[Foundation-l] policy on languages without native speakers

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed,
needs to be considered as not being that language. Ancient Greek is a dead
language. It is possible to apply for a code that recognises modern work and
the old texts. With such a code it is abundantly clear that even though
effort is taken to stay as close as the old language as possible, it is
inherently not the same.

I disagree that my concern in this is addressed. As I indicated earlier, I
have discussed this with people whose opinion I value and they strengthen me
in my position. They are the types who could be called authoritative. :)
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a
> tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying
> out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them
> equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that
> if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
> case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer at gmx.de> wrote:
> > The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
> about the current language proposal policy and about the current application
> procedure for new projects.
> >
> >  Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree
> that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote
> decided about each case.
> >
> >  However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
> should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should
> represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would
> then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to
> make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear
> community consensus.
> >
> >  On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
> native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment
> "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public
> discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion
> within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to
> find out the rationale behind that change.
> >
> >  People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
> myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in
> Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover
> different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV
> policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view
> than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is
> capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
> >
> >  Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
> contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto
> Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be
> very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in
> question.
> >
> >  So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
> policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or
> recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria
> (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
> >
> >  * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> language (whether translated or original)
> >  * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> schools or universities.
> >
> >  GerardM wrote:
> >  > Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> >  > consider the arguments of others.
> >
> >  Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
> can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that
> language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
> >
> >  "In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
> Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written
> language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called
> "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or
> phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So
> in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
> >
> >  Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
> Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to
> those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM
> himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
> >
> >  Marcos
> >
> > --
> >  Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> >  Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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
>