[Foundation-l] Conlangs, ancient languages, non-active Wikipedias, non-written languages and priorities
Milos Rancic
millosh at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 06:36:37 UTC 2008
I don't think that Wikimedia should be a guardian of "purity" of
ancient languages.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Well we disagree rather strongly on this. A language is indeed more then a
> vocabulary. However, if a language does not have a particular word and you
> start introducing it because you feel this need, it would not reflect the
> language any more. It is akin to speak of love in Piedmontese; obviously
> they love but they express it in a distinctly different way.
>
> By introducing vocabulary in a language you prevent people to understand the
> finer points of that extinct language and you make it something else.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Something is a language even it has to use neologisms and it is a
> > "dead" language. While I definitely support low priority of
> > ancient/dead languages, I don't think that this argument about
> > neologisms is relevant. One language is something more than a
> > vocabulary.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > The starting premise is wrong. We have arguments why not to start
> > historic
> > > languages. When you write in a dead language you will invariably start
> > to
> > > used neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that
> > they
> > > originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language
> > as
> > > it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language.
> > >
> > > There are constructed languages like Lingua Franca Novo who are already
> > > working on their Wikipedia outside of the WMF. This project is of a
> > quality
> > > that we would be proud of if it were a WMF project of similar size. The
> > only
> > > reason why it is not accepted as far as I am concerned is politics; the
> > > widespread aversion of some against constructed languages. In contrast
> > to
> > > historic languages neologisms are fine in constructed languages.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Conlangs and ancient languages are usually treated similarly. The
> > > > issues which are related to them are, also, our relation to
> > > > non-written languages, as well as non-active Wikipedias (note that I
> > > > am not talking about other projects; treat the word "project" as a
> > > > synonym for the word "Wikipedia"). All of them don't have a clear
> > > > future at Wikimedia.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to reformulate those issues in relation to our
> > > > priorities. The main goal of WMF and Wikimedia community is to spread
> > > > free knowledge. According to that, we need to make our priorities and
> > > > to work according to them. It is, also, important to treat this issue
> > > > without personal (or whichever) POV, but as more neutral as it is
> > > > possible. We should, also, treat those issues not only
> > synchronically,
> > > > but with a clear vision of some very predictable parts of our future.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'll write about our priorities as I see them according to "some
> > > > very predictable parts of our future" as I see them.
> > > >
> > > > Before I start, I want to say my POV about all of the issues: (1) I
> > > > don't think that conlangs except Esperanto and a couple of specific
> > > > conlangs more are too useful. Besides that, I really don't like
> > > > wannabe-world languages based on a couple of Indo-European languages,
> > > > including Esperanto. (2) Artistic conlangs are, at my opinion, even
> > > > lower. (3) I am not interested in developing neo-classical languages.
> > > > (4) In this moment non-written languages are not a Wikimedia issue;
> > > > some other institutions should take care about such languages before
> > > > they become our issue. (5) I already said that if for some project
> > may
> > > > be reasonably said that it is not active ("reasonable" is a criteria
> > > > about we may talk...) -- then it should be locked, but unlocking
> > > > should be allowed if a new speaker of that language want to take care
> > > > about that project.
> > > >
> > > > But, let's see what do we have:
> > > >
> > > > 1. (Projects in) natural and living languages:
> > > > 1.1. The biggest encyclopedia in the history of humans: English
> > Wikipedia.
> > > > 1.2. Very soon, the second biggest encyclopedia in the history of
> > > > humans: German Wikipedias.
> > > > 1.3. Well developed projects which are at a good path to become the
> > > > biggest encyclopedias in the history of humans, too. Generally, those
> > > > are projects which have more than 50,000 articles or which will have
> > > > that number relatively soon.
> > > > 1.4. Emerging projects: active projects with, let's say at least 5000
> > > > articles and living communities.
> > > > 1.5. Projects which started to exist: projects with around 1000
> > > > articles at least and a a couple of active contributors.
> > > > 1.6. Not active projects which may become active: with less than
> > > > around 1000 articles and a couple of not so active contributors.
> > > > 1.7. Not active projects: with less than around 1000 and without
> > > > active contributors.
> > > > 1.8. Hundreds of living written languages which don't have a
> > Wikipedia.
> > > > 1.9. Thousands of living non-written languages which don't have a
> > > > Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > 2. (Projects in) conlangs:
> > > > 2.1. Two useful projects: Esperanto (the only relevant conglang
> > > > community) and Volapuk (similarity with English and a lot of data
> > > > added by one person).
> > > > 2.2. (Do we have any other non-artistic conlang?)
> > > > 2.3. A number of potentially useful conlangs which don't have a
> > > > Wikipedia because of various out-of-Wikimedia reasons, usually
> > > > copyright reasons. (Slovio is an example of such language; it may be
> > > > read by any educated person which native language is one of the
> > Slavic
> > > > languages.)
> > > > 2.4. All other non-artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project
> > > > because of the policies.
> > > > 2.5. All artistic conlangs which wouldn't get a project because of
> > the
> > > > policies.
> > > >
> > > > 3. (Projects in) ancient/dead languages:
> > > > 3.1. Actually, some of them are not dead (Latin, even a Church
> > > > Slavonic, but the later one doesn't have a project, Old Church
> > > > Slavonic has). Such are definitely useful: any educated Roman
> > Catholic
> > > > (in the Roman Catholic matters) should know Latin.
> > > > 3.2. Some of definitely dead languages, like Gothic, Anglo-Saxon...
> > > > 3.3. A number of them which don't have projects because of our
> > policies.
> > > >
> > > > And, I'll try to put them in one priority list, with explanations.
> > > >
> > > > 1) 1.1. English Wikipedia is definitely our first priority. This is
> > > > not because I like English, but because of the fact that it is a
> > > > lingua franca of the contemporary world. If you have some knowledge
> > > > written in English, you may easily have that knowledge in other
> > > > languages, too. However, this project may take care about itself.
> > > > 2) 1.2. German Wikipedia is at the same priority as the next group,
> > > > but it share one characteristics with English one: it may take care
> > > > about itself.
> > > > 3) 1.3. Well developed projects are, also, often a lingua franca of
> > > > some region, or even more widely. Their importance is similar to the
> > > > importance of English Wikipedia in that sense. Because of those
> > > > projects we need to have the Volunteer Council: to give them
> > > > possibility to take care about themselves.
> > > > 4) 1.4.-1.5. Emerging and starting projects are our next priority:
> > > > They need a lot of technical and other help to become a stable, well
> > > > developed projects. Their importance lays at the fact that a lot of
> > > > people are talking those languages.
> > > > 5) 1.6. Of course, our next priority should be Wikipedias which have
> > > > some activity. If we see that some people are interested in Wikipedia
> > > > in their language, we should encourage them to participate in the
> > > > project.
> > > > 6) 1.7. Not active projects are important, too. At some time someone
> > > > came to us and asked for the Wikipedia in their language. We should
> > > > try to find some people who are interested in writing project in that
> > > > language. But, it goes out of the scope of online community and it is
> > > > a matter of WMF and their contacts.
> > > > 7) 1.8. The same is for the written languages which don't have
> > > > projects. People who are speakers of some language and asks for the
> > > > project in their language are very important: it means that they
> > would
> > > > be maybe able to go into the more stable state in the near future. At
> > > > this point I really support Gerard's position that MediaWiki messages
> > > > should be translated: It doesn't just allow other speakers to read MW
> > > > messages, but it shows to us that a person is (or persons are) really
> > > > willing to create their project.
> > > > 8) 1.9. The last group, non-written languages, are, again, a matter
> > of
> > > > the WMF. It should be incorporated into the international efforts to
> > > > make written forms of non-written languages.
> > > > 9) 2.1.-3.1. Useful conlangs should be the next priority. At least,
> > > > some number of humans are able to communicate in those languages. And
> > > > we should allow them to write their encyclopedias. However, in this
> > > > category are only *really* useful conglangs, like Esperanto is.
> > > > However, again, Volapuk became a useful one, too -- because of its
> > > > similarity with English and a work of one person. This is the
> > category
> > > > for useful ancient/dead languages, too, like Latin is. Also, if
> > > > Klingon (or whatever artistic language) becomes enough widespread to
> > > > be useful -- it should go into this category.
> > > > 10) 3.2.-3.3. Definitely dead languages are the next. If we have
> > > > resources, and there are people who are willing to do some
> > > > neo-classical work -- it may be useful (somehow).
> > > > 11) 2.2.-2.4. Non-artistic conlangs are the next. There are a lot of
> > > > them; some may be useful for scientific purposes or even for
> > > > communication ;)
> > > > 12) 2.5. Then, here are artistic conlangs, too. If someone wants to
> > > > enjoy while making an encyclopedia in an artistic language and we
> > have
> > > > resources -- why not to allow that. Maybe such languages would be
> > used
> > > > for real communication sometime in the future.
> > > > * 2.3. (and similar) Of course, the only type of conlangs (artistic
> > > > or not) which are out of the scope of our interests are copyrighted
> > > > languages.
> > > >
> > > > And the point is the question: Where are we now? Hm. While we are
> > > > doing partially other tasks, the answer is simple: We are now in the
> > > > process of making Volunteer council, which means that we are
> > finishing
> > > > the third global task out of 12.
> > > >
> > > > And, what to do? Of course, we should analyze our possibilities,
> > > > first. Maybe it should be one of the first tasks of the VC. I am sure
> > > > that the most of use will accept to take care about projects up to
> > the
> > > > priority 7. However, WMF and VC should give to us an analysis of our
> > > > possibilities. If we need to spend $10 and 10 working hours (usually,
> > > > steward's working hours) per year for one new project in an artistic
> > > > language (priority 12), then I think that it is reasonable. However,
> > > > if we need to spend $50.000 and a lot of working hours per year for
> > > > useful, but not so important Volapuk Wikipedia, instead of giving
> > > > $10.000 per one African language for making five relevant
> > > > encyclopedias in their languages: I am definitely for the second
> > > > choice.
> > > >
> > > > So, this was my contribution to relatively connected issues about we
> > > > are talking a lot. I tried to move discussion from arbitrary choices
> > > > to a bigger picture. Of course, I don't pretend for a perfect
> > > > construction. I just hope that we may move toward more rational talks
> > > > than arguing for one or another option.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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