[Foundation-l] Conlangs, ancient languages, non-active Wikipedias, non-written languages and priorities
Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 06:55:53 UTC 2008
Hoi,
What better reason to call it a sophism then having no arguments to refute
it?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Generally, I like your sophisms ;)
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > From your reply I deduce that you at least accept the argument. The WMF
> is
> > to bring knowledge to the people of this world. When what is written
> does
> > not reflect the language it is written in, it is faulty and
> consequently we
> > do not do justice to what we aim to achieve.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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