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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are wrong when you think that we do not know of the process of getting
recognition in the ISO or IANA standards. We have been instrumental in
getting linguistic entities considered. This is something that we do when we
feel there is merit. The ISO may  be a big bureaucracy but it is interested
in learning from us.

Again, we can and we do get recognition for linguistic entities if there is
a need. We prefer not to, so the need must be convincing. It does not negate
any of the arguments however about allowing for Wikipedias for dead
languages. They are imho not a good thing to have.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>