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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Now who is trolling?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

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