[Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
node.ue at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 00:21:41 UTC 2009
Luxembourgish has an ISO code, doesn't it? Why wouldn't it be allowed?
2009/1/11 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>:
> The problem seems to be not the lack of a linguist's knowledge. We
> Wikimedians are not sure or unanimous about what to expect from a Wikipedia
> language edition, and what languages (language communities) we trust to
> conform to our expectations.
> My thoughts about the questions discussed here:
> - The language comittee could be organised differently, with more rules
> about communication and decision making and also majority rule instead of a
> veto for every member.
> - I don't think that Gerard deserves the aggression I have noticed here.
> - Wikipedia can not be a solution for all problems of the world. Language
> planning is difficult and includes also the implementation of a language
> (acquisition planning, status planning). I do not believe that creating an
> encyclopaedia should be at the beginning of this long way.
> - Our present day rules for new proposals would outlaw language editions
> already existing and doing well, like Esperanto ("constructed"), Latin
> ("ancient") or Luxembourgish (dialect). It would be a pity if a Wikipedia
> language edition does not exist for the only reason that a rule prohibits
> - Labeling languages and forbidding them is not a good point to start. It
> should not be said "this is a dialect, we don't want ist", but looked
> whether there is an actual linguistic community that already uses the
> language for purposes similar to Wikipedia (scientific, popularizing texts).
> - And, as already said, the decisive point is what we expect from a
> Wikipedia. For some the Wikia of "Lingua Franca Nova" would have been a
> great Wikipedia, for others it shows that a Wikipedia in it would have been
> P.S. Maybe I should go on with translating my handbook about multilingual
> Wikipedia to English.
> 2009/1/11 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com>
>> >> Well, I think there should be not only computer-linguists experts like
>> >> Evertype in LangCom, but you desperately need people who have good
>> >> knowledge about culture, sociology and history of the main language
>> >> groups, or at least you should be ready to ask relevant outside
>> >> experts. I have a feeling that current LangCom completely ignores
>> >> historical and cultural background related to language problems which
>> >> is quite often a key to make resonable decissions.
>> > Actually, it is a misunderstanding of Michael's knowledge. His
>> > expertise is, for example, making an orthography for a random language
>> > [without orthography]. In fact, we need exactly his kind of linguists.
>> > As I mentioned, we are working on raising expertise quality inside of
>> > LangCom.
>> And just to be more precise. After a couple of years of interacting
>> with people in relation to Wikimedia projects, I realized that it is
>> not so possible to get a random academician and put them into some
>> Wikimedian working body. Usually, those persons are not so interested.
>> I see that we have two more options for finding persons with relevant
>> level of expertise:
>> * to find Wikimedians with this kind of expertise; or
>> * that some interested academician contacts us.
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> Ziko van Dijk
> 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