"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is by using the mother tongue of people.
Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of the great classical languages of Western civilization is also a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably more useful than a few of the current European languages that are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have any objection to those either).
You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource up and running, currently with many active contributors and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be said for contributors in many languages. What you need are active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother" tongue.
Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length, adding nothing new, and then conclude:
The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published and they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make a difference.
No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community at large that your arguments are correct.
We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
No need, "grc" will do just fine!
I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process has been handled need improvement.
I again repeat my request for information about the language committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
Dovi
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hoi, In the language committee things are done by consensus. If you want to become a member of the committee, you will find that there are things that are at best a compromise. When the only reason to become a member of the LC is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can discuss on this list as effectively.
If you are interested in doing the work that we do in the LC, you will want to know about all the esoterica that are part of understanding how languages are dealt with technically, its different standards and their interaction. If you do not care for that, you can implement the procedures as they are. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dovi Jacobs dovijacobs@yahoo.com wrote:
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is
by
using the mother tongue of people.
Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of the great classical languages of Western civilization is also a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably more useful than a few of the current European languages that are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have any objection to those either).
You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource up and running, currently with many active contributors and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be said for contributors in many languages. What you need are active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother" tongue.
Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length, adding nothing new, and then conclude:
The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published
and
they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make
a
difference.
No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community at large that your arguments are correct.
We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
No need, "grc" will do just fine!
I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process has been handled need improvement.
I again repeat my request for information about the language committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
Dovi
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Congratulations on responding without answering any of the points or questions raised... Again.
This, Gerard, is you, and you alone. I am not aware of the language committee appointing you as a spokesperson and you do a fine impersonation of Ian Paisley as "Dr. No". I've never seen you concede a point or accept anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the basis for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language committee allegedly works.
There was one clear and unambiguous question in the email you responded to; it came in two parts, and was a repeat of an earlier query. It would be most civilised to answer the question and not assert that the discussion should simply continue here. The option you offer is a complete and utter waste of time for everyone else on the list. I am none the wiser about how the language committee operates than I was nearly a year ago when I signed up, but by golly! Have I had to read a lot of messages from you that tell other people they're not qualified to give input.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 13 April 2008 11:10 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
Hoi, In the language committee things are done by consensus. If you want to become a member of the committee, you will find that there are things that are at best a compromise. When the only reason to become a member of the LC is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can discuss on this list as effectively.
If you are interested in doing the work that we do in the LC, you will want to know about all the esoterica that are part of understanding how languages are dealt with technically, its different standards and their interaction. If you do not care for that, you can implement the procedures as they are. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dovi Jacobs dovijacobs@yahoo.com wrote:
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is
by
using the mother tongue of people.
Mother tongues are the best, but providing information in one of the great classical languages of Western civilization is also a lovely idea for sharing the "sum of all knowledge." Probably more useful than a few of the current European languages that are hardly spoken as first languages anymore (not that I have any objection to those either).
You do not need "native speakers" (mother tongue) to set up a project. I had the pleasure of getting the Hebrew Wikisource up and running, currently with many active contributors and over 4,000 texts. Hebrew is not my "native" (mother) tongue but I can contribute on a professional level. Same might be said for contributors in many languages. What you need are active, competent contributors, not native speakers or "mother" tongue.
Gerard, you repeat your arguments about neologisms at length, adding nothing new, and then conclude:
The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published
and
they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make
a
difference.
No, Gerard. Your arguments are indeed published, but they are not objective. It is *you* who have to convince the community at large that your arguments are correct.
We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.
No need, "grc" will do just fine!
I would like to add that I have no personal interest whatsoever in grc.wikipedia.org (my Greek is rudimentary). But I do have great respect for the fine contributions by others that I saw. And I think that the way the arguments have been made and the process has been handled need improvement.
I again repeat my request for information about the language committee. I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it. How is its membership determined?
Dovi
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the basis for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language committee allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I used his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many months of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of the committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the guidelines, or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were a guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
This perhaps might be better stated as Dovi wishing to see more LangCom people active here, although from Jesse's comments that might make the entire process too onerous for committee members.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: 14 April 2008 05:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the
basis
for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language
committee
allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I used his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many months of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of the committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the guidelines, or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were a guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
One thing I appreciate about Jesse Martin's activities in the language committee is that he aims for transparency. It seems every member of the subcommittee - besides Gerard M. - has agreed to the public archival of their messages.
However, I am certainly curious, Jesse has characterized working for the LC as fraught with lengthy discussions... where?
I can see that Jesse has done a lot of work, but looking here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-02
It appears that the vast majority of the posts come from Jesse or Gerard, with some additional opinions from Sabine and Berto, but most members seem to just chime in to concur with proposals or object.
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more with their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Perhaps Jesse is detailing his own experience.
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
This perhaps might be better stated as Dovi wishing to see more LangCom people active here, although from Jesse's comments that might make the entire process too onerous for committee members.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: 14 April 2008 05:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the
basis
for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language
committee
allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I used his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many months of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of the committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the guidelines, or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were a guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
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, There is another member has really important reasons why the e-mail needs to be private. A person that has an expertise that we really need. I am of the opinion that it is as a consequence not a good idea to make our mail public and this is reason enough for my mail not to be made public. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I appreciate about Jesse Martin's activities in the language committee is that he aims for transparency. It seems every member of the subcommittee - besides Gerard M. - has agreed to the public archival of their messages.
However, I am certainly curious, Jesse has characterized working for the LC as fraught with lengthy discussions... where?
I can see that Jesse has done a lot of work, but looking here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-02
It appears that the vast majority of the posts come from Jesse or Gerard, with some additional opinions from Sabine and Berto, but most members seem to just chime in to concur with proposals or object.
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more with their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Perhaps Jesse is detailing his own experience.
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
This perhaps might be better stated as Dovi wishing to see more LangCom people active here, although from Jesse's comments that might make the entire process too onerous for committee members.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: 14 April 2008 05:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the
basis
for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language
committee
allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I used his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many months of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of the committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the guidelines, or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were a guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
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
So somebody else has good reasons, and for that reason you do not think your e-mails should be public? I'm sorry, but I really don't follow. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here?
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is another member has really important reasons why the e-mail needs to be private. A person that has an expertise that we really need. I am of the opinion that it is as a consequence not a good idea to make our mail public and this is reason enough for my mail not to be made public. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I appreciate about Jesse Martin's activities in the language committee is that he aims for transparency. It seems every member of the subcommittee - besides Gerard M. - has agreed to the public archival of their messages.
However, I am certainly curious, Jesse has characterized working for the LC as fraught with lengthy discussions... where?
I can see that Jesse has done a lot of work, but looking here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-02
It appears that the vast majority of the posts come from Jesse or Gerard, with some additional opinions from Sabine and Berto, but most members seem to just chime in to concur with proposals or object.
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more with their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Perhaps Jesse is detailing his own experience.
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
This perhaps might be better stated as Dovi wishing to see more LangCom people active here, although from Jesse's comments that might make the entire process too onerous for committee members.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: 14 April 2008 05:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that the
basis
for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the language
committee
allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I used his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many months of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of the committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the guidelines, or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were a guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
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, No, I think all our emails should not be public as a consequence. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
So somebody else has good reasons, and for that reason you do not think your e-mails should be public? I'm sorry, but I really don't follow. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here?
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is another member has really important reasons why the e-mail
needs to
be private. A person that has an expertise that we really need. I am of
the
opinion that it is as a consequence not a good idea to make our mail
public
and this is reason enough for my mail not to be made public. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
One thing I appreciate about Jesse Martin's activities in the
language
committee is that he aims for transparency. It seems every member of the subcommittee - besides Gerard M. - has agreed to the public archival of their messages.
However, I am certainly curious, Jesse has characterized working for the LC as fraught with lengthy discussions... where?
I can see that Jesse has done a lot of work, but looking here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-02
It appears that the vast majority of the posts come from Jesse or Gerard, with some additional opinions from Sabine and Berto, but most members seem to just chime in to concur with proposals or object.
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more
with
their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Perhaps Jesse is detailing his own experience.
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
This perhaps might be better stated as Dovi wishing to see more
LangCom
people active here, although from Jesse's comments that might make
the
entire process too onerous for committee members.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: 14 April 2008 05:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient
anyone other than yourself has a valid argument. You assert that
the
basis
for your position is the unstated guidelines to which the
language
committee
allegedly works.
It is worth noting that in Gerard M's (he got angry last time I
used
his surname, even though it is used in some ML messages) many
months
of doing this in many messages, Jesse Martin, another member of
the
committee, has often challenged his interpretation of the
guidelines,
or suggested that he was expressing his own opinion as if it were
a
guideline.
Gerard, Dovi asked you how membership is decided. Dovi said, and I quote: "I would like to see more voices and greater diversity of opinion on it", which to me implies Dovi would like to see more members, though not necessarily him/herself.
Mark
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
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more with their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Several members of the committee are inactive, or cannot keep up with the time required. It's because it's not an easy job that they're less active, not the reverse. That's something I hope to change in the future, but in the meantime decisions are nonetheless lengthily discussed by the active members with the less active piping in.
(Keep in mind that posts from "—" are from a different member of the committee who asked that their name be removed from the archives.)
So, then, being extremely active, as are you, Gerard, and this unnamed person, is not a prerequisite to remaining a member of the committee? Although I am sure it was not your intention, you made it seem (to me, of course) as if all the wonderful work you do for the foundation is expected and required of every single member of the committee.
Mark
On 14/04/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to say that members should not be weighing in more with their own opinions, but rather that if you consider the average contribution to discussions of anybody besides Jesse and Gerard, it seems rather easy a job.
Several members of the committee are inactive, or cannot keep up with the time required. It's because it's not an easy job that they're less active, not the reverse. That's something I hope to change in the future, but in the meantime decisions are nonetheless lengthily discussed by the active members with the less active piping in.
(Keep in mind that posts from "—" are from a different member of the committee who asked that their name be removed from the archives.)
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
So, then, being extremely active, as are you, Gerard, and this unnamed person, is not a prerequisite to remaining a member of the committee? Although I am sure it was not your intention, you made it seem (to me, of course) as if all the wonderful work you do for the foundation is expected and required of every single member of the committee.
We're all volunteers, so high activity is neither a requirement nor expected. However, a certain amount of activity is very important to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and the workload is distributed more lightly. A member who rarely comments does not have a say, simply because they don't say anything.
Inactivity is something I hope to we can address in the future, much as the changes announced on this list a few months ago successfully addressed problems in the process.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org