[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia again

[Mark Williamson]

So, Mr Formulax, now do you claim to speak for these Singaporeans and
Hong Kongers? I find this extremely insulting.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:26:24 +0800, Sheng Jiong <sheng.jiong at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see no particular reason not to, if it's the case (which I don't know)
> > that a significant number of people communicate largely in Singlish and
> > find it more natural than "standard English".  We already have a
> > ht.wikipedia.org for the Haitian creole, which is basically a French
> > dialect with significant influences from a number of African languages.
> > For a long time it was considered basically "improper French", and
> > people spoke it but didn't write it---indeed, writing in it would earn
> > you an F on your essay in school.  More recently, that's been recognized
> > as a sort of cultural elitism, and it's becoming recognized as an
> > acceptable language to write in, and in fact the standard language of Haiti.
> >
> > It might be worth pointing out that "standard English" for Wikipedia's
> > purposes is itself already different from what your English teacher
> > might say is standard.  We tend to avoid (for the most part) not only
> > local dialects that are "improper" but also avoid "proper English" that
> > is not commonly used, or is only used in some regions of the world.
> >
> > This is in some sense basically the [[en:Prescription and description]]
> > debate.  Should we be enforcing handed-down rules of "correct language",
> > whatever that might mean, or should we merely be documenting language as
> > it is actually used by real people?
> >
> > (Of course, whether written Cantonese and Singlish are used by many
> > people or not is another issue.  I'm just arguing that the fact that the
> > Chinese and Singaporean governments dislike them and consider them
> > "improper" shouldn't be the deciding factor.)
> 
> I cannot agree with you. I agree that we should not use "proper
> English" that no one today understands. But if we accept languages
> that are not commonly used in formal writings, we bear a danger of
> undermining the credibility of Wikipedia, and credibility is one of
> the most important considerations for readers.
> 
> Wikipedia has long been doubted for its credibility. I personally do
> not agree with the view that Wikipedia cannot be trusted because
> everybody can edit. I have this trust in Wikipedia because since I
> discovered Wikipedia I have always seen it as a serious effort to
> build an encyclopedia, despite its unconventional way to writing it.
> But if I am told today, that Wikipedia has a version written in
> Singlish or Cantonese or other spoken languages that are rarely or
> even never used in formal writings and academic discussions, I will
> begin to doubt if the aim of the Wikipedia is serious and its goal is
> to build a trustworthy encyclopedia. And this in turn will undermine
> my confidence in the credibility of Wikipedia.
> 
> Singlish, like Cantonese, are widely used in informal dialogues and
> writings. But it not "natural" for Singaporeans or Hong Kongers to
> write formal essays using Singlish or Cantonese, and neither are they
> accustomed to read any formal written works (such as an encyclopedia)
> that are published in languages that they think should only occur in
> daily conversations.
> 
> formulax
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>