Scríobh Jack & Naree:
Have you seen the "Scot's English" one?
Do you not call that
Balkanisation?
If you're talking about sco.wikipedia - they don't even claim to be an
English dialect. And to be honest, the language on sco is about as similar
to the language on en, that ga is to gd.
I write all my articles in Australian English, but I think that your
proposal is just daft. Honestly ;-). Reading the odd Americanised word
doesn't fill me with seething rage, just like reading the odd Australianised
word hopefully doesn't fill my American brothers with murderous hatred.
Sláinte,
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: [work] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 32
Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikipedia-l-owner(a)Wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
2. Re: Wikipedia English English (Alphax)
3. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
4. Re: Wikipedia English English (Alphax)
5. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
6. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:23:07 +0100
From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <c822ae8d050919032327091418(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Yes, it was me, I did rant, I do apologise, but I'm just pissed off with
proper English being treated like this.
You have Wikipedia in Klingon, in tiny tribal languages, and now in Scots
(and I'm Scottish btw) - which is basically as similar to correct English
as
American-English is - at least I think most native
English-speakers can
probably read it.
"- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
useful insight into our language policy :-)"
Why not? Ok, I ranted, but this not an illegitimate point, why should we
(and I say that because you have a ".uk" address) be forced to accept
Americanisms?
If you're British, do think we should start changing our spellings to
American ones? Start changing our grammar too?
someone at Wikipedia ages ago wrote to me that he thought it was fine for
articles in the English section to remain in the dialect relevent to their
subject matter - he basically said, if it's about the UK it can be in
English, but everything else is to be in American-English, but called
English - and he said he was British!
I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
(because of the many differences in American-English and English usage),
and
English learners learning to spell incorrectly and
talk like Americans -
why
is it wrong to resist that?
On 19/09/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/09/05, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does your e-mail have a point?
I would guess this is the same person who ranted at the en: Help Desk
yesterday about the issue.
As this rant included (edited highlights) -
"It's bad enough that the British invention of HTML won't let you type
colour correctly in tags, without having the world's largest free
online dictionary purporting to display information in English, but in
fact displaying it in a dialect of English - we've got Wikipedia in
Scots, Wikipedia in Middle English, but when you click on Wikipedia
English, you get spelling errors, sloppy grammar and garbled syntax;
in short the American dialect of English, trying to hijack the term
English. ... I want Wikipedia "English" to be partitioned in to
"English" and "American". We can copy and paste and run spellcheck
to
iron out the mangled American illiteracy, no worries. ... It is a
scandal to actively promote the butchering of English..."
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:53:55 +0930
From: Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <432E91BB.5080301(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
(note: I've split this into paragraphs for readability)
Jack wrote:
I want American English to have a separate
Wikipedia from English
English - this would mean copying
I typed it in a hurry at the end of my shift with a view to
responding to any response, later.
I've placed a more detailed post on the helpdesk page. I think,
however, that it's apt that I should go into even more depth here.
I've asked about English on Wikipedia before and been told that they
think it's acceptable for English articles to be in a mish-mash of
dialects and spellings; but having seen the range of ludicrous
languages available - including variant forms of English: Scots
English and Middle English etc... I've now decided I must make a
request and campaign properly for American English to be given a
seperate Wikipedia language from (English) English.
I must remind viewers who are still with us that Balkanisation Is Evil.
It's simply infuriating and offensive for the
misspellings of a
dialect of English to take precedence over the standard language -
I'm sure Spanish, French and Portuguese speakers would feel
similarly; it's cultural imperialism.
If you have different forms of Chinese Wikipedia (I'm a graduate of
Jap & Chi so I'm aware of xyz); if you have Wikipedias for dialects
and older forms of English; if you Wikipedias for countries and
languages with far smaller populations, economic/political importance
and internet presences; then the English of the British Isles and
Commonwealth - the standard and original form of English - simply
*has* to be the only form of English that can use the term "English"
on Wikipedia.
Some might say that it is "British English", this term is fallacious
(even if you can find it in a dictionary) no English, British,
British Isles or even Commonwealth native understands or recognises
the term - it is both meaningless and fallacious: there are no
"British English" speakers in the world - there are English
(nationality) English (language) speakers, Welsh English speakers,
Scottish English speakers, Irish English speakers, Cornish English
speakers and so on...
Whereas the term "American English" is not.
When I go to Wikipedia English, and type a search for "colour" I
should not expect to be redirected to "color" which is a recent
spelling of a dialect of English that has arisen over the last couple
of centuries perhaps - it is simply *not* *English* it is
*American-English*. I'm more than happy for American-English speakers
to have an American-English wikipedia and have all their weird and
wonderful spellings and vocabulary - and it may well turn out to be
the biggest wiki; but I don't want to select Wikipedia English and
type in "Aubergine" and get "Eggplant"; "Nappy" and get
"Diaper"; or
"Tap" and get "Faucet", it's simply unacceptable, and against
the
spirit of multilingualism and accuracy that wikipedia is supposed to
strive for. Hence I want to campaign in all seriousness that The
English Wikipedia is duplicated, and one is called American-English,
the other remaining English, and the task of correcting spelling,
vocab and grammar can begin.
I agree completely. Furthurmore, I feel that we shall need an Australian
English Wikipedia to handle the many words in Australian English which
differ from English English (and possibly Queensland English, New South
Wales English, et. al), a South African English Wikipedia to accomodate
the heavy use of Afrikaans, a New Zealand English Wikipedia to account
for the lack of vowels, a Canadian English Wikipedia to account for the
number of French words, a Canadian French Wikipedia to complement it,
and a Singlish Wikipedia because it has a funny name.
Here's a far better idea: Let's go back to Proto-Indo-European. Imagine
the amount of server space we could save!
Conversely, imagine a Beowulf cluster of English Wikipedias!
The Campaign for an English Wikipedia is not
about Britain (the
fourth largest economy in the world, a population of about 60m, 55%
of whom are online), it's also about a whole host of other countries
and regions (over a billion people) that do not use American-English,
but use English instead as a lingua franca (many with complete
fluency):
<snip overly long list>
> The term Commonwealth English is therefore also apt, but
American-English
has no right
to usurp the title English, from English! Wikipedia should
reflect this.
I find your theories interesting/intriguing and wish to subscribe to
your newsletter/journal.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:28:49 +0100
From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: palnatoke(a)gmail.com, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <c822ae8d05091903286779959(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 19/09/05, Ole Andersen <palnatoke(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/09/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would guess this is the same person who ranted
at the en: Help Desk
yesterday about the issue.
As this rant included (edited highlights) -
...
I want Wikipedia "English" to be
partitioned in to
"English" and "American".
It could be done, of course. We could also have Australian, Indian and
South African English. If we wanted to do so, that is.
I don't think there is significant difference - I think it's really a
split
between "Commonwealth English" and
"American English".
The cultural ties - even down to soap operas on telly mean that Aussies
and
Pommes and South Africans have much more affinity and
familiarity with
each
other, and this also extends to language.
When it comes to Americans, however, there really is a gulf of
(mis)understanding (and misspelling).
But I think you miss the point in that - I'm not talking about making a
"British English" wikipedia (In fact I don't believe the £British English£
article should exist, becuase the term does not make any sense outside
America) - I want the English Wikipedia to be reclaimed by English or
Commonwealth English speakers, and the Americans given their own "/am-en"
American-English wikipedia.
--
http://palnatoke.org * Ole Andersen, Copenhagen,
DK
CV:
http://palnatoke.org/CV.doc
ICQ: 86989486 phone: +45 22 34 72 92
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:59:12 +0930
From: Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <432E92F8.2060609(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Jack & Naree wrote:
> Yes, it was me, I did rant, I do apologise, but I'm just pissed off with
> proper English being treated like this.
>
> You have Wikipedia in Klingon, in tiny tribal languages, and now in
Scots
> (and I'm Scottish btw) - which is basically
as similar to correct
English as
American-English is - at least I think most native English-speakers can
probably read it.
Actually, we don't have a Wikipedia in Klingon. It's a Wikicity, which
is hosted by Wikia, *not* the Wikimedia Foundation.
BTW, have you considered contributing to sco.wikipedia?
> "- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
> useful insight into our language policy :-)"
> Why not? Ok, I ranted, but this not an illegitimate point, why should
we
(and I say
that because you have a ".uk" address) be forced to accept
Americanisms?
Really? I thought it was
en.wikipedia.org...
> If you're British, do think we should start changing our spellings to
> American ones? Start changing our grammar too?
> someone at Wikipedia ages ago wrote to me that he thought it was fine
for
> articles in the English section to remain in the
dialect relevent to
their
subject matter
- he basically said, if it's about the UK it can be in
English, but everything else is to be in American-English, but called
English - and he said he was British!
Actually, the policy is (or at least was):
* If subject of article is British (or other Commonwealth
English)-related, use Commonwealth English.
* If subject of article is USian, use US English
* If neither applies, majority style (in case both are used) of original
author is preferred.
> I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
> (because of the many differences in American-English and English usage),
and
>
English learners learning to spell incorrectly and
talk like Americans -
why
is it wrong to
resist that?
You are welcome to create your own fork of the site in Commonwealth
English, provided you comply with the GFDL.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:39:13 +0100
From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <c822ae8d05091903397112343(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cool, mockery is for trolls.
This is not about Balkanisation, it's about separating American-English
from English.
But come to think of it - yes, have one for every variation you like, and
let natural selection take care of the rest. Just as long as English is
English, and not American.
Have you seen the "Scot's English" one? Do you not call that
Balkanisation?
If you want to have a legitimate criteria for a
language, a different
orthography has got to be a clear one.
In English there are two - American and non-American.
Orthography is the main issue, meaning is another.
If you want to go academic - which is surely the best way to back this
whole argument up, you should scan this (ironically american) leading
insitute of linguistic research:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng
On 19/09/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (note: I've split this into paragraphs for readability)
>
> Jack wrote:
> > I want American English to have a separate Wikipedia from English
> > English - this would mean copying
> >
> > I typed it in a hurry at the end of my shift with a view to
> > responding to any response, later.
> >
> > I've placed a more detailed post on the helpdesk page. I think,
> > however, that it's apt that I should go into even more depth here.
> >
> > I've asked about English on Wikipedia before and been told that they
> > think it's acceptable for English articles to be in a mish-mash of
> > dialects and spellings; but having seen the range of ludicrous
> > languages available - including variant forms of English: Scots
> > English and Middle English etc... I've now decided I must make a
> > request and campaign properly for American English to be given a
> > seperate Wikipedia language from (English) English.
> >
>
> I must remind viewers who are still with us that Balkanisation Is Evil.
>
> > It's simply infuriating and offensive for the misspellings of a
> > dialect of English to take precedence over the standard language -
> > I'm sure Spanish, French and Portuguese speakers would feel
> > similarly; it's cultural imperialism.
> >
> > If you have different forms of Chinese Wikipedia (I'm a graduate of
> > Jap & Chi so I'm aware of xyz); if you have Wikipedias for dialects
> > and older forms of English; if you Wikipedias for countries and
> > languages with far smaller populations, economic/political importance
> > and internet presences; then the English of the British Isles and
> > Commonwealth - the standard and original form of English - simply
> > *has* to be the only form of English that can use the term "English"
> > on Wikipedia.
> >
> > Some might say that it is "British English", this term is fallacious
> > (even if you can find it in a dictionary) no English, British,
> > British Isles or even Commonwealth native understands or recognises
> > the term - it is both meaningless and fallacious: there are no
> > "British English" speakers in the world - there are English
> > (nationality) English (language) speakers, Welsh English speakers,
> > Scottish English speakers, Irish English speakers, Cornish English
> > speakers and so on...
> >
> > Whereas the term "American English" is not.
> >
> > When I go to Wikipedia English, and type a search for "colour" I
> > should not expect to be redirected to "color" which is a recent
> > spelling of a dialect of English that has arisen over the last couple
> > of centuries perhaps - it is simply *not* *English* it is
> > *American-English*. I'm more than happy for American-English speakers
> > to have an American-English wikipedia and have all their weird and
> > wonderful spellings and vocabulary - and it may well turn out to be
> > the biggest wiki; but I don't want to select Wikipedia English and
> > type in "Aubergine" and get "Eggplant"; "Nappy"
and get "Diaper"; or
> > "Tap" and get "Faucet", it's simply unacceptable, and
against the
> > spirit of multilingualism and accuracy that wikipedia is supposed to
> > strive for. Hence I want to campaign in all seriousness that The
> > English Wikipedia is duplicated, and one is called American-English,
> > the other remaining English, and the task of correcting spelling,
> > vocab and grammar can begin.
> >
>
> I agree completely. Furthurmore, I feel that we shall need an Australian
> English Wikipedia to handle the many words in Australian English which
> differ from English English (and possibly Queensland English, New South
> Wales English, et. al), a South African English Wikipedia to accomodate
> the heavy use of Afrikaans, a New Zealand English Wikipedia to account
> for the lack of vowels, a Canadian English Wikipedia to account for the
> number of French words, a Canadian French Wikipedia to complement it,
> and a Singlish Wikipedia because it has a funny name.
>
> Here's a far better idea: Let's go back to Proto-Indo-European. Imagine
> the amount of server space we could save!
>
> Conversely, imagine a Beowulf cluster of English Wikipedias!
>
> > The Campaign for an English Wikipedia is not about Britain (the
> > fourth largest economy in the world, a population of about 60m, 55%
> > of whom are online), it's also about a whole host of other countries
> > and regions (over a billion people) that do not use American-English,
> > but use English instead as a lingua franca (many with complete
> > fluency):
> >
> <snip overly long list>
> > The term Commonwealth English is therefore also apt, but
> American-English
> > has no right to usurp the title English, from English! Wikipedia
should
reflect this.
I find your theories interesting/intriguing and wish to subscribe to
your newsletter/journal.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:44:11 +0100
From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <c822ae8d0509190344505522cf(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Actually, we don't have a Wikipedia in Klingon.
that's a surprise
BTW, have you considered contributing to sco.wikipedia?
no
Really? I thought it was
en.wikipedia.org...
- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
useful insight into our language policy :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
- Show quoted text -
my turn to do a "..."
Actually, the policy is (or at least was):
* If subject of article is British (or other Commonwealth
English)-related, use Commonwealth English.
* If subject of article is USian, use US English
* If neither applies, majority style (in case both are used) of original
author is preferred.
And what of "Aubergines" and "Eggplants"? "Colour" and
"Color"
> I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
> > (because of the many differences in American-English and English
usage),
> and
> > English learners learning to spell incorrectly and talk like
Americans -
why
is it wrong to resist that?
You are welcome to create your own fork of the site in Commonwealth
English, provided you comply with the GFDL.
Happy to do so, but what I really want is a fork called
"American-English".
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 32
*******************************************