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

[Mark Williamson]

Yes, but remember that IMHO stands for "in my HUMBLE opinion".

Mark

On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>