[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Wed Oct 18 15:21:19 UTC 2006

Mark, are you able to read English? Where did I or Gerard write that we 
restrict languages to ISO 639-3 codes? If any we talk about ISO 639-3 
and to add specifiers to it to get a proper code for officially not 
existing languages.

I think you are again reading only half of what is written there and 
live in your own nice clouds up there in the sky ...

We have to deal with reality - and reality is such that

1) if something is a language and is part of another language code this 
language officially does not exist.
2) by making it the language code it is attributed to + a specifier you 
give it a distinction from that code and it starts to exist at least 
separately (and that is one step ahead)
3) by having a distinction you can start to work on the differences
4) when you have finally enough material and the basics for the request 
of an own code: you can request it - otherwise: go ahead working on it 
until you reach that point

I don't know what is against the community there - people can get their 
projects - no doubt - of course: nothing falls from heaven ... they will 
have to work and make sure their project and with that their language is 
able to survive.

You should know very well what it means when you need to proof that a 
language exists ... or am I wrong and everything in the last year was 
always all to obvious and went smoothly?

You should not doubt about someon trying to be objective. Objectivity 
can be preserved only by facts on the ground - not by: I am favourable 
or against because I think this or that ...

People say: well, we are from there, we know which language we speak ... 
well, I believe that ... but: there is a funny thing we have in 
Wikipedia: no original research ... uhm ... funny right? So now we 
create a language that has not been there up to now with an own neat 
code and say "this is this and that language" without it being official 
... who are we to do such an original research? You can give these 
people only what is fact and help them to get their facts together.

People wanting their language reknown have a right to have it distinct 
in the right way - that can be done only by complying to standards, 
otherwise you will get simply a mess and will not be able to really go 
ahead.

Multilingual mediawiki is not all too far away ... and it can, if we 
work out a good strategy, be the solution for many language problems. 
Why? Well, imagine that there is that macro language or that language 
that has other languages included, but that up to now don't have an own 
code .... well: they can co-operate on one wiki - we are about 
languages, right? so why would we try to separate the macro language to 
many small wikipedias? Does it make sense? From a time and 
administration point of view there is little sense in doubling the 
efforts ... Imagine to have one admin per locale that belongs to the 
macro language .... that would mean the clean up work with vandals would 
not depend on one person only. Certain kinds of contents could be 
created contemporarily for all of the languages/dialects .... it would 
shift all of them to another level.

Wikipedia is about community, about co-operation and not about 
separation (or do I get somthing wrong?). Imagine if you have to go to 5 
different wikis to do certain maintenance stuff ... how long does this 
take? And how long would this take if you do it on one wiki only? 
Remember: not all of us have the whole day to spend on the projects ... 
give small languages a chance by co-operating, by not separating, but 
helping each other to do things.

And now please come back on earth among living beings ... and consider 
this with a logical mindset and not only "they are this or that ...." we 
are not this or that, we have our experiences and these are at disposal 
of all by trying to make the creation of new wikipedias as npov as possible.

Just saw your latest mail: there were no requirements and restrictions 
published by us up to now ... well, I'd know that really ... clouds?

Thank you!

Sabine

P.S.: Sorry I will not go ahead discussing ... have to care about a 
dictionary for kids - and that really needs work - I am definitely 
taking too much time for discussions lately.

*****
Sabine Cretella
skype: sabinecretella
Help with the OLPC children's dictionary:
http://wiktionaryz.org/OLPC

Mark Williamson schrieb:
> Again, this seems like a view not shared by the community. If we have
> a subcommittee full of people who have no wiggle room when it comes to
> codes, it won't be very good for us in the long term.
>
> Wikimedia language codes are not permanent! This needs to be
> emphasised. If a new code is accepted in the future, we can adopt it
> (as we hopefully will with BAT-SMG -> ZOG).
>
> In the mean time, though, it is awfully mean of us (or rather, of
> you), to restrict Wikipedias to those varieties viewed by SIL as
> languages.
>
> So in the mean time, thanks to you guys, we can have a yib.wp in a
> language that is universally agreed to not be a language, while we
> must have a single yuf.wp against the wishes of the speakers of those
> 3 languages, who request and require separate literatures? That makes
> no sense.
>
> Compliance with standards is good, but if it prevents the creation of
> a Wiki, we should ignore it.
>
> You and Gerard award ISO 639 too much importance.
>
> Mark
>   

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com 