----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Leigh Babbage &lt;gladysthegroovymule(a)yahoo.co.uk&gt; To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; langcom-l(a)list.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:07:47 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy Some Wikimedia users (and I am certainly part of this group) thought it unfair that, whilst artificial languages such as Esperanto and Volupak were allowed by this policy to have Wikipedias, classical languages such as Latin and Ancient Greek were not, on the grounds that, since they have no native speakers, they do not serve a community and are therefore at odds with the foundation's mission statement. This seems like both a contradiction and a questionable interpretation of the foundation's mission statement. With this in mind, one of the requisites for eligibility in the current policy: “The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. (Wikisource wikis are allowed in languages with no native speakers, although these should be on a wiki for the modern form of the language if possible.) If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language subcommittee).” Has been changed to this in the community draft: “The proposal has a sufficient worldwide number of people able to express themselves at a fluent level, in the written, spoken or signed form, to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for a language without native speakers, it will need to be demonstrated that it is well attested in written texts, and is in current use as a special, auxiliary, engineered, classical or learned language.” The community draft's requisite reflects the fact that a viable community and audience does not need native speakers, In fact, for cultural purpose, the native condition is not determinant. More important is the language prestigious. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The community draft also specifies how much of the interface has to be translated before final approval for both first projects in a language and projects in languages that already have projects. By requiring the 500 most-used messages to be translated for a first project, the policy sets a goal that is tough but reasonable. Requiring too many messages to be translated before the creation of the project would be likely to tire-out a smaller community (which would, of course, grow once the project was actually created). Not requiring any would make it easier for languages without much real support to slip through the net (I think that this part of the process should be used not only to make sure that the language has an interface, but also as another part of the test to see whether a language is suitable for the project). By requiring 500 messages to be translated we can ensure that people are serious about the project and have enough motivation, that the language (if it is classical) is capable of expressing modern concepts and that potential editors are not *too* over-worked during what is (let's be honest) the most boring part of the process. It is more sensible to require a grater number of messages to be translated before the creation of another project in a language because a language that already has at least one Wikimedia project should have a bigger community. ______________________________________________ I agree, minimal localisation proves the ability of the languages expressing technical concepts it is unbelievable that langcom doesn't yet endorse the community draft. It's excellent. C.m..l.