[Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This sounds reasonable. However the beauty of the current system is its
simplicity and the way in which things can be considered "obvious". The
beauty is that we use an external authority that does its best to define
languages. The way they categorise languages is not one that I think is
absolutely great. This is why Latin is deemed an "ancient" language.

Then again I also think that the current policy is deliberately ambiguous in
the way it expresses opinions about constructed languages. The notion that
native speakers are needed is a complete road block even when it is said
that a level of importance is to be determined. Any and all constructive
suggestions have been stonewalled so far.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think it depends on the community.
> >
> >  For example, in the case of Coptic, it is very much alive in certain
> >  senses of the word - it is a thriving liturgical language, and it
> >  represents their unique cultural heritage.
> >
> >  In the case of the Massachusett-Narragansett language, there is a
> >  community actively working at reviving it as a living language in some
> >  form.
> >
> >  In the case of, say, Old English, however, for which we already have a
> >  Wikipedia, there is little interest in language revival, and most
> >  people interested in the language are hobbyists.
> >
> >  I would thus personally recommend approval of Coptic and
> >  Massachusett-Narragansett if they had enough "fluent speaker"
> >  supporters, but against the approval of something analagous to Old
> >  English.
> >
> >  Mark
>
> Yes, I think the exact rule we should propose is: Does this language
> have a contemporary literature?  Are new articles or books still be
> written in it?
>
> And is the contemporary literature respected by -scholars- of the
> "historical" language (i.e. not something merely pursued by Sumerian
> hobbyists)?
>
> Because if there is a contemporary literature, then the language is
> not truly extinct in the written form.
>
> When we "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being", we
> must recognize the diversity of human expression, and that a -full-
> accounting of the vehicles of intellectual discourse must include all
> languages that have contemporary literatures, whether they havve
> native speakers or not.
>
> Pharos
>
> >  On 29/03/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  > Hello,
> >  >
> >  >  The language subcommittee only allows languages that have a living
> >  >  native community (except Wikisource, due to its archivist nature).
> >  >  This is based on an interpretation of the Wikimedia Foundation
> mission
> >  >  to "provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being". Thus,
> >  >  the overriding purpose of allowing a wiki in a new language is to
> make
> >  >  it accessible to more human beings. If a language has no native
> users,
> >  >  allowing a wiki in that language does not fit our mission because it
> >  >  does not make that project accessible to more human beings. Instead,
> a
> >  >  wiki in their native languages should be requested if it doesn't
> >  >  already exist.
> >  >
> >  >  Typically, the users requesting a wiki in an extinct language don't
> >  >  want to provide educational material to more people at all, but only
> >  >  want to promote or revive the language. While these are noble goals,
> >  >  they are not those of the Wikimedia Foundation, so that a wiki
> should
> >  >  not be created simply to fulfill them.
> >  >
> >  >  But that is my opinion. What do you think; should wikis be allowed
> in
> >  >  every extinct language?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  --
> >  >  Yours cordially,
> >  >  Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
> >  >
> >  >  _______________________________________________
> >  >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>