No subject
Fri Mar 14 23:02:16 UTC 2008
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
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list