Hi,
Why the vagueness?? Why can't we know how many said yes, how many said no,
how many didnt answer, what are the arguments for and the arguments against
inside langcom? Like I said before, how do you know when someone becomes
inactive?
I am completely ok with any decision, I (and a ton other people) however,
would like to feel that our arguments where heard by all the committee
members before making a decision and would like a little bit more
transparency than 'I asked them and they said yes'.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hoi,
I requested an opinion from the other members of the language committee.
They came with the answer that Egyptian Arabic should be considered
eligible. I am completely ok with this result, but for the record I asked
for an opinion and got a favourable decision. The notion that I forwarded
an
opinion is not correct.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of
speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned
the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the
freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried
to
point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am
asking to no avail. I
asked
whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when
he
said 'Langcom took into account all the
issues you raised while making a
decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an
objection
to that!), and then later on said the
'deliberations' consisted of him
declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more
transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its
members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of
discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a
discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt
necessarily
> mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt.
> Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of
> langcom
> becomes inactive?
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak(a)gmail.com
>
wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> > This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are
> taking
> > the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process.
I
really do
not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it
provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people
collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic
> Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have
used
> > all
> > kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what
is
> > after all a recognised separate
language. When they argue that it
will
>
fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is
not
> > their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not
much
> is
> > written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for
> many
> > languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view
of
a
> > world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it
is
>
perceived others.
>
> There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line
and
> with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and
97.51% they have
demonstrated
> > their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
> they
> > do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their
wish
to
> > do
> > well for their language.
> >
> > The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to
decide
on
> these issues.Consequently there are
situations where some will not
agree
> what it is that the committee decides and it
means that there will be
no
> > public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
> >
> > Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of
Egyptian
>
Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself
into
> > doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in
the
> > first place, the policy as it is does
not allow for extinct and
> constructed
> > languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you
> should
> > create the
arz.wikipedia.org.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > > Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International
> > > > Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
> > >
> > > Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself
confer
> > > appropriateness for use; it merely
confirms that the language can
be
> > > referred to with a standardized
code.
> > >
> > > Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite
a
> >
bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of
> > larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national
and
> > > subnational variants.
> > >
> > > Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language
> > > variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a
standard
> > > orthography and the requested form
is not commonly used in written
> > > communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
> frequently
> > > given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
> > >
> > > a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so
it's
at
> the
> > > top of the pile
> > >
> > > b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for
arz,
> so
> > > we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
> > >
> > > c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's
not
> >
yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
> >
> > If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it
up.
> But
since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
wiki
> to create, I want to make sure that the
process is clear.
>
> - -- brion
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz
> IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC
> =A5X/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Alsebaey
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l