Hoi, There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for it - Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek. - it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did not exist at the time when the language was alive - neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not exist at the time when the language was alive - modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be - Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively not permitted
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on a need.
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given. We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language, it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are legitimate.
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language subcommittee http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee)."* It is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages. - We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and constructed languages
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code - We need full WMF localisation from the start - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern encyclopaedia - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of topics - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator project
Thanks, GerardM
Dear GerardM, Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me. So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed. And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them. When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't remember by heart the exact list): - publications - conventions - codification by dictionaries, grammars - sociological or political diversification of the language community - family language According to that, Blanke divides into: - Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto - Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue - Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen, 1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close to the language community (language and culture, history of the region, maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range, like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology. On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects 1) and 2). On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of
Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss. One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
Ziko
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
encyclopaedia
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of topics
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
project
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular:
- The requirement of native speakers. - Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this will make the language they are writing from an historical language into a conlang.
Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him, they have not "considered" his argument?
I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10 or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me add a qualifier or two:
1) Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is. Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are universals or close to it). 2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism. Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a living language).
With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are arguing about something that is said to exist without even having proof that it does.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear GerardM, Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me. So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed. And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them. When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't remember by heart the exact list):
- publications
- conventions
- codification by dictionaries, grammars
- sociological or political diversification of the language community
- family language
According to that, Blanke divides into:
- Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
- Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
- Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen, 1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close to the language community (language and culture, history of the region, maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range, like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology. On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
- and 2).
On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss. One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
Ziko
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
encyclopaedia
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of topics
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
project
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk Roomberg 30 NL-7064 BN Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him, they have not "considered" his argument?
You've hit the nail on the head right there with your last statement, and it describes quite a few people on this list, I'm afraid. Gerard, your passion for wanting to do this correctly is admirable, I cannot deny that. However, at times you--and many others, on both sides of the debate--work yourselves into a posisition where you only seem to see "your" solution as "the" solution. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can cause discussions to be frustrating at times. And to everyone, please remember that it's OK to be wrong! It's not a battle to be won, lives aren't lost because people disagree with you. I think if we all remember this a little more often and are willing to say "You're right, we should do it your way instead of mine," we can be a little more productive. And nicer.
I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10 or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me add a qualifier or two:
Likewise. I would like to see the same information before I can accept that this is a realistic concern.
Always,
Chad
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular:
- The requirement of native speakers.
- Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular
view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this will make the language they are writing from an historical language into a conlang.
Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him, they have not "considered" his argument?
I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10 or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me add a qualifier or two:
- Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original
corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is. Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are universals or close to it). 2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism. Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a living language).
With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are arguing about something that is said to exist without even having proof that it does.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear GerardM, Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me. So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed. And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them. When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't remember by heart the exact list):
- publications
- conventions
- codification by dictionaries, grammars
- sociological or political diversification of the language community
- family language
According to that, Blanke divides into:
- Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
- Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
- Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen, 1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close to the language community (language and culture, history of the region, maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range, like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology. On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
- and 2).
On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss. One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
Ziko
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
encyclopaedia
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of topics
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
project
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk Roomberg 30 NL-7064 BN Silvolde
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
Gerard,
I disagree with your proposal.
I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion, and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does) use English in his everyday life, including research and communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this change.
(As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove it.)
Hoi, Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages. Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.
If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.
This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there. Thanks, Gerard
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard,
I disagree with your proposal.
I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion, and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does) use English in his everyday life, including research and communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this change.
(As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove it.)
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So Ancient Greek is not a natural language? 100 out of 100 linguists would beg to differ.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages. Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.
If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.
This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there. Thanks,
GerardOn Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard,
I disagree with your proposal.
I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion, and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does) use English in his everyday life, including research and communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this change.
(As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove it.)
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
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
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages. Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.
The "reconstructed" languages you suggest are natural languages without modern native speakers.
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.
You did not put it there. It was present in my original draft written in November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=466496#Prerequisites. This predated my joining of the subcommittee, so you had no say in that draft. It was intended as an additional requirement, as shown by the fact that there's no requirement for native speakers in that draft to exempt them from. It was only left as an oversight, and then you blocked its removal when we noticed.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion, and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks, Pharos
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion, and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we are discussing, I am done talking. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
academic
exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
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
Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to discuss approval of Latin projects.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we are discussing, I am done talking. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
academic
exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
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 think we may want a "historic texts" wikisource/wikibooks particularly for texts in now extinct languages. Something sort of like commons for historic texts for all extinct languages. I do not know something like this was proposed before.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to discuss approval of Latin projects.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient
Greek has
been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is
all we
are discussing, I am done talking. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for
scholars
of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
academic
exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin
and
similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a
use
is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in
certain
languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world
to
write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to
write
an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial
languages,
would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into
many
other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
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
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't that already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
2011/9/20 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com
I think we may want a "historic texts" wikisource/wikibooks particularly for texts in now extinct languages. Something sort of like commons for historic texts for all extinct languages. I do not know something like this was proposed before.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to discuss approval of Latin projects.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient
Greek has
been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is
all we
are discussing, I am done talking. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
Mark
On 17/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve languages.
I think the argument that they act as a common language for
scholars
of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
academic
exchange.
You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for
purely
ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin
and
similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such
a
use
is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such languages.
And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in
certain
languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world
to
write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history, based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to
write
an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial
languages,
would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into
many
other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia editions.
Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case
for
Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
Thanks,
Pharos
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
2011/9/21 M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't that already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual Wikisource project.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages
Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.
http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792 (Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)
Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works
Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the two as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2011/9/20 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
2011/9/21 M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't
that
already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual Wikisource project.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages
Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.
http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792 (Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)
Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The language policy does not allow for Wikipedia in extinct languages. However, a Wikisource for the old Greek languages does make sense.
When such a Wikisource would be created, the user interface would by default not be in modern Greek because more people study old Greek outside Greece then inside Greece. We do not accept a user interface in old Greek for the same reasons we do not accept a Wikipedia in old Greek. Thanks, GerardM
2011/9/21 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com
Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the two as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2011/9/20 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
2011/9/21 M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't
that
already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual Wikisource project.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages
Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.
http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792 (Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)
Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works
-- John Vandenberg
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
2011/9/21 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com:
Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the two as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.
Multilingual Wikisource is a place for any texts which do not have their own project (yet). each text is a discrete work, and dont need an active community in order to be a useful resource. Eventualism is stronger on Wikisource, which is why texts are not forced to reside on the normal incubator.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org