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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If I were not to believe in the usefulness of the Wiki model, I would not
invest so much in it. There is however a limit to its usefulness. For one
when we publish a text, we indicate in the meta data for that text that it
is in a specific linguistic entity. This list is based on standards, these
standards are shared and as a consequence things are inferred from the
correct usage of these standards. It is perfectly possible to write a
featured article on "Westfries". Westfries is a dialect of the Dutch
language. Writing a fa about this does not make for a standard that is
recognised by others.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> >  Having a criterion that is dependent on the English language Wikipedia
> is
> >  not and cannot be seriously considered as a standard. What it considers
> note
> >  worthy is not necessarily relevant from a linguistic or otherwise point
> of
> >  view.
>
> Are you denying the usefulness of the wiki model?
>
> To become a Featured Article, a literature article would have to go
> through the very serious Featured Article Candidates Review.  This is
> the best process we have -anywhere- on Wikimedia to weed out fake and
> non-notable things.
>
> I'll tell you one thing, there was never a Featured Article on
> [[Siberian language literature]].
>
> This is just one way for the Languages subcommittee to farm out the
> research work, to let an established review process advise their
> opinion on these particular cases, and spare the subcommittee many
> pages of useless back-and-forth arguments and spurious "facts"
> supporting different sides.
>
> And it's about literary relevance, not linguistic relevance.
>
> Neither is there a reason to privilege English: an FA is any
> major-language Wikipedia would demonstrate the same point.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> >  On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> >  > <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > > Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > >  >  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.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >  English should not have a wiki? I don't think it's a very good
> >  > >  criteria if even our most prolific non-extinct language doesn't
> >  > >  qualify.
> >  >
> >  > I'm proposing a standard for languages that don't have native
> >  > speakers, which must be judged solely on the output of their written
> >  > literatures.
> >  >
> >  > This would not restrict Wikipedias for languages with native
> speakers.
> >  >
> >  > (Obviously [[Modern English literature]] is notable enough a subject
> >  > to be FA-worthy anyway, and it would hardly need to be demonstrated)
> >  >
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Pharos
> >  >
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >  > 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
>