[Foundation-l] Language proposal policy

[Mark Williamson]

It seems like there's a history of fearmongering with you.

It used to be about the Nauruan Wikipedia, and if we didn't impose
some kind of strict limit on new languages, we'd be totally screwed.

Now it's Siberian.

Of course it is good to learn from our mistakes, but there isn't only
one possible path to take to improve our lot, as you portray it.

It seems like you're saying if we don't do it my way, we're all going
to be screwed. There are other ways, Gerard. You say that none of them
are better; I disagree. However, I think that even if none of them are
better, many of them would do equally well at getting the job done.
There is no reason the current language proposal policy needs to be
treated like the word of God, we can and should modify it. Cautiously,
of course, but I don't think Ancient Greek = Siberian.

Mark

2008/9/15 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous
> what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding
> what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well
> for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor
> of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be
> responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we
> choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a
> language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project
> that was closed with prejudice.
>
> The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with
> the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim
> that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no
> credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a
> lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better
> then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then
> 50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality
> and quantity.
>
> What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages.
> Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only
> 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised.
> The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new
> language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work
> done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new
> projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60
> days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project
> is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this
> situation.
>
> This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of
> the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless
> discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the
> implementation of the current policies.
>
> The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would
> characterise it.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover <
> always_yours.forever at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
>>
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>>
>> it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely.
>> remember many projects is waiting for it.
>>
>> Give your comments.
>>
>> C.m.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
>