In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections, it can be set up".
I'm interested in how the standards differ for "unnatural languages", and/or what the line of demarcation is (or are there several). I'm also interested in what happens if there *is* an objection to a particular language. As an Esperantist (but not denaska) I always see a red flag in the phrase "natural languages", since subjectively to me Esperanto is quite as natural as my original native langauge, English, and much more natural than my attempts at, say, Dutch. But the case I have in mind is Chinook Jargon. I've been talking up the idea of a Chinuk Wawa Wikipedia on CJ mailing lists, and there is some favorable response. But is it a "natural language"? (And if not, what hoops does it have to jump through to get a wiki?) It started out, after all, as sort of the Esperanto of the Northwest Coast. Now it survives in actual spoken use mainly on the Grand Ronde Reservation in Oregon, though there are hundreds of people around the world who use it to some extent in writing (including on the web), most of whom use a form closer to the original pidgin than to the creole now spoken at GR; but all these people consider themselves in some sense members of a single language community.
Haruo
On 7/7/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections, it can be set up".
I wrote it like that because I don't think there is consensus on the question of whether Wikimedia should have any more constructed or fictional languages.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Non-natural http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Tolkien_languages http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages_equal_rights
The policy itself isn't exactly agreed on, but nothing better has yet replaced it: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
There are slightly different policies for Wikinews (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition), and new projects (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy), and the rules for Wikisource are still under discussion (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Language_domain_requests)
Angela
Angela wrote:
On 7/7/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections, it can be set up".
I wrote it like that because I don't think there is consensus on the question of whether Wikimedia should have any more constructed or fictional languages.
As far as I'm concerned, Lojban and Gothic are in the same category, they both have a very small speaker population with 100% bilingualism, and Esperanto and English are in the same category, they both have a speaker population larger than the native language of many people. I'd like to see a focus on effective information transfer rather than language preservation, restoration and construction, but I think I'm fighting a losing battle.
-- Tim Starling
You're not realising the meaning of "natural language" here. It doesn't mean a language that is "natural", but rather a language that was formed by natural processes rather than having been intentionally conceived.
"Natural language" includes pidgins, creoles, most jargons, mixed languages, and the like as they weren't intentionally constructed -- creolisation and related processes are natural processes, whereas an opthamologist writing a book trying to teach a language that until then hadn't existed is not a natural process.
I have some problems with the creation of a Chinook Wawa Wikipedia. Nowadays, the creation of a Wikipedia generally requires the demonstration that it will actually be active. I encourage you and other Chinook Wawa speakers and enthusiasts to set up a "test Wikipedia" at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/wawa/ on the model of the Scots, Cantonese, and other test Wikipedias.
You can also do the same for Ladino (I would recommend http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/lad/ ), and it would probably have a better chance of getting created sooner if you did.
Please note that, as noted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages , the current policy or lack thereof means that a new Wiki can be created at the whim of a developer. Thus, 5 supporters is not a hard and fast requirement. If you have 3 people, and the 3 of you build a test Wikipedia of a considerable size, it's quite possible that a Wikipedia could be created for you anyhow.
Mark
On 07/07/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections, it can be set up".
I'm interested in how the standards differ for "unnatural languages", and/or what the line of demarcation is (or are there several). I'm also interested in what happens if there *is* an objection to a particular language. As an Esperantist (but not denaska) I always see a red flag in the phrase "natural languages", since subjectively to me Esperanto is quite as natural as my original native langauge, English, and much more natural than my attempts at, say, Dutch. But the case I have in mind is Chinook Jargon. I've been talking up the idea of a Chinuk Wawa Wikipedia on CJ mailing lists, and there is some favorable response. But is it a "natural language"? (And if not, what hoops does it have to jump through to get a wiki?) It started out, after all, as sort of the Esperanto of the Northwest Coast. Now it survives in actual spoken use mainly on the Grand Ronde Reservation in Oregon, though there are hundreds of people around the world who use it to some extent in writing (including on the web), most of whom use a form closer to the original pidgin than to the creole now spoken at GR; but all these people consider themselves in some sense members of a single language community.
Haruo
Meet the Whole World Halfway — Learn and Use Esperanto! www.lernu.net Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Also, please note that a native of highly-competent fluent speaker should be around for any new Wikipedia.
Recent problems with adminship and earlier problems with various other things on the Irish Wikipedia arose due to the fact that one of the first members and the first administrator and then bureaucrat is not a fluent Irish speaker; other similar and related problems have arisen elsewhere (on mi: with Perl, on na: with Belgian Man, on sm: with Robin Patterson, etc).
Mark
On 07/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You're not realising the meaning of "natural language" here. It doesn't mean a language that is "natural", but rather a language that was formed by natural processes rather than having been intentionally conceived.
"Natural language" includes pidgins, creoles, most jargons, mixed languages, and the like as they weren't intentionally constructed -- creolisation and related processes are natural processes, whereas an opthamologist writing a book trying to teach a language that until then hadn't existed is not a natural process.
I have some problems with the creation of a Chinook Wawa Wikipedia. Nowadays, the creation of a Wikipedia generally requires the demonstration that it will actually be active. I encourage you and other Chinook Wawa speakers and enthusiasts to set up a "test Wikipedia" at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/wawa/ on the model of the Scots, Cantonese, and other test Wikipedias.
You can also do the same for Ladino (I would recommend http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/lad/ ), and it would probably have a better chance of getting created sooner if you did.
Please note that, as noted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages , the current policy or lack thereof means that a new Wiki can be created at the whim of a developer. Thus, 5 supporters is not a hard and fast requirement. If you have 3 people, and the 3 of you build a test Wikipedia of a considerable size, it's quite possible that a Wikipedia could be created for you anyhow.
Mark
On 07/07/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections, it can be set up".
I'm interested in how the standards differ for "unnatural languages", and/or what the line of demarcation is (or are there several). I'm also interested in what happens if there *is* an objection to a particular language. As an Esperantist (but not denaska) I always see a red flag in the phrase "natural languages", since subjectively to me Esperanto is quite as natural as my original native langauge, English, and much more natural than my attempts at, say, Dutch. But the case I have in mind is Chinook Jargon. I've been talking up the idea of a Chinuk Wawa Wikipedia on CJ mailing lists, and there is some favorable response. But is it a "natural language"? (And if not, what hoops does it have to jump through to get a wiki?) It started out, after all, as sort of the Esperanto of the Northwest Coast. Now it survives in actual spoken use mainly on the Grand Ronde Reservation in Oregon, though there are hundreds of people around the world who use it to some extent in writing (including on the web), most of whom use a form closer to the original pidgin than to the creole now spoken at GR; but all these people consider themselves in some sense members of a single language community.
Haruo
Meet the Whole World Halfway — Learn and Use Esperanto! www.lernu.net Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
2005/7/7, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
[...] You can also do the same for Ladino (I would recommend http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/lad/ ), and it would probably have a better chance of getting created sooner if you did.
Please note that, as noted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages , the current policy or lack thereof means that a new Wiki can be created at the whim of a developer. Thus, 5 supporters is not a hard and fast requirement. If you have 3 people, and the 3 of you build a test Wikipedia of a considerable size, it's quite possible that a Wikipedia could be created for you anyhow. [...]
Thanks Mark for your suggestion. I think it's a good one, except for the fact that if there is some interest right off and a hundred or so articles show up in a few days and then we go over to a Ladino sub-domain, what will happen with the submitted articles? Would the community be expected to transfer these one by one, or is there some bot written that can harvest the articles and transfer them to the new space?
With regards, Jay B.
Hi Jay,
This is highly unlikely. Despite the popularity of past test-wikipedias, they usually grow much slower than that.
If it appears that they're going to get so big so fast, I think the creation of a Wikipedia for them might be expidited to prevent such a thing from happening.
In the event that a test Wikipedia does get to be that huge, it is the responsibility primarily of the contributors to transfer all articles. However, I think somebody would help.
Mark
On 08/07/05, ilooy ilooy.gaon@gmail.com wrote:
2005/7/7, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
[...] You can also do the same for Ladino (I would recommend http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/lad/ ), and it would probably have a better chance of getting created sooner if you did.
Please note that, as noted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages , the current policy or lack thereof means that a new Wiki can be created at the whim of a developer. Thus, 5 supporters is not a hard and fast requirement. If you have 3 people, and the 3 of you build a test Wikipedia of a considerable size, it's quite possible that a Wikipedia could be created for you anyhow. [...]
Thanks Mark for your suggestion. I think it's a good one, except for the fact that if there is some interest right off and a hundred or so articles show up in a few days and then we go over to a Ladino sub-domain, what will happen with the submitted articles? Would the community be expected to transfer these one by one, or is there some bot written that can harvest the articles and transfer them to the new space?
With regards, Jay B.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org