Hoi, It is not a double standard as the two things are not comparable. From the start we have been clear that we will look at an individual requests and work towards a conclusion based on what is on offer. An extinct language is decidedly different and it is not as much in the interest of the WMF to have wikipedias in such languages.
In this double standards are good. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/11/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That seems to be a double standard.
On 11/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When a living language creates new concepts it is completely different
from
the creation of extinct languages. I am not bothered by for instance Cherokee finding a need for new vocabulary. I am bothered by this same
need
for extinct languages. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/11/07, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
However, there are many cases on communities can't avoid that
"original
research". Many American languages (Quechua, Náhuatl, Cherokee)
haven't
words for "edit", "talk page" or "internet", then is necessary find
the
form of say such concepts. One way to solve it is paraphrasis and another
way
is the borrowing of a word of English or Spanish and adapt it to
phonetics of
the language. No matter the way used, the community of Wikipedians had made original research.
Bye.
2007/7/5, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, In the language committee we are not really happy with artificial languages or with languages long dead that are given a new lease of life
because
"we
can". In dead languages you have to do original research in order to
be
able to name the concepts that are modern and foreign to that language as
we
know it. Wikipedia is not about original research and you have to create
new
words and in the process change the language in order to write an encyclopaedia that is to be used in this day and age. Thanks, Gerard
On 7/5/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
Seriously, how would you manage? Do we call up the mobs to
scream
and
swear
as we did before, or do we nominate 7 Valencian and 7 Catalan
Knights
and
make it a Royal Tournament? That's all the choice you're given,
you
know?
You EITHER choose an external reference OR choose yourself.
If you're deferring to an external authority to avoid conflict, or
to
reduce workload, then that's fine. Just don't say you're doing it
because
you want to follow the "no original research" policy. Most
Wikipedia
policies are common sense. NOR is probably the only one which
would be
disasterous if it were generalised to life outside Wikipedia.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Nunca pensé que justo este invierno sería el más frío que he visto
pasar:
Yo no sirvo paramar" _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l