A little wiki "hacking"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A little wiki "hacking"

brian.mcneil-2
I've created [[Wikimedia in Scotland]] on the WM UK wiki, and would
really appreciate if someone could create a specific Common.css page for
it.

Required is [[MediaWiki:Common.css/Wikimedia in Scotland]] with the
following content:

#p-logo  a
{ background-image:
url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Wikimedia_in_Scotland-4.5%22.png/150px-Wikimedia_in_Scotland-4.5%22.png') !important;
 }

Once a hard refresh is done, this should then cause the Wikimedia in
Scotland graphic I've created to be displayed as the Wiki logo for that
page only.

Ideally, we then 'tart up' this page a little and have the new
scotwiki.org domain point to it. With help from Peter Weiss, I've a
QRcode which includes a Saltire and points to scotwiki.org.

If we're to make use of this, then I believe one of the key functions of
the page should be to encourage people to create accounts to upload
images, and to perhaps join WMUK.

Scotland is, largely, in need of a drive to recruit contributors who
venture outside when the daystar is visible; or, tap into the wide
international visitor base, get them improving the quantity and quality
of images, then expand coverage across multiple languages.

I'll be discussing this further with Fae on Friday and Saturday, but my
gut instinct is to start with images. The number of people I see -
apparently on holiday - and lugging round £4K+ of camera equipment in
Edinburgh is almost-frightening. Bringing such people into the WMF fold
just seems sensible. rather than a photo they share with friends and
family for 20-30 views per month, they can end up with thousands of
views and encourage others to build and translate content around quality
images.




Brian McNeil.
--
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Harry Burt-2
Sorry to ask such a tangential question, but what is WMUK's position
on non-English wikis that might be suitable for a Scottish audience
(e.g. Scots)? Will it seek to actively promote interest in them?

--
Harry (User:Jarry1250)

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Brian McNeil
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've created [[Wikimedia in Scotland]] on the WM UK wiki, and would
> really appreciate if someone could create a specific Common.css page for
> it.
>
> Required is [[MediaWiki:Common.css/Wikimedia in Scotland]] with the
> following content:
>
> #p-logo  a
> { background-image:
> url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Wikimedia_in_Scotland-4.5%22.png/150px-Wikimedia_in_Scotland-4.5%22.png') !important;
>  }
>
> Once a hard refresh is done, this should then cause the Wikimedia in
> Scotland graphic I've created to be displayed as the Wiki logo for that
> page only.
>
> Ideally, we then 'tart up' this page a little and have the new
> scotwiki.org domain point to it. With help from Peter Weiss, I've a
> QRcode which includes a Saltire and points to scotwiki.org.
>
> If we're to make use of this, then I believe one of the key functions of
> the page should be to encourage people to create accounts to upload
> images, and to perhaps join WMUK.
>
> Scotland is, largely, in need of a drive to recruit contributors who
> venture outside when the daystar is visible; or, tap into the wide
> international visitor base, get them improving the quantity and quality
> of images, then expand coverage across multiple languages.
>
> I'll be discussing this further with Fae on Friday and Saturday, but my
> gut instinct is to start with images. The number of people I see -
> apparently on holiday - and lugging round £4K+ of camera equipment in
> Edinburgh is almost-frightening. Bringing such people into the WMF fold
> just seems sensible. rather than a photo they share with friends and
> family for 20-30 views per month, they can end up with thousands of
> views and encourage others to build and translate content around quality
> images.
>
>
>
>
> Brian McNeil.
> --
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
> Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Michael Peel-4

On 28 Sep 2011, at 09:58, Harry Burt wrote:

> Sorry to ask such a tangential question, but what is WMUK's position
> on non-English wikis that might be suitable for a Scottish audience
> (e.g. Scots)? Will it seek to actively promote interest in them?

In general, yes, most definitely.

In reality, we need to have speakers of the language, and people from the appropriate geography, involved so that it's not just English people promoting them. ;-) Finding those people has proved to be very tricky in the past (as is currently being demonstrated by the few people that have signed up or left apologies for the Edinburgh wikimeet this Saturday, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Edinburgh_3 ).

Thanks,
Mike


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Harry Burt
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Peel
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> In general, yes, most definitely.
>
> In reality, we need to have speakers of the language, and people from the appropriate geography, involved so that it's not just English people promoting them. ;-)

Fair enough. It is a fairly controversial stance though (not with me,
I should point out). Has the rationale being expounded somewhere?

--
Harry (User:Jarry1250)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Thomas Dalton
On 28 September 2011 10:20, Harry Burt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Peel
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In general, yes, most definitely.
>>
>> In reality, we need to have speakers of the language, and people from the appropriate geography, involved so that it's not just English people promoting them. ;-)
>
> Fair enough. It is a fairly controversial stance though (not with me,
> I should point out). Has the rationale being expounded somewhere?

I don't think it's particularly controversial. The logistical problems
involved with trying to promote a project in a language you don't
speak are enough to make it an unwise venture.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Tom Morris-5
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:54, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think it's particularly controversial. The logistical problems
> involved with trying to promote a project in a language you don't
> speak are enough to make it an unwise venture.
>

As WMUK, we can enable people to do so, and we can be aware of
multi-lingual outreach. There's no reason WMUK should equal English,
and no reason it should equal English, Welsh, Scots/Gaelic. Our
mission is promoting free knowledge and the mission of the Wikimedia
movement in whatever way is practical in the UK.

Say we had access to a library in Britain that had substantial
material on Latin American history primarily in the languages of those
nations (Spanish and Portugese). Say we then had the opportunity to go
and help them learn how to edit Wikipedia and add texts to Wikisource
and images to Commons: it may end up that they are going to primarily
edit ptwiki or eswiki or ptwikisource, but that's fine. If it seems
like a good opportunity to further the mission of the Wikimedia
movement and it is practical to do it with our funding and whatever.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Harry Burt
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Say we had access to a library in Britain that had substantial
> material on Latin American history primarily in the languages of those
> nations (Spanish and Portugese). Say we then had the opportunity to go
> and help them learn how to edit Wikipedia and add texts to Wikisource
> and images to Commons: it may end up that they are going to primarily
> edit ptwiki or eswiki or ptwikisource, but that's fine. If it seems
> like a good opportunity to further the mission of the Wikimedia
> movement and it is practical to do it with our funding and whatever.

Yes. But the point is, some people question whether (e.g.) the Scots
Wikipedia is actually useful at all, since very few people prefer to
read and write in Scots over English. And hence my original question
about whether or not WMUK/the board/individuals consider investing
their limited resources in projects which support such wikis to be
worthwhile.

I think it is clear that views differ, and so the answer is "we'll
look at projects on a case-by-case basis" :)

--
Harry

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

HJ Mitchell
The same could be said of Welsh, or Latin, or a handful of other languages with a dedicated Wikipedia. I'm on the fence as to the usefulness of these projects, but I thought I'd just point out that there are a few of them. ;)
 
Harry
(HJ Mitchell)  

From: Harry Burt <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 13:32
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A little wiki "hacking"

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Say we had access to a library in Britain that had substantial
> material on Latin American history primarily in the languages of those
> nations (Spanish and Portugese). Say we then had the opportunity to go
> and help them learn how to edit Wikipedia and add texts to Wikisource
> and images to Commons: it may end up that they are going to primarily
> edit ptwiki or eswiki or ptwikisource, but that's fine. If it seems
> like a good opportunity to further the mission of the Wikimedia
> movement and it is practical to do it with our funding and whatever.

Yes. But the point is, some people question whether (e.g.) the Scots
Wikipedia is actually useful at all, since very few people prefer to
read and write in Scots over English. And hence my original question
about whether or not WMUK/the board/individuals consider investing
their limited resources in projects which support such wikis to be
worthwhile.

I think it is clear that views differ, and so the answer is "we'll
look at projects on a case-by-case basis" :)

--
Harry

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Harry Burt
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM, HJ Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The same could be said of Welsh, or Latin, or a handful of other languages
> with a dedicated Wikipedia. I'm on the fence as to the usefulness of these
> projects, but I thought I'd just point out that there are a few of them. ;)
>
> Harry
> (HJ Mitchell)

Oh, sure. But Scots is the most marginal case of the lot, I think,
which is why I was reminded of it by the original post.

--
Harry (User:Jarry1250)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Fae-6
Hi,

I agree with Tom that WMUK supports open knowledge across all the
projects, that includes the Tamil Wikipedia as well as the Welsh and
Scots one.

As a trustee I'm keen that we can demonstrate our commitment to
diversity and international collaboration. That's one of the reasons
we were excited to have bragging rights for the Derby Museum articles
existing in 100+ languages and for the V&A museum to involve live
collaboration in multiple languages in multiple countries.

As part of the GLAM UK task force I am also interested in developing a
sustainable GLAM network of e-volunteers. As there is significant
interest in Welsh, Scots and Gaelic (Scottish and Irish) these are
specific opportunities to support new Wikimedians for local languages.
Rather than being tempted to pre-judge importance based on whether any
particular language version of Wikipedia being currently weak, I
suggest we prioritise our support based on genuine community interest.
If more people living in the UK come forward wanting to do an exciting
project on the Somalian Wikipedia, that will probably get more of our
attention and be more of a priority for any funding than a proposal
for a Welsh project with only one supporter.

I agree that the Scots Wikipedia needs improvement, that makes it a
great opportunity for a spontaneous proposal for funding from a group
of Wikimedians with Scots language skills which the board can then
judge on its own merits, I can assure you that all the trustees would
love to receive such proposals.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Andrew West-4
In reply to this post by Harry Burt
On 28 September 2011 13:53, Harry Burt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Oh, sure. But Scots is the most marginal case of the lot, I think,
> which is why I was reminded of it by the original post.

I agree that it is debatable whether some of the marginal wikipedias
have much value, although in the case of Scots it is perhaps because
it is generally quite understandable to most English speakers that
makes the Scots Wikipedia seem less useful than say Welsh or Irish
Wikipedias.

<http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_leid>

However, I do think that Wikimedia UK ought to offer support and
encouragement to other language wikis with UK connections if needed.
The following is a list of other language Wikipedias that could be
considered to come under the purview of Wikimedia UK:

Simple English
<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia>
73,631 articles

Welsh
<http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymraeg>
33,944 articles

Irish
<http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaeilge>
13,294 articles

Scottish Gaelic
<http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A0idhlig>
8,459 articles

Scots
<http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_leid>
7,153 articles

Manx
<http://gv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelg>
3,900 articles

Norman (including Guernésiais, Jèrriais and Sercquiais)
<http://nrm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normaund>
3,473 articles

Anglo-Saxon
<http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englisc_spr%C7%A3c>
2,720 articles

Cornish
<http://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernewek>
2,188 articles

Andrew
[[User:BabelStone]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Deryck Chan
In reply to this post by Fae-6

Being a founding sysop of the Cantonese Wikipedia and a member of WMHK, I've had experience handling skepticism towards regional language Wikipedias.

Where speakers of that language (both first and second) are concerned, I think it is the chapter's duty to promote the project rather than feed the skepticism. It is important for the chapter to make clear to the public the Wikimedia movement's position about regional languages and projects in those languages.

On Sep 28, 2011 2:26 PM, "Fae" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Tom that WMUK supports open knowledge across all the
> projects, that includes the Tamil Wikipedia as well as the Welsh and
> Scots one.
>
> As a trustee I'm keen that we can demonstrate our commitment to
> diversity and international collaboration. That's one of the reasons
> we were excited to have bragging rights for the Derby Museum articles
> existing in 100+ languages and for the V&A museum to involve live
> collaboration in multiple languages in multiple countries.
>
> As part of the GLAM UK task force I am also interested in developing a
> sustainable GLAM network of e-volunteers. As there is significant
> interest in Welsh, Scots and Gaelic (Scottish and Irish) these are
> specific opportunities to support new Wikimedians for local languages.
> Rather than being tempted to pre-judge importance based on whether any
> particular language version of Wikipedia being currently weak, I
> suggest we prioritise our support based on genuine community interest.
> If more people living in the UK come forward wanting to do an exciting
> project on the Somalian Wikipedia, that will probably get more of our
> attention and be more of a priority for any funding than a proposal
> for a Welsh project with only one supporter.
>
> I agree that the Scots Wikipedia needs improvement, that makes it a
> great opportunity for a spontaneous proposal for funding from a group
> of Wikimedians with Scots language skills which the board can then
> judge on its own merits, I can assure you that all the trustees would
> love to receive such proposals.
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
> --
> http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
> Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Andrew West-4
On 28 September 2011 16:13, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Being a founding sysop of the Cantonese Wikipedia and a member of WMHK, I've
> had experience handling skepticism towards regional language Wikipedias.
>
> Where speakers of that language (both first and second) are concerned, I
> think it is the chapter's duty to promote the project rather than feed the
> skepticism. It is important for the chapter to make clear to the public the
> Wikimedia movement's position about regional languages and projects in those
> languages.

I fully agree.

The British governement has made various commitments with regard to
regional languages in the UK

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom#Status>

and the regional language versions of Wikipedia are one very real way
of helping promote the wider use of these languages.

Andrew
[[User:BabelStone]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

brian.mcneil-2
In reply to this post by Harry Burt
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:53 +0100, Harry Burt wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM, HJ Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The same could be said of Welsh, or Latin, or a handful of other languages
> > with a dedicated Wikipedia. I'm on the fence as to the usefulness of these
> > projects, but I thought I'd just point out that there are a few of them. ;)
> >
> > Harry
> > (HJ Mitchell)
>
> Oh, sure. But Scots is the most marginal case of the lot, I think,
> which is why I was reminded of it by the original post.

I'm going to chime in here onHarry's post, as-opposed to getting further
down the rabbit hole on this discussion.

I live in Edinburgh. I am surrounded by people who speak Scots. They
don't even know they do so. If you mention Scots as a language to them,
they *might* think of the poetry of Rabbie Burns. If they're smart, they
may say they speak a Scottish dialect of English.

Personally, I would say the difference between Scots and British English
is more than the difference between Brit.Eng and U.S.Eng, but less than
the difference back to Shakespearean English.

I'd go as far as saying you can only call it a distinct language if
you're one of the people south of the border who demanded subtitles for
Rab C. Nesbitt.

Whether or not the sco language code is justified, is a point I'll defer
to linguists on. As I say, Burns is the best-known example of it, and
I've no passion to glorify the poetic musings of an ex-tax collector.


Brian McNeil.
--
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

brian.mcneil-2
In reply to this post by Michael Peel-4
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 10:02 +0100, Michael Peel wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 09:58, Harry Burt wrote:
>
> > Sorry to ask such a tangential question, but what is WMUK's position
> > on non-English wikis that might be suitable for a Scottish audience
> > (e.g. Scots)? Will it seek to actively promote interest in them?
>
> In general, yes, most definitely.
>
> In reality, we need to have speakers of the language, and people from the appropriate geography, involved so that it's not just English people promoting them. ;-) Finding those people has proved to be very tricky in the past (as is currently being demonstrated by the few people that have signed up or left apologies for the Edinburgh wikimeet this Saturday, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Edinburgh_3 ).

Mike,

I think I've identified the biggest problem there: Geonotices are opt-in
only. I've *never* been presented with one, and I'm not even sure where
I'd enable such.

That is,... stupid (yes, being my notoriously blunt self). Whilst the
WMF does not want to irk people to the extent Facebook does with their
perpetual extreme makeovers, there is nothing wrong with saying "we have
a real-world event in your area, click here to view, or here to disable
such notices".

We could easily be missing dozens of people with 4-figure-plus edit
counts because it might be intrusive to tell them fellow Wikimedians are
in the area.

Incidentally, Rock Drum has done a great job on tarting up the Wikimedia
in Scotland page! Kudos are due there.

Brian McNeil.
--
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Deryck Chan
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
Edinburgh probably isn't very representative of the lot. Bring on the Glaswegians and Aberdeen Dorics! My classmate from Aberdeen claims clearly that he's *bilingual* in Doric [Scots] and English, as do most natives of Aberdeen. I think there are lots of native Scots speakers who realise Scots is different enough from English that it has become a different language, and it's our job to promote their awareness of a Scots Wikipedia.

However, for those in Edinburgh who aren't sure whether they're speaking Scots or just Scottish English, I agree that pushing them to contribute or read a Scots Wikipedia isn't the best of ideas.

(Re geonotices)
Geonotices are opt-out rather than opt-in. However, geolocation often isn't very good in the UK, and it's possible that your IP is tagged to the wrong place all the time.

On 29 September 2011 22:17, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:53 +0100, Harry Burt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM, HJ Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The same could be said of Welsh, or Latin, or a handful of other languages
> > with a dedicated Wikipedia. I'm on the fence as to the usefulness of these
> > projects, but I thought I'd just point out that there are a few of them. ;)
> >
> > Harry
> > (HJ Mitchell)
>
> Oh, sure. But Scots is the most marginal case of the lot, I think,
> which is why I was reminded of it by the original post.

I'm going to chime in here onHarry's post, as-opposed to getting further
down the rabbit hole on this discussion.

I live in Edinburgh. I am surrounded by people who speak Scots. They
don't even know they do so. If you mention Scots as a language to them,
they *might* think of the poetry of Rabbie Burns. If they're smart, they
may say they speak a Scottish dialect of English.

Personally, I would say the difference between Scots and British English
is more than the difference between Brit.Eng and U.S.Eng, but less than
the difference back to Shakespearean English.

I'd go as far as saying you can only call it a distinct language if
you're one of the people south of the border who demanded subtitles for
Rab C. Nesbitt.

Whether or not the sco language code is justified, is a point I'll defer
to linguists on. As I say, Burns is the best-known example of it, and
I've no passion to glorify the poetic musings of an ex-tax collector.


Brian McNeil.
--
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

geni
On 29 September 2011 22:29, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Edinburgh probably isn't very representative of the lot. Bring on the
> Glaswegians and Aberdeen Dorics! My classmate from Aberdeen claims clearly
> that he's *bilingual* in Doric [Scots] and English, as do most natives of
> Aberdeen. I think there are lots of native Scots speakers who realise Scots
> is different enough from English that it has become a different language,
> and it's our job to promote their awareness of a Scots Wikipedia.

Except the history suggests the reverse Scots was a separate language
that has largely merged into English.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

iain.macdonald
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
There's a lot of discussion about Scots.... But what of Scottish Gaelic? That's a very distinct language and of real benefit to those who still speak it - though that number is diminishing.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A little wiki "hacking"
From: geni <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, September 30, 2011 3:00 am
To: [hidden email]

On 29 September 2011 22:29, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Edinburgh probably isn't very representative of the lot. Bring on the
> Glaswegians and Aberdeen Dorics! My classmate from Aberdeen claims clearly
> that he's *bilingual* in Doric [Scots] and English, as do most natives of
> Aberdeen. I think there are lots of native Scots speakers who realise Scots
> is different enough from English that it has become a different language,
> and it's our job to promote their awareness of a Scots Wikipedia.

Except the history suggests the reverse Scots was a separate language
that has largely merged into English.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Thomas Dalton
On 30 September 2011 11:31,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There's a lot of discussion about Scots.... But what of Scottish Gaelic?
> That's a very distinct language and of real benefit to those who still speak
> it - though that number is diminishing.

Indeed. Part of the issue there is that the number is diminishing so
much that there aren't enough speakers left to really produce a good
encyclopaedia (there's something like 60,000 global speakers). The
problem is even more apparent when you realise that what speakers
there are tend to be a lot older than our core contributing
demographic.

I'd be inclined to say that Scots isn't really a separate language and
Scottish Gaelic is too small to ever be a successful project, so we
shouldn't really worry about either. If there are speakers of either
language that want to do something, the chapter can support them
through microgrants. I wouldn't advise a proactive approach by the
chapter.

The main argument is that there is essentially no-one that speaks
Scots or Scottish Gaelic that doesn't also speak fluent English. That
means our efforts will have significantly more impact if we
concentrate on English. (Welsh is substantially larger, so it might be
worth reaching out to the Welsh community, even though they all speak
English too.)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A little wiki "hacking"

Richard Symonds-2
Welsh people don't all speak English: I used to work with people from north
Wales who couldn't speak a word of it. They /only/ spoke Welsh. Unusual,
perhaps, but it happens.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: 30 September 2011 13:05
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A little wiki "hacking"

On 30 September 2011 11:31,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There's a lot of discussion about Scots.... But what of Scottish Gaelic?
> That's a very distinct language and of real benefit to those who still
speak
> it - though that number is diminishing.

Indeed. Part of the issue there is that the number is diminishing so
much that there aren't enough speakers left to really produce a good
encyclopaedia (there's something like 60,000 global speakers). The
problem is even more apparent when you realise that what speakers
there are tend to be a lot older than our core contributing
demographic.

I'd be inclined to say that Scots isn't really a separate language and
Scottish Gaelic is too small to ever be a successful project, so we
shouldn't really worry about either. If there are speakers of either
language that want to do something, the chapter can support them
through microgrants. I wouldn't advise a proactive approach by the
chapter.

The main argument is that there is essentially no-one that speaks
Scots or Scottish Gaelic that doesn't also speak fluent English. That
means our efforts will have significantly more impact if we
concentrate on English. (Welsh is substantially larger, so it might be
worth reaching out to the Welsh community, even though they all speak
English too.)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
12