[Foundation-l] Klassical Chinese

[Ting Chen]

Tim Starling wrote:
> Ting Chen wrote:
>   
>> Tim Starling wrote:
>>     
>>> Ting Chen wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> since its creation I wondered why this happend. Why is there a classical 
>>>> chinese Wikipedia? This language has no native speakers and is not used 
>>>> by any relitious or official institution as official language.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Because at the time it was created, we had not yet given GerardM and his
>>> team of rules lawyers the power to decide all wiki creation issues. There
>>> was a sentiment that we as a community should make our own decisions on
>>> language issues, rather than to delegate it to some standards body who
>>> might not have similar interests at heart. And some people held the
>>> opinion that while language study and preservation is not our core
>>> mission, it'd be nice if it happened anyway, especially if there is no
>>> significant cost to the organisation.
>>>
>>>       
>> I totally agree with you on the issue of language conservation. Actually 
>> I had even thought about the possibility to use our wiki to do such 
>> things. I had read quite some articles for example on Scientific 
>> American about the problems of language conservation that the 
>> researchers are facing. And I think that wiki can be a technical way for 
>> them.
>>
>> But the classic chinese is another case. Classic chinese is a dead 
>> language, and to write about the modern Olympic games with such a 
>> language is simply original research. It has nothing to do with language 
>> conservation.
>>     
>
> Surely a pedagogical study of Classical Chinese is more relevant to our
> educational mission than Wikiquote's enormous sitcom dialogue collection,
> or Wikipedia's in-universe sci-fi/fantasy character studies.
>
> "No original research" should be considered a project policy, not a
> Foundation policy. Original research is an immensely valuable activity,
> and Wikimedia should not be opposed to it on principle.
>   
In that case I believe it is better to do it as a Wikiversity or 
Wikibooks project, and not as a Wikipedia project.
Ting