Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

policy on languages without native speakers

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

marcos.cramer at gmx

Apr 24, 2008, 4:19 AM

Post #1 of 20 (739 views)
Permalink

policy on languages without native speakers

The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.

Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.

However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.

On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.

People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.

Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.

So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):

* New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
* The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.

GerardM wrote:
> Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> consider the arguments of others.

Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:

"In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."

Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.

Marcos
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

node.ue at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 5:11 AM

Post #2 of 20 (721 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

+1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a
tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying
out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them
equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that
if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.

Mark

On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:
> The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions about the current language proposal policy and about the current application procedure for new projects.
>
> Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote decided about each case.
>
> However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear community consensus.
>
> On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to find out the rationale behind that change.
>
> People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
>
> Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in question.
>
> So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
>
> * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
> * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> > consider the arguments of others.
>
> Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
>
> "In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
>
> Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
>
> Marcos
>
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 6:28 AM

Post #3 of 20 (720 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Hoi,
You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed,
needs to be considered as not being that language. Ancient Greek is a dead
language. It is possible to apply for a code that recognises modern work and
the old texts. With such a code it is abundantly clear that even though
effort is taken to stay as close as the old language as possible, it is
inherently not the same.

I disagree that my concern in this is addressed. As I indicated earlier, I
have discussed this with people whose opinion I value and they strengthen me
in my position. They are the types who could be called authoritative. :)
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue [at] gmail> wrote:

> +1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a
> tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying
> out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them
> equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that
> if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
> case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:
> > The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
> about the current language proposal policy and about the current application
> procedure for new projects.
> >
> > Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree
> that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote
> decided about each case.
> >
> > However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
> should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should
> represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would
> then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to
> make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear
> community consensus.
> >
> > On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
> native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment
> "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public
> discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion
> within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to
> find out the rationale behind that change.
> >
> > People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
> myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in
> Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover
> different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV
> policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view
> than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is
> capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
> >
> > Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
> contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto
> Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be
> very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in
> question.
> >
> > So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
> policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or
> recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria
> (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
> >
> > * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> language (whether translated or original)
> > * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> schools or universities.
> >
> > GerardM wrote:
> > > Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> > > consider the arguments of others.
> >
> > Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
> can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that
> language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
> >
> > "In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
> Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written
> language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called
> "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or
> phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So
> in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
> >
> > Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
> Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to
> those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM
> himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
> >
> > Marcos
> >
> > --
> > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehÃ¶rt?
> > Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 6:47 AM

Post #4 of 20 (720 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

I strongly suggest we avoid a policy on the matter - rather we should
explicitly list what is allowable rather than what is banned. More like a
guideline than policy.

- White Cat

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue [at] gmail> wrote:

> +1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a
> tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying
> out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them
> equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that
> if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
> case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:
> > The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
> about the current language proposal policy and about the current application
> procedure for new projects.
> >
> > Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree
> that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote
> decided about each case.
> >
> > However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
> should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should
> represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would
> then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to
> make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear
> community consensus.
> >
> > On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
> native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment
> "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public
> discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion
> within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to
> find out the rationale behind that change.
> >
> > People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
> myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in
> Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover
> different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV
> policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view
> than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is
> capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
> >
> > Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
> contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto
> Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be
> very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in
> question.
> >
> > So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
> policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or
> recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria
> (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
> >
> > * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> language (whether translated or original)
> > * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> schools or universities.
> >
> > GerardM wrote:
> > > Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> > > consider the arguments of others.
> >
> > Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
> can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that
> language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
> >
> > "In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
> Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written
> language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called
> "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or
> phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So
> in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
> >
> > Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
> Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to
> those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM
> himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
> >
> > Marcos
> >
> > --
> > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> > Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

me at marcusbuck

Apr 24, 2008, 8:50 AM

Post #5 of 20 (728 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
> Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
"Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is
legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it
decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same
time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the
hands of the developers.

By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
proposal on <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages>.
The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based
on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project
activity. Criteria like
> * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
> * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native
languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just
use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a
"good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My"
rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is
much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are
_no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a
Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could
provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of
the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they
are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule
sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular
planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without
special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly
created to rule out the unwanted languages) them.
Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture"
like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and
to dispute about my proposal ;-)

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 9:00 AM

Post #6 of 20 (717 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Hoi,
You are wrong. The policy has the approval of the board. All the languages
that we think should be approved are approved by the board. We suggest that
a project can be approved and when we do not hear anything to the contrary
it is approved after a week.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Marcus Buck <me [at] marcusbuck> wrote:

> Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
> > Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
> "Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is
> legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it
> decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same
> time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the
> hands of the developers.
>
> By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
> the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
> proposal on <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages>.
> The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based
> on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project
> activity. Criteria like
> > * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> language (whether translated or original)
> > * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> schools or universities.
> make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native
> languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just
> use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a
> "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My"
> rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is
> much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are
> _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a
> Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could
> provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of
> the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they
> are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule
> sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular
> planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without
> special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly
> created to rule out the unwanted languages) them.
> Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture"
> like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and
> to dispute about my proposal ;-)
>
> Marcus Buck
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

node.ue at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 9:05 AM

Post #7 of 20 (719 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

"Needs to be"?

How about, "Gerard says it should be"?

Mark

On 24/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hoi,
> You have not understood my point. A dead language that is reconstructed,
> needs to be considered as not being that language. Ancient Greek is a dead
> language. It is possible to apply for a code that recognises modern work and
> the old texts. With such a code it is abundantly clear that even though
> effort is taken to stay as close as the old language as possible, it is
> inherently not the same.
>
> I disagree that my concern in this is addressed. As I indicated earlier, I
> have discussed this with people whose opinion I value and they strengthen me
> in my position. They are the types who could be called authoritative. :)
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > +1. I think that policy should be decided by the community, not by a
> > tiny self-selected cabal. I don't have a problem with them carrying
> > out consensus- or vote-produced policies, as long as they enforce them
> > equally and fairly. Also, there must be an oversight process so that
> > if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
> > case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 24/04/2008, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:
> > > The discussion about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia has started discussions
> > about the current language proposal policy and about the current application
> > procedure for new projects.
> > >
> > > Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> > proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases. I agree
> > that this has its advantages over the old procedure, where a community vote
> > decided about each case.
> > >
> > > However I think that all discussions about the language proposal policy
> > should be public, and if possible the language proposal policy should
> > represent community consensus. The work of the language subcommittee would
> > then be reduced to implementing the policy in particular cases and maybe to
> > make final decisions about the policy in cases where there is no clear
> > community consensus.
> > >
> > > On 17 October 2007, Pathoschild replaced "interested editors" by "living
> > native speakers" in the language proposal policy, adding the comment
> > "tweaked audience criteria per discussion". Since I could find no public
> > discussion about that change, I assume that it was based on a discussion
> > within the language subcommittee, which makes it quite hard for outsiders to
> > find out the rationale behind that change.
> > >
> > > People don't read Wikipedia only in their native languages. As for
> > myself, my native language is German, but I also read the Wikipedias in
> > Esperanto, English, Spanish and Swahili. Different Wikipedias often cover
> > different topics in various degrees of depth, and despite the general NPOV
> > policy, sometimes some Wikipedias give more weight to certain points of view
> > than other Wikipedias. So reading Wikipedia in as many languages as one is
> > capable of reading is often a very rewarding practice.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that Esperanto has some native speakers (and one active
> > contributor to the Esperanto WP is a native speaker), the Esperanto
> > Wikipedia is a good example for the fact that a Wikipedia version can be
> > very useful independently of their being native speakers of the language in
> > question.
> > >
> > > So I would urge to remove the word "native" from the language proposal
> > policy. In order to avoid proposals on completely extinct languages or
> > recently constructed languages, I would add the following two criteria
> > (which I already mentioned in an earlier message):
> > >
> > > * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> > language (whether translated or original)
> > > * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> > schools or universities.
> > >
> > > GerardM wrote:
> > > > Many people maintain their positions and do not for whatever reason
> > > > consider the arguments of others.
> > >
> > > Many, including myself, have addressed Gerard's main argument (that one
> > can't add neologisms to an ancient language, as it would no longer be that
> > language). As a reminder, here is what I replied to his argument before:
> > >
> > > "In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of
> > Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written
> > language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called
> > "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or
> > phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So
> > in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply."
> > >
> > > Even though I have read all the messages in the threads about Ancient
> > Greek and the language subcommittee, I haven't seen a response of GerardM to
> > those who responded to his argument. So it seems to me that it's GerardM
> > himself who is not considering the arguments of others.
> > >
> > > Marcos
> > >
> > > --
> > > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> > > Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pathoschild at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 9:42 AM

Post #8 of 20 (731 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Mark Williamson <node.ue [at] gmail> wrote:
> Also, there must be an oversight process so that
> if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
> case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
>

Isn't that what we're doing? Didn't you just comment in a public
discussion suggesting that we have a public discussion? :)

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

me at marcusbuck

Apr 24, 2008, 10:59 AM

Post #9 of 20 (719 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) hett schreven:
> Mark Williamson <node.ue [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Also, there must be an oversight process so that
>> if the community believes the LC has acted in error in a specific
>> case, it can be reopened and a constructive dialogue can be held.
> Isn't that what we're doing? Didn't you just comment in a public
> discussion suggesting that we have a public discussion? :)

I guess, the answer will be 'no'. We are discussing, but if the
subcommittee insists on its viewpoints, there is no way to do anything
about this for people with other viewpoints. I think Mark thought of
something like an official supervising institution, where at the end of
the discussion this institution says "The subcommittee was right" or
"The subcommittee was not right". And that decision would be binding.

At the moment we are just argueing and argueing and Gerard saying "You
don't understand the world!" and this will last til the end of days if
nobody gets tired of it before ;-) (Gerard won't, I guess ;-) )

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

marcos.cramer at gmx

Apr 24, 2008, 12:10 PM

Post #10 of 20 (718 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

GerardM wrote:
> Ancient Greek is a dead language.

The point is that Ancient Greek is not a dead language. It is still used in the Greek Orthodox Church, and there not only for liturgy (just this weekend I was at a Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul, and there they had an anouncement board where they enlisted upcoming events at the church in Ancient Greek). Additionally, it is used for some translations and original works like Harry Potter, Asterix and Astronautilia; and there are news sites in Ancient Greek on the web: www.in.gr and www.akwn.net.

So that Ancient Greek is dead is just your personal opinion, and there are good reasons to object to it. So far you have not responded to those who have argued that it is not a dead language.

Marcos
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

marcos.cramer at gmx

Apr 24, 2008, 12:17 PM

Post #11 of 20 (728 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Marcus Buck wrote:
> By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
> the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
> proposal on <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages>.

I like your rule requiring 1000 real speakers. You're probably right in arguing that it is better to have one rule without exceptions for special cases. So unless someone else in this discussion prefers my proposal to that of Marcus Buck, I retire my proposal and support Marcus' proposal. For me the most important thing at any rate is to get that silly "native" requirement out of the policy, and on that Marcus and me completely agree.

Marcos Cramer
--
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

innocentkiller at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 12:35 PM

Post #12 of 20 (725 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Just because the board approves a policy doesn't make it the right
thing to do. Questions have been raised about the suitability of
the policy, and saying "The board approved it" isn't an argument.

If the community finds a new policy needs to be written, the board
can approve that if need be. Otherwise, it would appear you're trying
to make this policy set in stone indefinitely, which is in no one's best
interest in the long run.

-Chad

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hoi,
> You are wrong. The policy has the approval of the board. All the languages
> that we think should be approved are approved by the board. We suggest that
> a project can be approved and when we do not hear anything to the contrary
> it is approved after a week.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Marcus Buck <me [at] marcusbuck> wrote:
>
> > Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
> > > Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language
> > proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
> > "Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is
> > legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it
> > decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same
> > time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the
> > hands of the developers.
> >
> > By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
> > the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
> > proposal on <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages>.
> > The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based
> > on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project
> > activity. Criteria like
> > > * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed
> > language (whether translated or original)
> > > * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like
> > schools or universities.
> > make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native
> > languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just
> > use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a
> > "good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My"
> > rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is
> > much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are
> > _no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a
> > Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could
> > provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of
> > the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they
> > are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule
> > sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular
> > planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without
> > special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly
> > created to rule out the unwanted languages) them.
> > Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture"
> > like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and
> > to dispute about my proposal ;-)
> >
> > Marcus Buck
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 12:39 PM

Post #13 of 20 (719 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Hoi,
It is not particularly only my opinion, it is the opinion expressed in the
ISO-639-3. This is the standard that we go by. I have indicated and
researched the obvious way out of this blockage but when people are not
interested in taking that route, that is fine with me. If people then say
that there is no room for manoeuvre, that is from my perspective false.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:

> GerardM wrote:
> > Ancient Greek is a dead language.
>
> The point is that Ancient Greek is not a dead language. It is still used in
> the Greek Orthodox Church, and there not only for liturgy (just this weekend
> I was at a Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul, and there they had an
> anouncement board where they enlisted upcoming events at the church in
> Ancient Greek). Additionally, it is used for some translations and original
> works like Harry Potter, Asterix and Astronautilia; and there are news sites
> in Ancient Greek on the web: www.in.gr and www.akwn.net.
>
> So that Ancient Greek is dead is just your personal opinion, and there are
> good reasons to object to it. So far you have not responded to those who
> have argued that it is not a dead language.
>
> Marcos
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehÃ¶rt?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 12:57 PM

Post #14 of 20 (719 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Hoi,
It is not particularly my only my opinion, it is the opinion expressed in
the ISO-639-3. This is the standard that we go by. I have indicated an
obvious way out but when people are not interested in taking that route,
that is fine too.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:

> GerardM wrote:
> > Ancient Greek is a dead language.
>
> The point is that Ancient Greek is not a dead language. It is still used in
> the Greek Orthodox Church, and there not only for liturgy (just this weekend
> I was at a Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul, and there they had an
> anouncement board where they enlisted upcoming events at the church in
> Ancient Greek). Additionally, it is used for some translations and original
> works like Harry Potter, Asterix and Astronautilia; and there are news sites
> in Ancient Greek on the web: www.in.gr and www.akwn.net.
>
> So that Ancient Greek is dead is just your personal opinion, and there are
> good reasons to object to it. So far you have not responded to those who
> have argued that it is not a dead language.
>
> Marcos
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehÃ¶rt?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pathoschild at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 1:24 PM

Post #15 of 20 (723 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

Marcus Buck <me [at] marcusbuck> wrote:
> I think Mark thought of something like an official supervising institution, where at
> the end of the discussion this institution says "The subcommittee was right" or
> "The subcommittee was not right". And that decision would be binding.

The language subcommittee operates with community input and board
oversight. I'd be very wary of adding more bureaucracy. What if you
disagree with this Language Subcommittee Oversight Committee? You said
their decisions are binding, so does nobody oversee the overseers? My
suggestion is that those people who would form the proposed oversight
committee simply join the language subcommittee to directly represent
their viewpoints.

Marcus Buck <me [at] marcusbuck> wrote:
> We are discussing, but if the subcommittee insists on its viewpoints, there is
> no way to do anything about this for people with other viewpoints.
> [...]
> At the moment we are just argueing and argueing and Gerard saying "You
> don't understand the world!" and this will last til the end of days if
> nobody gets tired of it before ;-) (Gerard won't, I guess ;-) )

Gerard does not represent the language subcommittee (nor do I); the
subcommittee has not said a single word in this whole discussion.
Nobody in this discussion has a special veto or vote.

We are having a discussion between many members of the Wikimedia
community. Once this community discussion reaches a consensus, we can
submit the decision to the language subcommittee for their
discussion/amendments/approval (or to the Board directly for appeal).

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

marcos.cramer at gmx

Apr 24, 2008, 3:22 PM

Post #16 of 20 (722 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

GerardM wrote:
> it is the opinion expressed in the ISO-639-3.

I cannot find in ISO-639-3 the explicit claim that Ancient Greek is dead. All I can see is that the language is called "Ancient Greek (to 1453)" and that it is marked as "Historic".

Now the fact that the language is called "Ancient Greek (to 1453)" to me only suggests that they want to include everything from Homeric Greek to medieval Greek, and not include any forms of Greek as it has commonly been used after 1453. However, the special uses of Attic and Koine Greek after 1453 are something independent from the evolution of the spoken Greek language, and are not denied by ISO-639-3.

The fact that it is marked as "Historic" only means that it is distinct from any modern languages that are descendent from it, which clearly applies to Ancient Greek, but which in no way means it is "dead".

So where in ISO-639-3 is there an explicit claim that Ancient Greek is dead?

GerardM wrote:
> I have indicated and researched the obvious way out of this blockage
> but when people are not interested in taking that route, that is fine
> with me.

What you proposed was to get a code for "reconstructed Ancient Greek". First let me point out to you, that you use "reconstructed" in quite a different way to how it is normally used in linguistics.

Read the Wikipedia entry on "Linguistic reconstruction": "Linguistic reconstruction is the practice of establishing the features of the unattested ancestor (proto-language) of one or more given languages." Now Ancient Greek is not an unattested ancestor, so there is no linguistic reconstruction to be done in its case!!

ISO-639-3 actually explicitly disallows codes for reconstructed languages: "Specifically excluded are reconstructed languages and computer programming languages."

Marcos
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf [at] gm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

always_yours.forever at yahoo

Apr 24, 2008, 5:15 PM

Post #17 of 20 (716 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hoi,
> You have not understood my point. A dead language
> that is reconstructed,
> needs to be considered as not being that language.

don't confuse the definitions!

reconstructed language is a hypothetical language,
that isn't attested. for
example proto-indoeuropean, nobody knows how it spoke.
scholars rebuild it in
base of its daugthers languages, that are well
attested (sanskrit, Greek,
persian, latin, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_reconstruction

ancient greek is very, very, very well attested, more
than latin and others. it's improper to talk about
reconstruction.

i recommend you, use another word to express your
idea. i suggest you
"extended". "ancient Greek extended"?

C.L.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

always_yours.forever at yahoo

Apr 24, 2008, 6:02 PM

Post #18 of 20 (716 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

--- White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail> wrote:

> I strongly suggest we avoid a policy on the matter -
> rather we should
> explicitly list what is allowable rather than what
> is banned. More like a
> guideline than policy.
>
> - White Cat
>

a classification of languages?. some like this:

____________________________________________________

FIRST CATEGORY: LINGUISTICS (ARTICULATED)

I.- Natural languages:

1.- Reconstructed languages. nobody knows how it was!
hypotetical rebuilded. all the "protos":
proto-indoeuropean, proto-afroasiatic, proto-sinaic,
etc

2.- "dead languages" (without native speakers)

a.- with some modern use (liturgical, source of
neologism, some modern literature, etc). example:
sanskrit, classical chinese, classical arabic, ancient
greek, latin, and some others.

b.-without modern use: phrygian, Etruscan, etc

3.-modern languages (with native speakers)

a.- written languages.

b.- no written languages.

II.- Artificial language.

1.- engineered language. example: lojban, etc. they
could be, sometimes, linked with auxiliaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_language

2.- auxiliary languages: that pretends to be a real
medium of communication among humans, specially in
international contexts: esperanto, volapuk, glossa,
etc

3.- artistic languages: only created for aesthetics
purpose. to have fun: tolkien's and star trek
languages, etc.

SECOND CATEGORY: NO LINGUISTICS (NOT ARTICULATED)

all the sign languages, deaf-mutes language, braille,
etc.

_____________________________________________________

except better approach

L.C

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

always_yours.forever at yahoo

Apr 24, 2008, 7:38 PM

Post #19 of 20 (724 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers [In reply to]

please, see my proposal:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy (unique and workable criterion)

i would be happy to read opinions and suggestions, yours, the Marcus Buck's, and many others

Marcos Cramer <marcos.cramer [at] gmx> wrote:
Marcus Buck wrote:
> By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
> the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
> proposal on .

I like your rule requiring 1000 real speakers. You're probably right in arguing that it is better to have one rule without exceptions for special cases. So unless someone else in this discussion prefers my proposal to that of Marcus Buck, I retire my proposal and support Marcus' proposal. For me the most important thing at any rate is to get that silly "native" requirement out of the policy, and on that Marcus and me completely agree.

Marcos Cramer
--

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

always_yours.forever at yahoo

Apr 29, 2008, 7:44 PM

Post #20 of 20 (682 views)
Permalink

Re: policy on languages without native speakers. to Marcus Buck [In reply to]

to Marcus Buck:

i am very interested in merging my proposal with the yours.

i think is possible to work in it

Crazy Lover.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Marcus Buck <me [at] marcusbuck> wrote:
Marcos Cramer hett schreven:
> Currently the language subcommittee decides both about the language proposal policy and about its implemenation in particular cases.
"Separation of powers". At the moment the language subcommittee is
legislative (it is allowed to change the policy) and judiciary (it
decides on approving or denying proposals for new projects) at the same
time. Only the executive (finally creating the projects) lies in the
hands of the developers.

By the way, if I didn't miss any posts in this lengthy threads regarding
the language proposal policy, I still didn't get any answers to my
proposal on .
The proposal names criteria for new projects which are completely based
on decidable facts like size of the potential readership and project
activity. Criteria like
> * New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
> * The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
make judgments on the "usefulness" of languages. Many living native
languages would fail on criteria like those. Of course you could just
use them for languages without native speakers, but in my opinion a
"good" rule should work without exceptions and "special rules". "My"
rules only judge the "potential" of languages to be useful, which is
much more in line with the aim of "providing" knowledge. (If there are
_no_ schools and universities in a specific language, this makes a
Wikipedia even _more_ useful in my opinion, doesn't it? Cause it could
provide knowledge provided by nobody else.) Just count the speakers of
the language. If there are enough speakers - regardless of whether they
are native or not as long as they are fluent - it is useful. This rule
sorts out "unwanted" languages like fantasy languages or unpopular
planned languages or (really) dead languages etc. by itself, without
special rules "discriminating" (that is, special rules explicitly
created to rule out the unwanted languages) them.
Perhaps the lack of comments on my proposals - in a "dispute culture"
like here on this list - means, there is not much to disagree with and
to dispute about my proposal ;-)

Marcus Buck

>>>>>>>>>>>>

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads