[Foundation-l] [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used
for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages.
Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.

If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken
natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and
Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead
languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.

This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague
because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not
intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the
rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.
Thanks,
     Gerard

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> I disagree with your proposal.
>
> I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is
> "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent
> many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for
> advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be
> perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they
> might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
>
> Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
> and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
> uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> languages.
>
> I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
> of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
> exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does)
> use English in his everyday life, including research and
> communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which
> exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead
> languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European
> does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
>
> So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this
> change.
>
> (As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only
> there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove
> it.)
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>