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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That seems to be a double standard.
On 11/07/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
> >
> > 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l