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

[Pharos]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should drop the "computer-world-based" criteria like the ISO-code
>  and introduce more "real-life" criteria when accepting a new language ("new"
>  even if ancient):
>  *The language is taught at a university
>  *There is a journal or newspaper in or about that language
>  *20 or more speakers or scholars (with a certificate or some prove that they
>  can at least write in that language) endorse the project

I would support loosening of "computer-world-based" criteria; all we
should really need to do is demonstrate that modern use of the
languages is supported by -scholars- of the "historical" language or
notable -institutions- (like the Vatican for Latin).

But I understand the reason why the subcommittee likes
"computer-world-based" criteria (it spares them a huge amount of
pointless research and arguments), and so I've proposed the "Can
someone write an FA on the language's modern literature?" criterion as
a useful surrogate for the types of criteria you suggest.

Thanks,
Pharos

>  2008/4/2, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>:
>
>
> >
>  > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > >  > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
>  > >  >  <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  >  > Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > >  As long as there is
>  > >  >  >  >  a notable -contemporary- literature, vocabulary problems will
>  > be
>  > >  >  >  >  minimal.
>  > >  >  >  >
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  >  What is "notable"?
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  Notable enough to have a Featured Article about [[Modern Latin
>  > >  >  literature]] or [[Modern Coptic literature]] on English Wikipedia or
>  > >  >  another major-language Wikipedia.
>  > >
>  > >  I think this proposed criteria is too subjective and naive. Specially
>  > >  regarding to the fact English Wikipedia is not always good at
>  > >  humanities, in particular non European literatures.  Having a FA may
>  > >  too be occasionally I'm afraid.
>  > >
>  > >  But I like the idea of  "notable authors". They are notable since they
>  > >  have a decent size of readership. It means their writings are read and
>  > >  surrounded by the reader community which the language in question is
>  > >  actively, at least, read and have a possibility to be written again.
>  > >  And even if we still use Wikipedia again, "having an article of that
>  > >  author" is a less opportunity driven criteria, I think.
>  >
>  >
>  > Of course it would be a powerful incentive to develop some of those
>  > non-European literature articles.  And one that could probably be met
>  > by a dedicated person or small group with a medium effort.
>  >
>  > But actually having an FA wouldn't be so important as demonstrating
>  > that such an FA is possible.  Really, it's an idea of making an outlet
>  > where the notableness of the subject would be absolutely demonstrable.
>  >
>  > "Notable authors" is another idea that could certainly work, though
>  > this might be complicated a bit by some authors being notable for work
>  > in more than one language, and that some borderline languages might
>  > have notable contemporary literatures, without many notable individual
>  > authors.  Still, it's a concept that could help a lot.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Pharos
>  >
>  >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  Ziko van Dijk
>  Roomberg 30
>  NL-7064 BN Silvolde
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
> foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>