[Foundation-l] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager

[Dan Rosenthal]

It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification:

"Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. "

The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something),  then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points. 


On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal
>>> theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be
>>> an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a
>>> global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and
>>> skill in communicating globally.
>>> 
>> Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad
>> in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native
>> language is not Urdu."
> 
> It looks like the problem here is that there is confusion on what is
> meant by "as a native speaker".
> 
> Some people are taking it to mean "We'd like it to be your first
> language", in which case Sarah is quite correct that it specifically
> excludes people whose first language is English from the "ideal"
> requirements. Others are taking it to mean "We'd like your ability to
> be as good as if it were your first language", in which case Berìa is
> correct that it is pragmatic, reasonable, and legitimately useful for
> the job.
> 
> I'd like to invoke the principle of charity and think that Wikimedia
> means the latter, but I can see why somebody might be interpreting it
> as the former, since the latter reads a bit more into the words.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Garrett
> http://werdn.us/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l