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

[Pharos]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

A featured article on a dialect is quite different from a featured
article on a dialect's literature.  For example, my native dialect is
[[New York dialect]], also known as "Brooklynese".  This dialect is
spoken by millions of people in the New York metropolitan area.  And,
although the dialect appears sometimes in fiction (usually spoken by
gangsters!) to add "local color", it is clearly not a standard
literary language of any kind.  [[New York dialect literature]] would
not be notable.

I don't know the case with "Westfries"; maybe it is similar, maybe it
is different.

Anyway, my proposal is directly about "historical" languages that
still have active literatures; the scope is important because this is
a category that the ISO chooses not to assess.

OK, so the only remaining issue then, appears to be the metadata codes.

Let me just say that I think the metadata issue should be distinctly
secondary, and that our -priority- should be recognizing the full
diversity of contemporary human expression.  We can file it under our
own code for the time being, and we could easily move it if the ISO
ever chooses to change their procedures on this, in say 10 years.

Thanks,
Pharos

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