On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella(a)yahoo.it> wrote:
Mark, are you able to read English? Where did I or Gerard write that we
restrict languages to ISO 639-3 codes? If any we talk about ISO 639-3
and to add specifiers to it to get a proper code for officially not
existing languages.
Well, that's basically what I said in my e-mail. Gerard wrote that we should
follow the standard, etc., etc., and you wrote something about making codes
up.
Did I ever advocate that we just make codes up? Unless you think that using
6-letter codes (macro code plus custom identifier, viz fiu-vro, bat-smg,
roa-rup, map-bms, etc.) is "making codes up", which from what you said in
most of this e-mail doesn't follow your opinion.
You should know very well what it means when you need to proof that a
language exists ... or am I wrong and everything in
the last year was
always all to obvious and went smoothly?
I didn't need to prove anything to anyone. The fact that it has its own ISO
639-2 code speaks for itself. That it is written in that script in that
region is a fact, not disputed. What /is/ disputed is whether or not it is
"offensive", or whether it should be allowed to exist given there are not
native speakers working on it. If this is how well-informed you are on this
extremely controversial issue, you need to do some studying before you vote
to make a decision.
You should not doubt about someon trying to be objective. Objectivity
can be preserved only by facts on the ground - not by:
I am favourable
or against because I think this or that ...
Humans are subjective by nature. We can be more objective or less objective,
but it is impossible for us to be entirely objective.
Multilingual mediawiki is not all too far away ... and it can, if we
work out a good strategy, be the solution for many
language problems.
Why? Well, imagine that there is that macro language or that language
that has other languages included, but that up to now don't have an own
code .... well: they can co-operate on one wiki - we are about
languages, right? so why would we try to separate the macro language to
many small wikipedias? Does it make sense? From a time and
No, it makes little sense. Our current usage of macro codes does not agree
to such a handling.
I think you misunderstand the term "macro-language". It refers to a code for
a "language" that is really more of a language family. "macro codes"
also
include codes for entire language families, such as BAT, FIU, and MAP.
administration point of view there is little sense in doubling the
efforts ... Imagine to have one admin per locale that
belongs to the
macro language .... that would mean the clean up work with vandals would
not depend on one person only. Certain kinds of contents could be
created contemporarily for all of the languages/dialects .... it would
shift all of them to another level.
It really only works for special cases. Certain close dialects of Kurdish,
maybe some of the Italian minority languages, Dutch Low Saxon (many
dialects, no single standard), Norman... But currently they are already
cooperating in single Wikipedias. It won't work for more different cases,
such as Samogitian/Latgalian (share the same macro code) or Võro and
Karelian (again, share the same macro code), because editors will not
understand each other.
If the committee's official opinion is that we should try to have
"cooperation" in a single Wiki between certain mutually unintelligible
varieties, then WM has reached a new low when it comes to language policy.
And now please come back on earth among living beings ... and consider
this with a logical mindset and not only "they
are this or that ...." we
are not this or that, we have our experiences and these are at disposal
of all by trying to make the creation of new wikipedias as npov as
possible.
Yes, but what makes you special? Why should you get to have a microcommunity
that is more important than the existing community? Why are your opinions
more valued than ours? You also have to consider that simply *moving* a new
Wiki right on top of an existing Wiki (as you are apparently planning for
the Belarusan case, according to Timichal) is going to cause huge issues. A
slow phasing-out, replacement of articles individually or by bots makes
much, much more sense.
Just saw your latest mail: there were no requirements and restrictions
published by us up to now ... well, I'd know that
really ... clouds?
Mentioned on Incubator, supported by Timichal on IRC...
Mark
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.