[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Gerard Meijssen]

David Gerard schreef:
> On 21/11/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 11/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>> Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and
>> in some cases creating a written script.
>>     
>
>
> See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The
> reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on
> this list ad nauseam in the past.
>
>
> - d.
Hoi,
Defining what a language is, defining a script is a non trivial matter. 
When you want to get into these kinds of thing there is a space for it. 
There are people who dedicate their life to these kinds of thing. There 
are two types of people (and many classifications), there are those that 
do and there are those who don't.

Both for the defining what a language is and, for coming up for a 
script, you are in the wrong place when you want to do it in the 
Wikimedia Foundation. There are other organisations that deal with that. 
There are people in those organisations that are "approachable" that do 
not bite and who are happy when people show a "do and can" attitude.

When there is a need for doing original research to have a language or a 
dialect or an orthography or a script recognised or dismissed by 
Standard organisations, then the need for this within the Wikimedia 
Foundation is to have it done outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. 
Voting on "is this a language" is a bad idea. It just does not work. 
Demonstrating that there is a big corpus in what is supposed to be a 
language does work. This however has to be shown to relevant Standard 
organisations because that is what they are there for.\

The question is, do you want to go that extra mile ..

Thanks,
    GerardM