please more links of classical languages approved by langcom and board of trustees:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Gothic
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Old_Chur...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Old_Engl...
c.m.l
Hoi, These languages were not approved by the Language Committee and they would not be permitted under its policy.. The fact that these projects exists is as far as I am concerned as relevant at the once upon a time existence of a Wikipedia in Klingon.
There is nothing new here; the current policy explicitly did not apply for any of the existing projects. All of these projects existed at the time of the start of the language policy. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.comwrote:
please more links of classical languages approved by langcom and board of trustees:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Gothic
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Old_Chur...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Old_Engl...
c.m.l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, These languages were not approved by the Language Committee and they would not be permitted under its policy.. The fact that these projects exists is as far as I am concerned as relevant at the once upon a time existence of a Wikipedia in Klingon.
There is nothing new here; the current policy explicitly did not apply for any of the existing projects. All of these projects existed at the time of the start of the language policy. Thanks, GerardM
It might be worth noting that this obviously creates a double-standard, and why we have (nearly) monthly back-and-forths about the merits of dead/dying/extinct/zombie languages. If said projects weren't allowed from the start, then there'd be less of an argument for inclusion.
As it stands, we hear "But those got projects, why not us?" To which the common reply has become "That was then, this is now."
-Chad
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
It might be worth noting that this obviously creates a double-standard, and why we have (nearly) monthly back-and-forths about the merits of dead/dying/extinct/zombie languages. If said projects weren't allowed from the start, then there'd be less of an argument for inclusion.
As it stands, we hear "But those got projects, why not us?" To which the common reply has become "That was then, this is now."
I took a quick look at the few projects mentioned here, and it's worth noting that none of them are dormant, but their activity levels are all relatively low (and much of the activity I saw appeared to be bot-driven). Plus, none of them had a complete interface translation, even on the quick tour that I took.
I understand that people all want theirs, everybody wants their pet project to be given life. However, we have to ask ourselves what is the benefit of a project that is (a) mostly bot-generated and (b) incompletely translated. If a project is generated mostly through bot translations of larger projects, we lose the argument that different languages may present information in a different way and hence helps improve our diversity of perspective. We end up with a situation where information we already have is encoded into a form that few people can read, with an interface that's written partly in english (so some english background is required of participants anyway).
--Andrew Whitworth
Hoi, Would you then want to have these other projects deleted like it happened for the Klingon Wikipedia? There had been a lot of back and forth about this language as well and in the end, Jimbo decided to scrap this project in his speech at Wikimania. I am not unhappy that this project .... Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, These languages were not approved by the Language Committee and they
would
not be permitted under its policy.. The fact that these projects exists
is
as far as I am concerned as relevant at the once upon a time existence of
a
Wikipedia in Klingon.
There is nothing new here; the current policy explicitly did not apply
for
any of the existing projects. All of these projects existed at the time
of
the start of the language policy. Thanks, GerardM
It might be worth noting that this obviously creates a double-standard, and why we have (nearly) monthly back-and-forths about the merits of dead/dying/extinct/zombie languages. If said projects weren't allowed from the start, then there'd be less of an argument for inclusion.
As it stands, we hear "But those got projects, why not us?" To which the common reply has become "That was then, this is now."
-Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Would you then want to have these other projects deleted like it happened for the Klingon Wikipedia? There had been a lot of back and forth about this language as well and in the end, Jimbo decided to scrap this project in his speech at Wikimania. I am not unhappy that this project .... Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, These languages were not approved by the Language Committee and they
would
not be permitted under its policy.. The fact that these projects exists
is
as far as I am concerned as relevant at the once upon a time existence of
a
Wikipedia in Klingon.
There is nothing new here; the current policy explicitly did not apply
for
any of the existing projects. All of these projects existed at the time
of
the start of the language policy. Thanks, GerardM
It might be worth noting that this obviously creates a double-standard, and why we have (nearly) monthly back-and-forths about the merits of dead/dying/extinct/zombie languages. If said projects weren't allowed from the start, then there'd be less of an argument for inclusion.
As it stands, we hear "But those got projects, why not us?" To which the common reply has become "That was then, this is now."
-Chad
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
The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all.
-Chad
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all.
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail. Our human resources (Stewards, SWMT, etc) should be valuable enough to us that we don't extend their workload for some random shot in the dark. A project should have more then a glancing chance at success before we give it the green light, or we're going to become a garbage heap of unmaintainable failed projects.
The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. Far from throwing out all rules, we should be looking to optimize their methods to reduce the number of false negatives.
--Andrew Whitworth
*The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. *
Huh. I didn't know that. That is pretty impressive, actually.
Ford MF
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all.
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail. Our human resources (Stewards, SWMT, etc) should be valuable enough to us that we don't extend their workload for some random shot in the dark. A project should have more then a glancing chance at success before we give it the green light, or we're going to become a garbage heap of unmaintainable failed projects.
The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. Far from throwing out all rules, we should be looking to optimize their methods to reduce the number of false negatives.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/9/5 David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com:
*The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. * Huh. I didn't know that. That is pretty impressive, actually.
Uh, this indicates their rules are *way* too conservative. It's easy to have no failures if you say "no" a lot.
- d.
Hoi, Actually we do not say "no" a lot. What we do say a lot is "your language or your proposal is eligible". We do say "no" when it is clear that a language does not fit within the rules however, we often suggest how a proposal can be changed to meet the criteria. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/5 David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com:
*The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. * Huh. I didn't know that. That is pretty impressive, actually.
Uh, this indicates their rules are *way* too conservative. It's easy to have no failures if you say "no" a lot.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:12 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/5 David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com:
*The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. * Huh. I didn't know that. That is pretty impressive, actually.
Uh, this indicates their rules are *way* too conservative. It's easy to have no failures if you say "no" a lot.
I disagree with that statement. The langcom does a good job of weeding out the obvious bozo projects. For the rest, it does a very good job of supporting and guiding them through the initial process. Setting up milestones such as interface translation is important for getting a community together and demonstrating long-term efficacy. Using the incubator to help develop content until the project goes live is another important step.
We have a high success rate not because the langcom is "way too conservative" but because they have a larger development plan that is supportive of the fledgling communities and proactive in getting them started correctly.
Treating the languages committee as merely a gating step is a gross underestimation of them, I think.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all.
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail. Our human resources (Stewards, SWMT, etc) should be valuable enough to us that we don't extend their workload for some random shot in the dark. A project should have more then a glancing chance at success before we give it the green light, or we're going to become a garbage heap of unmaintainable failed projects.
The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. Far from throwing out all rules, we should be looking to optimize their methods to reduce the number of false negatives.
There is nothing bad in trying to help to someone. At the other hand, need for localization, while, at one hand, is a bureaucratic measure, it is a reasonable measure to prove that project will be alive. BTW, adding 10 projects to ~650 (or even ~700) about stewards and SWMT care -- is not a lot.
BUT, in this case Chad mentioned *Klingon*, a language created for pleasure, not for communication. Such language may become a useful one, but, today, it is not. Goals of WMF and people around it are not to increase someone's pleasure, but to help in human education.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all.
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail. Our human resources (Stewards, SWMT, etc) should be valuable enough to us that we don't extend their workload for some random shot in the dark. A project should have more then a glancing chance at success before we give it the green light, or we're going to become a garbage heap of unmaintainable failed projects.
The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. Far from throwing out all rules, we should be looking to optimize their methods to reduce the number of false negatives.
There is nothing bad in trying to help to someone. At the other hand, need for localization, while, at one hand, is a bureaucratic measure, it is a reasonable measure to prove that project will be alive. BTW, adding 10 projects to ~650 (or even ~700) about stewards and SWMT care -- is not a lot.
BUT, in this case Chad mentioned *Klingon*, a language created for pleasure, not for communication. Such language may become a useful one, but, today, it is not. Goals of WMF and people around it are not to increase someone's pleasure, but to help in human education.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Klingon was a mistake and never should've been created for that reason alone. When I talk about languages being given a chance, I mean real languages.
Klingon otoh is a fictional language (which is constructed, but notably different from Esperanto, in that it's designed for fun and not actual communication, as you said). It would be akin to launching projects in Quenya or Khûzdul.
-Chad
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail.
About how much effort does it take, from *outside* the people who want to be involved with the project, to start and stop a new project? I always got the impression it was "flip a switch" to start it, and "flip a switch" to stop it, and that the rest of the effort would be undertaken by those who are interested in the project.
Basically, I figured there is more time and energy wasted discussing whether or not to start the project then there is in just starting it.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
About how much effort does it take, from *outside* the people who want to be involved with the project, to start and stop a new project? I always got the impression it was "flip a switch" to start it, and "flip a switch" to stop it, and that the rest of the effort would be undertaken by those who are interested in the project.
I dont know exactly, one of the techs will have to answer this. However, I would agree with you on the assumption that it's probably relatively easy by now.
Most of the effort that I am talking about is cleanup and maintenance. I've seen projects where 95% of the edits made in a given month were either spam/vandalism and stewards coming in to clean it up. I would argue that when a project serves no other purpose then as a battle ground between stewards and vandals, that it should probably be closed.
--Andrew Whitworth
Hoi, When you consider how long it takes to get a project actually to be created, you know this is not the case. Thanks, GerardM
The average time from being approved by the board and the actual creation is more then a month. Getting a project to be actually to be removed either to the Incubator or to elsewhere basically does not happen.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com
wrote:
NA lot of our volunteers spend a lot of time and energy to maintain, fix, and cleanup these projects when they do fail.
About how much effort does it take, from *outside* the people who want to be involved with the project, to start and stop a new project? I always got the impression it was "flip a switch" to start it, and "flip a switch" to stop it, and that the rest of the effort would be undertaken by those who are interested in the project.
Basically, I figured there is more time and energy wasted discussing whether or not to start the project then there is in just starting it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org