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

[Pharos]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

In terms of "obviousness" and simplicity, one guidepost I've suggested
is that the language demonstrates the notability of its contemporary
literature, by having a Featured Article, on e.g. [[Modern Latin
literature]], on the English Wikipedia or another major-language
Wikipedia.

This type of guidepost might make things easier and more "obvious" for
the Language subcommittee.

Thanks,
Pharos

>  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
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>