[Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
Pharos
pharosofalexandria at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 21:05:56 UTC 2008
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> New York has less of a "dialect" than what is known in linguistics as
> a regional variety. Dialects differ from each other more than New York
> English does from most other American English varieties.
I would say there's not a clearing dividing line, but anyway it's not
this particular case that matters.
Surely the general point stands, no? That a dialect or language can
be notable without having a notable modern written tradition. And
that this is a useful way of distinguishing "historical" languages
that merit a Wikipedia, and those that don't.
(I actually don't think we should be so strict on languages that -do
have- native speakers, though.)
Thanks,
Richard
> On 02/04/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list