The ISO code - 3 is remained, please review carefully the draft. but the ISO-3 can also make mistake, Europanto, a joke language, has its own code:
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=eur
And about the localization, if we read the manual.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#L...
we realize that for the first project only we need the 500 most used mediawiki messages, i think it is a reasonable midpoint between total and null localization. the localization requirement could return.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#L...
c.m.l.
<<<<<
----- Original Message ---- From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language proposal policy
Hoi, The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project that was closed with prejudice.
The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then 50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality and quantity.
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised. The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60 days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this situation.
This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the implementation of the current policies.
The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would characterise it. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover < always_yours.forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org