visit our proposal page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft the baselines are definied. please help us to refine them. c.l.
Two things:
If a language still has native speakers, rather than just having literate people, we should require at least two native speakers. We have had projects in the past built and run by people with only a very tentative command of the language in question, and this has led to trouble down the road (for example, mi.wp).
Also, despite constant requests on the talk page for the addition of some sort of numerical criterium in re: "potential readers" or "potential editors", I strongly reject this argument for modern natively-spoken languages. As long as a community can produce articles and has enough editors to meet the other requirements, I think it is sufficient.
Mark
2008/7/18 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
visit our proposal page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft the baselines are definied. please help us to refine them. c.l.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
visit our proposal page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft the baselines are definied. please help us to refine them.
Why, if I don't agree with the baselines, would I help you refining them?
My objections: * I _still_ am not convinced that translating the interface should be necessary for a project to go on * It seems that criteriums 2 (ISO 639) and 3 (no language variations) would better be combined - ISO 639 codes are in general not given to language variants, so having it as a separate requirement seems overkill. - criterium: should have an existing body of written language - criterium: should be sufficient distinct from existing languages Followed by: As a default, we consider a language to have these two properties if and only if it has an ISO 639 code. Exceptions in either direction can be made if there are particularly good arguments.
As for refining the points: At point 4 I would like to add that the audience should not only be people who are able to use that language, but also people who would want to use it - as an example, millions of people would be able to read an "English written backward" Wikipedia, but none or almost none would prefer it to the existing English one (of course English written backward falls short of criteriums 2 and 3)
Why, if I don't agree with the baselines, would I help you refining them?
My objections:
- I _still_ am not convinced that translating the interface should be
necessary for a project to go on
I agree.
- It seems that criteriums 2 (ISO 639) and 3 (no language variations)
would better be combined - ISO 639 codes are in general not given to language variants, so having it as a separate requirement seems overkill.
That makes sense.
As for refining the points: At point 4 I would like to add that the audience should not only be people who are able to use that language, but also people who would want to use it - as an example, millions of people would be able to read an "English written backward" Wikipedia, but none or almost none would prefer it to the existing English one (of course English written backward falls short of criteriums 2 and 3)
Well, there are plenty of languages that people don't prefer to read, but they might understand them better or get more out of them in some ways. How many people, for example, do you think "prefer" Sicilian to Italian? That doesn't mean a Sicilian Wikipedia isn't useful.
Mark
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there are plenty of languages that people don't prefer to read, but they might understand them better or get more out of them in some ways. How many people, for example, do you think "prefer" Sicilian to Italian? That doesn't mean a Sicilian Wikipedia isn't useful.
I disagree. If someone prefers Italian to Sicilian, they will go to the Italian Wikipedia, not the Sicilian one, so they will not be getting anything out of the Sicilian one.
The idea that people prefer one language to another does not mean they will not read articles in another language and find them just as useful, if not moreso.
I certainly prefer English to Spanish, but I have used the Spanish Wikipedia on many occasions, especially when the article there was longer or more informative.
Mark
2008/7/19 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there are plenty of languages that people don't prefer to read, but they might understand them better or get more out of them in some ways. How many people, for example, do you think "prefer" Sicilian to Italian? That doesn't mean a Sicilian Wikipedia isn't useful.
I disagree. If someone prefers Italian to Sicilian, they will go to the Italian Wikipedia, not the Sicilian one, so they will not be getting anything out of the Sicilian one.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that people prefer one language to another does not mean they will not read articles in another language and find them just as useful, if not moreso.
I certainly prefer English to Spanish, but I have used the Spanish Wikipedia on many occasions, especially when the article there was longer or more informative.
Sure, that will happen, but mostly when the alternative Wikipedia is of a comparable size. A relatively small language will have that advantage so rarely that people will not habitually check for it. People will go from Italian to French or English for such a reason, but I think that those who will go to Sicilian or Napolitan are those that will just be either prefer that language to Italian if the same content was available in both languages, or had no clear preference between them.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that people prefer one language to another does not mean they will not read articles in another language and find them just as useful, if not moreso.
I certainly prefer English to Spanish, but I have used the Spanish Wikipedia on many occasions, especially when the article there was longer or more informative.
Sure, that will happen, but mostly when the alternative Wikipedia is of a comparable size. A relatively small language will have that advantage so rarely that people will not habitually check for it. People will go from Italian to French or English for such a reason, but I think that those who will go to Sicilian or Napolitan are those that will just be either prefer that language to Italian if the same content was available in both languages, or had no clear preference between them.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Understood, but it is not the role of the community to judge that before embarking. As Mark said: gauging potential readers is a bad metric. You saying "No one will use it because they prefer X language" is that exact argument.
Assuming a language is a valid one (ie: Not fake, not used by only by five people who are 90yo and near death), I see no harm in provisionally accepting it. A tiny project is insignificant in terms of space required. If it tanks, then nothing was really wasted except a valiant effort to embark on a new language. If it gets big, so much the better, we helped further a new project.
-Chad.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org