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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l