as
it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that
language.
There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who
are
already
working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project
is of
a
quality
that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar
size. The
only
reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is
politics; the
widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In
contrast
to
historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed
languages.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic <
millosh@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated
similarly.
The
> issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to > non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias
(note
that I
> am not talking about other projects; treat the word
"project" as
a
> synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a
clear
> future at Wikimedia. > > I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our > priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is
to
spread
> free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
> to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat
this
issue
> without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as
it
is
> possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
synchronically,
> but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of
our
future.
> > So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according
to
"some
> very predictable parts of our future" as I see them. > > Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the
issues:
(1) I
> don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of
specific
> conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't
like
> wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European
languages,
> including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my
opinion,
even
> lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical
languages.
> (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a
Wikimedia
issue;
> some other institutions should take care about such
languages
before
> they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some
project
may
> be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a
criteria
> about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but
unlocking
> should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to
take
care
> about that project. > > But, let's see what do we have: > > 1. (Projects in) natural and living languages: > 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans:
English
Wikipedia.
> 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the
history
of
> humans: German Wikipedias. > 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to
become
the
> biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too.
Generally,
those
> are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which
will
have
> that number relatively soon. > 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at
least
5000
> articles and living communities. > 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around
1000
> articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. > 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less
than
> around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active
contributors.
> 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and
without
> active contributors. > 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have
a
Wikipedia.
> 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't
have
a
> Wikipedia. > > 2. (Projects in) conlangs: > 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant
conglang
> community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot
of
data
> added by one person). > 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) > 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't
have a
> Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons,
usually
> copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language;
it
may be
> read by any educated person which native language is one of
the
Slavic
> languages.) > 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
> because of the policies. > 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project
because
of
the
> policies. > > 3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages: > 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a
Church
> Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old
Church
> Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated
Roman
Catholic
> (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. > 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
> 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of
our
policies.
> > And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
> > 1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority.
This
is
> not because I like English, but because of the fact that it
is a
> lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some
knowledge
> written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in
other
> languages, too. However, this project may take care about
itself.
> 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the
next
group,
> but it share one characteristics with English one: it may
take
care
> about itself. > 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua
franca
of
> some region, or even more widely. Their importance is
similar to
the
> importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of
those
> projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give
them
> possibility to take care about themselves. > 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next
priority:
> They need a lot of technical and other help to become a
stable,
well
> developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that
a lot
of
> people are talking those languages. > 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias
which
have
> some activity. If we see that some people are interested in
Wikipedia
> in their language, we should encourage them to participate
in
the
> project. > 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some
time
someone
> came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language.
We
should
> try to find some people who are interested in writing
project in
that
> language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community
and
it is
> a matter of WMF and their contacts. > 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't
have
> projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks
for
the
> project in their language are very important: it means that
they
would
> be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near
future. At
> this point I really support Gerard's position that
MediaWiki
messages
> should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers
to
read MW
> messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons
are)
really
> willing to create their project. > 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again,
a
matter
of
> the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international
efforts to
> make written forms of non-written languages. > 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority.
At
least,
> some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
> we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However,
in
this
> category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto
is.
> However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because
of
its
> similarity with English and a work of one person. This is
the
category
> for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is.
Also, if
> Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
> be useful -- it should go into this category. > 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we
have
> resources, and there are people who are willing to do some > neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). > 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are
a
lot of
> them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even
for
> communication ;) > 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone
wants
to
> enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language
and
we
have
> resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages
would
be
used
> for real communication sometime in the future. > * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs
(artistic
> or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are
copyrighted
> languages. > > And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While
we
are
> doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are
now in
the
> process of making Volunteer council, which means that we
are
finishing
> the third global task out of 12. > > And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our
possibilities,
> first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC.
I am
sure
> that the most of use will accept to take care about
projects up
to
the
> priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an
analysis of
our
> possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours
(usually,
> steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an
artistic
> language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable.
However,
> if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per
year
for
> useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of
giving
> $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant > encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the
second
> choice. > > So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues
about we
> are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from
arbitrary
choices
> to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a
perfect
> construction. I just hope that we may move toward more
rational
talks
> than arguing for one or another option. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
One more :) Of course that arguments exist. However, I realized that they are pointless not because your position is not a valid one (you have much better arguments than calling on WFM goals), but because the most of conversations with you have the ultimate end: your interpretation of WMF goals. And isn't it pointless to argue about something where nobody may be better than you?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What better reason to call it a sophism then having no arguments to refute it? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF
is
to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written
does
not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and
consequently we
do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed
more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word
and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not
reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it something
else.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is
a
"dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a vocabulary.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: > Hoi, > The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to
start
historic > languages. When you write in a dead language you will
invariably
start
to > used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a
words
that
they > originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn
the
language
as > it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that
language.
> > There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who
are
already
> working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project
is of
a
quality > that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar
size. The
only > reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is
politics; the
> widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In
contrast
to > historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed
languages.
> Thanks, > GerardM > > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic <
millosh@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated
similarly.
The
> > issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to > > non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias
(note
that I
> > am not talking about other projects; treat the word
"project" as
a
> > synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a
clear
> > future at Wikimedia. > > > > I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our > > priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is
to
spread
> > free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
> > to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat
this
issue
> > without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as
it
is
> > possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, > > but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of
our
future.
> > > > So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according
to
"some
> > very predictable parts of our future" as I see them. > > > > Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the
issues:
(1) I
> > don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of
specific
> > conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't
like
> > wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European
languages,
> > including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my
opinion,
even
> > lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical
languages.
> > (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a
Wikimedia
issue;
> > some other institutions should take care about such
languages
before
> > they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some
project
may > > be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a
criteria
> > about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but
unlocking
> > should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to
take
care
> > about that project. > > > > But, let's see what do we have: > > > > 1. (Projects in) natural and living languages: > > 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans:
English
Wikipedia. > > 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the
history
of
> > humans: German Wikipedias. > > 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to
become
the
> > biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too.
Generally,
those
> > are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which
will
have
> > that number relatively soon. > > 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at
least
5000
> > articles and living communities. > > 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around
1000
> > articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. > > 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less
than
> > around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active
contributors.
> > 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and
without
> > active contributors. > > 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have
a
Wikipedia. > > 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't
have
a
> > Wikipedia. > > > > 2. (Projects in) conlangs: > > 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant
conglang
> > community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot
of
data
> > added by one person). > > 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) > > 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't
have a
> > Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons,
usually
> > copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language;
it
may be
> > read by any educated person which native language is one of
the
Slavic > > languages.) > > 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
> > because of the policies. > > 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project
because
of
the > > policies. > > > > 3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages: > > 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a
Church
> > Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old
Church
> > Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated
Roman
Catholic > > (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. > > 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
> > 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of
our
policies. > > > > And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
> > > > 1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority.
This
is
> > not because I like English, but because of the fact that it
is a
> > lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some
knowledge
> > written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in
other
> > languages, too. However, this project may take care about
itself.
> > 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the
next
group,
> > but it share one characteristics with English one: it may
take
care
> > about itself. > > 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua
franca
of
> > some region, or even more widely. Their importance is
similar to
the
> > importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of
those
> > projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give
them
> > possibility to take care about themselves. > > 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next
priority:
> > They need a lot of technical and other help to become a
stable,
well
> > developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that
a lot
of
> > people are talking those languages. > > 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias
which
have
> > some activity. If we see that some people are interested in
Wikipedia
> > in their language, we should encourage them to participate
in
the
> > project. > > 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some
time
someone
> > came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language.
We
should
> > try to find some people who are interested in writing
project in
that
> > language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community
and
it is
> > a matter of WMF and their contacts. > > 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't
have
> > projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks
for
the
> > project in their language are very important: it means that
they
would > > be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near
future. At
> > this point I really support Gerard's position that
MediaWiki
messages
> > should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers
to
read MW
> > messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons
are)
really
> > willing to create their project. > > 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again,
a
matter
of > > the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international
efforts to
> > make written forms of non-written languages. > > 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority.
At
least,
> > some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
> > we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However,
in
this
> > category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto
is.
> > However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because
of
its
> > similarity with English and a work of one person. This is
the
category > > for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is.
Also, if
> > Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
> > be useful -- it should go into this category. > > 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we
have
> > resources, and there are people who are willing to do some > > neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). > > 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are
a
lot of
> > them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even
for
> > communication ;) > > 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone
wants
to
> > enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language
and
we
have > > resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages
would
be
used > > for real communication sometime in the future. > > * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs
(artistic
> > or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are
copyrighted
> > languages. > > > > And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While
we
are
> > doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are
now in
the
> > process of making Volunteer council, which means that we
are
finishing > > the third global task out of 12. > > > > And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our
possibilities,
> > first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC.
I am
sure
> > that the most of use will accept to take care about
projects up
to
the > > priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an
analysis of
our
> > possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours
(usually,
> > steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an
artistic
> > language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable.
However,
> > if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per
year
for
> > useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of
giving
> > $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant > > encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the
second
> > choice. > > > > So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues
about we
> > are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from
arbitrary
choices
> > to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a
perfect
> > construction. I just hope that we may move toward more
rational
talks
> > than arguing for one or another option. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If you think that I know better, why argue. If you think that you have better arguments, convince me :) Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One more :) Of course that arguments exist. However, I realized that they are pointless not because your position is not a valid one (you have much better arguments than calling on WFM goals), but because the most of conversations with you have the ultimate end: your interpretation of WMF goals. And isn't it pointless to argue about something where nobody may be better than you?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What better reason to call it a sophism then having no arguments to
refute
it? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument.
The WMF
is
to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is
written
does
not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and
consequently we
do not do justice to what we aim to achieve. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is
indeed
more
then a
vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular
word
and
you
start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not
reflect
the
language any more. It is akin to speak of love in
Piedmontese;
obviously
they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to
understand the
finer points of that extinct language and you make it
something
else.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic <
millosh@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and
it is
a
> "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of > ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument
about
> neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than
a
> vocabulary. > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: > > Hoi, > > The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not
to
start
> historic > > languages. When you write in a dead language you will
invariably
start
> to > > used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to
a
words
that
> they > > originally did not have. As a consequence you do not
learn
the
language
> as > > it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that
language.
> > > > There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo
who
are
already
> > working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This
project
is of
a
> quality > > that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of
similar
size. The
> only > > reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned
is
politics; the
> > widespread aversion of some against constructed
languages. In
contrast
> to > > historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed
languages.
> > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic <
millosh@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated
similarly.
The
> > > issues which are related to them are, also, our
relation to
> > > non-written languages, as well as non-active
Wikipedias
(note
that I
> > > am not talking about other projects; treat the word
"project" as
a
> > > synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't
have a
clear
> > > future at Wikimedia. > > > > > > I would like to reformulate those issues in relation
to our
> > > priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia
community is
to
spread
> > > free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our
priorities and
> > > to work according to them. It is, also, important to
treat
this
issue
> > > without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more
neutral as
it
is
> > > possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only > synchronically, > > > but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts
of
our
future.
> > > > > > So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them
according
to
"some
> > > very predictable parts of our future" as I see them. > > > > > > Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the
issues:
(1) I
> > > don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a
couple of
specific
> > > conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really
don't
like
> > > wannabe-world languages based on a couple of
Indo-European
languages,
> > > including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my
opinion,
even
> > > lower. (3) I am not interested in developing
neo-classical
languages.
> > > (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a
Wikimedia
issue;
> > > some other institutions should take care about such
languages
before
> > > they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for
some
project
> may > > > be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable"
is a
criteria
> > > about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but
unlocking
> > > should be allowed if a new speaker of that language
want to
take
care
> > > about that project. > > > > > > But, let's see what do we have: > > > > > > 1. (Projects in) natural and living languages: > > > 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of
humans:
English
> Wikipedia. > > > 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the
history
of
> > > humans: German Wikipedias. > > > 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path
to
become
the
> > > biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too.
Generally,
those
> > > are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or
which
will
have
> > > that number relatively soon. > > > 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's
say at
least
5000
> > > articles and living communities. > > > 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with
around
1000
> > > articles at least and a a couple of active
contributors.
> > > 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with
less
than
> > > around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active
contributors.
> > > 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000
and
without
> > > active contributors. > > > 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't
have
a
> Wikipedia. > > > 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which
don't
have
a
> > > Wikipedia. > > > > > > 2. (Projects in) conlangs: > > > 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant
conglang
> > > community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a
lot
of
data
> > > added by one person). > > > 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) > > > 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which
don't
have a
> > > Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons,
usually
> > > copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such
language;
it
may be
> > > read by any educated person which native language is
one of
the
> Slavic > > > languages.) > > > 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't
get a
project
> > > because of the policies. > > > 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a
project
because
of
> the > > > policies. > > > > > > 3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages: > > > 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even
a
Church
> > > Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project,
Old
Church
> > > Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any
educated
Roman
> Catholic > > > (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. > > > 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic,
Anglo-Saxon...
> > > 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects
because of
our
> policies. > > > > > > And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with
explanations.
> > > > > > 1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first
priority.
This
is
> > > not because I like English, but because of the fact
that it
is a
> > > lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have
some
knowledge
> > > written in English, you may easily have that knowledge
in
other
> > > languages, too. However, this project may take care
about
itself.
> > > 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as
the
next
group,
> > > but it share one characteristics with English one: it
may
take
care
> > > about itself. > > > 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a
lingua
franca
of
> > > some region, or even more widely. Their importance is
similar to
the
> > > importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because
of
those
> > > projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to
give
them
> > > possibility to take care about themselves. > > > 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our
next
priority:
> > > They need a lot of technical and other help to become
a
stable,
well
> > > developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact
that
a lot
of
> > > people are talking those languages. > > > 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be
Wikipedias
which
have
> > > some activity. If we see that some people are
interested in
Wikipedia
> > > in their language, we should encourage them to
participate
in
the
> > > project. > > > 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At
some
time
someone
> > > came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their
language.
We
should
> > > try to find some people who are interested in writing
project in
that
> > > language. But, it goes out of the scope of online
community
and
it is
> > > a matter of WMF and their contacts. > > > 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which
don't
have
> > > projects. People who are speakers of some language and
asks
for
the
> > > project in their language are very important: it means
that
they
> would > > > be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the
near
future. At
> > > this point I really support Gerard's position that
MediaWiki
messages
> > > should be translated: It doesn't just allow other
speakers
to
read MW
> > > messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or
persons
are)
really
> > > willing to create their project. > > > 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are,
again,
a
matter
> of > > > the WMF. It should be incorporated into the
international
efforts to
> > > make written forms of non-written languages. > > > 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next
priority.
At
least,
> > > some number of humans are able to communicate in those
languages. And
> > > we should allow them to write their encyclopedias.
However,
in
this
> > > category are only *really* useful conglangs, like
Esperanto
is.
> > > However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too --
because
of
its
> > > similarity with English and a work of one person. This
is
the
> category > > > for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is.
Also, if
> > > Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough
widespread to
> > > be useful -- it should go into this category. > > > 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next.
If we
have
> > > resources, and there are people who are willing to do
some
> > > neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). > > > 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next.
There are
a
lot of
> > > them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or
even
for
> > > communication ;) > > > 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If
someone
wants
to
> > > enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic
language
and
we
> have > > > resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such
languages
would
be
> used > > > for real communication sometime in the future. > > > * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of
conlangs
(artistic
> > > or not) which are out of the scope of our interests
are
copyrighted
> > > languages. > > > > > > And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm.
While
we
are
> > > doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We
are
now in
the
> > > process of making Volunteer council, which means that
we
are
> finishing > > > the third global task out of 12. > > > > > > And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our
possibilities,
> > > first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of
the VC.
I am
sure
> > > that the most of use will accept to take care about
projects up
to
> the > > > priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an
analysis of
our
> > > possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working
hours
(usually,
> > > steward's working hours) per year for one new project
in an
artistic
> > > language (priority 12), then I think that it is
reasonable.
However,
> > > if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours
per
year
for
> > > useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia,
instead of
giving
> > > $10.000 per one African language for making five
relevant
> > > encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for
the
second
> > > choice. > > > > > > So, this was my contribution to relatively connected
issues
about we
> > > are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from
arbitrary
choices
> > > to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a
perfect
> > > construction. I just hope that we may move toward more
rational
talks
> > > than arguing for one or another option. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Your message here makes little sense to me. Everything you list as facts in "what do we have" are pretty much guesses rather than actual facts and then you use to make some sort of priority list . . . for what? "English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority." What does it mean to be the first priority. That WMF shall not lock the database or remove it from the servers?? I don't know where WMF really make a judgment on a specific wiki outside those things. And even those decisions can sometimes be said to be decided by "the community". I am not sure why we would ever want to prioritize wikis as you have done since they are not worked on in a top-down fashion. I do not understand your purpose.
Birgitte SB
--- Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear future at Wikimedia.
I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only synchronically, but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages, including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages. (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue; some other institutions should take care about such languages before they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project may be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care about that project.
But, let's see what do we have:
- (Projects in) natural and living languages:
1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English Wikipedia. 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: German Wikipedias. 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have that number relatively soon. 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000 articles and living communities. 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000 articles at least and a a couple of active contributors. 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors. 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without active contributors. 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a Wikipedia. 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a Wikipedia.
- (Projects in) conlangs:
2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data added by one person). 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?) 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be read by any educated person which native language is one of the Slavic languages.) 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies. 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of the policies.
- (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman Catholic (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin. 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon... 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our policies.
And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
- 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first
priority. This is not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself. 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group, but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care about itself. 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them possibility to take care about themselves. 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority: They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of people are talking those languages. 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the project. 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is a matter of WMF and their contacts. 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the project in their language are very important: it means that they would be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really willing to create their project. 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter of the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to make written forms of non-written languages. 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least, some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is. However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the category for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to be useful -- it should go into this category. 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have resources, and there are people who are willing to do some neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow). 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for communication ;) 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we have resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be used for real communication sometime in the future.
- 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of
conlangs (artistic or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted languages.
And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are finishing the third global task out of 12.
And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities, first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to the priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually, steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However, if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second choice.
So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks than arguing for one or another option.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org