The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
* New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original) * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
GerardM wrote:
Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
Marcos
+1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Mark
On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer marcos.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
GerardM wrote:
Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
Marcos
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed, needs to be considered as not being that language. Ancient Greek is a dead language. It is possible to apply for a code that recognises modern work and the old texts. With such a code it is abundantly clear that even though effort is taken to stay as close as the old language as possible, it is inherently not the same.
I disagree that my concern in this is addressed. As I indicated earlier, I have discussed this with people whose opinion I value and they strengthen me in my position. They are the types who could be called authoritative. :) Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Mark
On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer marcos.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
schools or universities.
GerardM wrote:
Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
Marcos
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
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
"Needs to be"?
How about, "Gerard says it should be"?
Mark
On 24/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed, needs to be considered as not being that language. Ancient Greek is a dead language. It is possible to apply for a code that recognises modern work and the old texts. With such a code it is abundantly clear that even though effort is taken to stay as close as the old language as possible, it is inherently not the same.
I disagree that my concern in this is addressed. As I indicated earlier, I have discussed this with people whose opinion I value and they strengthen me in my position. They are the types who could be called authoritative. :) Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Mark
On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer marcos.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
schools or universities.
GerardM wrote:
Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
Marcos
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
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
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed, needs to be considered as not being that language.
don't confuse the definitions!
reconstructed language is a hypothetical language, that isn't attested. for example proto-indoeuropean, nobody knows how it spoke. scholars rebuild it in base of its daugthers languages, that are well attested (sanskrit, Greek, persian, latin, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_reconstruction
ancient greek is very, very, very well attested, more than latin and others. it's improper to talk about reconstruction.
i recommend you, use another word to express your idea. i suggest you "extended". "ancient Greek extended"?
C.L.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I strongly suggest we avoid a policy on the matter - rather we should explicitly list what is allowable rather than what is banned. More like a guideline than policy.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Mark
On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer marcos.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
schools or universities.
GerardM wrote:
Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others.
Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
Marcos
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
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
--- White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly suggest we avoid a policy on the matter - rather we should explicitly list what is allowable rather than what is banned. More like a guideline than policy.
- White Cat
a classification of languages?. some like this:
____________________________________________________
FIRST CATEGORY: LINGUISTICS (ARTICULATED)
I.- Natural languages:
1.- Reconstructed languages. nobody knows how it was! hypotetical rebuilded. all the "protos": proto-indoeuropean, proto-afroasiatic, proto-sinaic, etc
2.- "dead languages" (without native speakers)
a.- with some modern use (liturgical, source of neologism, some modern literature, etc). example: sanskrit, classical chinese, classical arabic, ancient greek, latin, and some others.
b.-without modern use: phrygian, Etruscan, etc
3.-modern languages (with native speakers)
a.- written languages.
b.- no written languages.
II.- Artificial language.
1.- engineered language. example: lojban, etc. they could be, sometimes, linked with auxiliaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_language
2.- auxiliary languages: that pretends to be a real medium of communication among humans, specially in international contexts: esperanto, volapuk, glossa, etc
3.- artistic languages: only created for aesthetics purpose. to have fun: tolkien's and star trek languages, etc.
SECOND CATEGORY: NO LINGUISTICS (NOT ARTICULATED)
all the sign languages, deaf-mutes language, braille, etc.
_____________________________________________________
except better approach
L.C
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Isn't that what we're doing? Didn't you just comment in a public discussion suggesting that we have a public discussion? :)
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) hett schreven:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Also, there must be an oversight process so that if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
Isn't that what we're doing? Didn't you just comment in a public discussion suggesting that we have a public discussion? :)
I guess, the answer will be 'no'. We are discussing, but if the subcommittee insists on its viewpoints, there is no way to do anything about this for people with other viewpoints. I think Mark thought of something like an official supervising institution, where at the end of the discussion this institution says "The subcommittee was right" or "The subcommittee was not right". And that decision would be binding.
At the moment we are just argueing and argueing and Gerard saying "You don't understand the world!" and this will last til the end of days if nobody gets tired of it before ;-) (Gerard won't, I guess ;-) )
Marcus Buck
Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I think Mark thought of something like an official supervising institution, where at the end of the discussion this institution says "The subcommittee was right" or "The subcommittee was not right". And that decision would be binding.
The language subcommittee operates with community input and board oversight. I'd be very wary of adding more bureaucracy. What if you disagree with this Language Subcommittee Oversight Committee? You said their decisions are binding, so does nobody oversee the overseers? My suggestion is that those people who would form the proposed oversight committee simply join the language subcommittee to directly represent their viewpoints.
Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
We are discussing, but if the subcommittee insists on its viewpoints, there is no way to do anything about this for people with other viewpoints. [...] At the moment we are just argueing and argueing and Gerard saying "You don't understand the world!" and this will last til the end of days if nobody gets tired of it before ;-) (Gerard won't, I guess ;-) )
Gerard does not represent the language subcommittee (nor do I); the subcommittee has not said a single word in this whole discussion. Nobody in this discussion has a special veto or vote.
We are having a discussion between many members of the Wikimedia community. Once this community discussion reaches a consensus, we can submit the decision to the language subcommittee for their discussion/amendments/approval (or to the Board directly for appeal).
Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
"Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the hands of the developers.
By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my proposal on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages. The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project activity. Criteria like
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My" rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly created to rule out the unwanted languages) them. Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture" like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and to dispute about my proposal ;-)
Marcus Buck
Hoi, You are wrong. The policy has the approval of the board. All the languages that we think should be approved are approved by the board. We suggest that a project can be approved and when we do not hear anything to the contrary it is approved after a week. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. "Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the hands of the developers.
By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my proposal on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages. The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project activity. Criteria like
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
schools or universities. make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My" rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly created to rule out the unwanted languages) them. Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture" like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and to dispute about my proposal ;-)
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just because the board approves a policy doesn't make it the right thing to do. Questions have been raised about the suitability of the policy, and saying "The board approved it" isn't an argument.
If the community finds a new policy needs to be written, the board can approve that if need be. Otherwise, it would appear you're trying to make this policy set in stone indefinitely, which is in no one's best interest in the long run.
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong. The policy has the approval of the board. All the languages that we think should be approved are approved by the board. We suggest that a project can be approved and when we do not hear anything to the contrary it is approved after a week. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. "Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the hands of the developers.
By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my proposal on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages. The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project activity. Criteria like
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
schools or universities. make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My" rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly created to rule out the unwanted languages) them. Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture" like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and to dispute about my proposal ;-)
Marcus Buck
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
to Marcus Buck:
i am very interested in merging my proposal with the yours.
i think is possible to work in it
Crazy Lover.
<<<<<<<<<<<<< Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote: Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
"Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the hands of the developers.
By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my proposal on . The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project activity. Criteria like
- New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
- The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My" rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly created to rule out the unwanted languages) them. Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture" like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and to dispute about my proposal ;-)
Marcus Buck
>>>>>>
--------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org