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

[Mark Williamson]

Seconded.

On 02/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> About Wikipedias of weak languages: There is a West Flemish and a Volapük
>  way. The West Flemish have a small, but decent Wikipedia, mostly with
>  (though often short) articles about the region and regional culture. The
>  Volapük Wikipedia is a phantom, consisting for 99% of geographical bot
>  genereated stubs.
>  I would like to see a rule that allows West Flemish Wikipedias, but not
>  Volapük Wikipedias...
>
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>  2008/4/2, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>:
>  >
>
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > >  >  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.
>  > >
>  > >  But just saying that a person "can" do something doesn't mean that the
>  > >  person "will" do it. Volunteers work on what they want to work on, and
>  > >  if nobody wants to write a particular article or class of article, it
>  > >  will never get written.
>  > >
>  > >  Through Wikipedia policy, if the article exists then the topic must be
>  > >  notable. However if the article doesn't exist, that doesnt mean that
>  > >  the topic is non-notable. What this is, is a test with potential false
>  > >  negatives.
>  >
>  > What I'm saying is, we have to allow an outlet for people proposing a
>  > new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language to prove their case.
>  >   Right now, the subcommittee tells them, "Don't bother me kid, go to
>  > the International Organization for Standardization", which is an
>  > impossible task, because the ISO is a big bureaucracy that just
>  > doesn't deal with categorizing "historical" languages that are still
>  > alive in a written form.
>  >
>  > Writing an FA would not be easy, but it is a task that the proposers
>  > of a new language Wikipedia in a "historical" language could be
>  > reasonably expected to be able to accomplish to prove their case (or
>  > not).  The time-scale for writing an FA would typically be a few
>  > months, which is quite comparable to the time-scale of the -vastly
>  > unproductive- back-and-forth arguments that characterize a typical
>  > request to the subcommittee of this type.
>  >
>  >
>  > 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
>