Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

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

Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
others.

In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.

   - Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
   it
   - Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
   require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
      - it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
      not exist at the time when the language was alive
      - neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
      exist at the time when the language was alive
      - modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
   - Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
   not permitted

We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
a need.

When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.

With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
legitimate.

This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.

In essence, to be clear about it:

   - We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
   - We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
   constructed languages

We need to do both in order to move forward.

The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:

   - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
   - We need full WMF localisation from the start
   - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
   encyclopaedia
   - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
   demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
   topics
   - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
   project

Thanks,
      GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Ziko van Dijk
Dear GerardM,
Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following
the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me.
So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in
Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are
"constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed.
And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them.
When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as
done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't
remember by heart the exact list):
- publications
- conventions
- codification by dictionaries, grammars
- sociological or political diversification of the language community
- family language
According to that, Blanke divides into:
- Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
- Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
- Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban

Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen,
1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will
make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close
to the language community (language and culture, history of the region,
maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range,
like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology.
On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
1) and 2).
On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).

From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of
Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an
ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss.
One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there
a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major
difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This
criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but
would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who
merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.

Ziko







>    - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
>    - We need full WMF localisation from the start
>    - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
>    encyclopaedia
>    - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
>    demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide
> range of
>    topics
>    - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
>    project
>
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
Roomberg 30
NL-7064 BN Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

M. Williamson
There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular:

- The requirement of native speakers.
- Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular
view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this
will make the language they are writing from an historical language
into a conlang.

Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said
at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I
can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to
himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him,
they have not "considered" his argument?

I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I
asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10
or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I
asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me
add a qualifier or two:

1) Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original
corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can
rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney
Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is.
Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only
for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are
universals or close to it).
2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating
machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism.
Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a
living language).

With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a
neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am
not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are
arguing about something that is said to exist without even having
proof that it does.

Mark

On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear GerardM,
>  Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following
>  the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me.
>  So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in
>  Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are
>  "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed.
>  And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them.
>  When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as
>  done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't
>  remember by heart the exact list):
>  - publications
>  - conventions
>  - codification by dictionaries, grammars
>  - sociological or political diversification of the language community
>  - family language
>  According to that, Blanke divides into:
>  - Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
>  - Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
>  only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
>  - Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
>  others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
>
>  Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen,
>  1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will
>  make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close
>  to the language community (language and culture, history of the region,
>  maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range,
>  like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology.
>  On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
>  1) and 2).
>  On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
>
>  From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of
>  Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an
>  ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss.
>  One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there
>  a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major
>  difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This
>  criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but
>  would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who
>  merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
>
>  Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  >    - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
>  >    - We need full WMF localisation from the start
>  >    - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
>  >    encyclopaedia
>  >    - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
>  >    demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide
>  > range of
>  >    topics
>  >    - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
>  >    project
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >       GerardM
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > [hidden email]
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  Ziko van Dijk
>  Roomberg 30
>  NL-7064 BN Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Chad
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said
>  at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
> and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I
>  can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to
>  himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him,
>  they have not "considered" his argument?

You've hit the nail on the head right there with your last statement,
and it describes
quite a few people on this list, I'm afraid. Gerard, your passion for
wanting to do this
correctly is admirable, I cannot deny that. However, at times you--and
many others,
on both sides of the debate--work yourselves into a posisition where
you only seem
to see "your" solution as "the" solution. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing, but it can
cause discussions to be frustrating at times. And to everyone, please
remember that
it's OK to be wrong! It's not a battle to be won, lives aren't lost
because people disagree
with you. I think if we all remember this a little more often and are
willing to say "You're
right, we should do it your way instead of mine," we can be a little
more productive. And
nicer.

>  I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I
>  asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10
>  or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I
>  asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me
>  add a qualifier or two:

Likewise. I would like to see the same information before I can accept
that this is a
realistic concern.

Always,

Chad

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There are two stumbling blocks for grc.wp in particular:
>
>  - The requirement of native speakers.
>  - Gerard's unilateral and so far apparently unsupported and unpopular
>  view that people will make new words up out of thin air and that this
>  will make the language they are writing from an historical language
>  into a conlang.
>
>  Now, the second problem has been discussed over and over. Gerard said
>  at the beginning of this thread: "Many people maintain their positions
>
> and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of others." I
>  can't help but wonder who he is referring to here? Is he referring to
>  himself? Or does he consider that unless people all agree with him,
>  they have not "considered" his argument?
>
>  I considered his argument, and I disagree and think it is invalid. I
>  asked even for evidence of these made-up words... why not give me 10
>  or 20 words as proof? But I have yet to see them. I was ignored once I
>  asked for the proof. If he decides he is up to my challenge, let me
>  add a qualifier or two:
>
>  1) Proper names do not count. Although they may not be in the original
>  corpus, this is irrelevant as any language, historical or modern, can
>  rapidly assimilate proper names from other languages. Thus, "Britney
>  Spears" is not a neologism, but a made-up word to mean "computer" is.
>  Most proper nouns are the same in all languages with exceptions only
>  for certain toponyms (even in the case of toponyms, many are
>  universals or close to it).
>  2) A word, present in the historical corpus, that means "calculating
>  machine" used to mean "computer" in modern texts is not a neologism.
>  Neither is a descriptive phrase of the type used in Navajo (which is a
>  living language).
>
>  With those two restrictions in mind, I challenge anyone to find a
>  neologism in use in the grc test wiki, or the Gothic Wikipedia. I am
>  not saying they do not exist, but I think it is ridiculous that we are
>  arguing about something that is said to exist without even having
>  proof that it does.
>
>  Mark
>
>
>
>  On 17/04/2008, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > Dear GerardM,
>  >  Thank you for your explanations; it is sometimes difficult to me following
>  >  the discussions, a full history of the subject would be useful to me.
>  >  So, if I understand correctly, if nowadays someone would propose WPs in
>  >  Esperanto or Latin or Anglo-Saxon, they would be rejected, because they are
>  >  "constructed" (interlinguistics say: planned) languages or reconstructed.
>  >  And they do not have native speakers, or just a small percentage of them.
>  >  When judging the vitality of a language, one can make a list of criteria as
>  >  done by Detlev Blanke: Internationale Plansprachen, Bln. 1985 (I don't
>  >  remember by heart the exact list):
>  >  - publications
>  >  - conventions
>  >  - codification by dictionaries, grammars
>  >  - sociological or political diversification of the language community
>  >  - family language
>  >  According to that, Blanke divides into:
>  >  - Planned languages: a full language, in fact only Esperanto
>  >  - Semi-Planned languages (Semiplansprachen): only some achievements, today
>  >  only Interlingua and Ido, in history also Volapük and Occidental-Interlingue
>  >  - Projects of planned languages: a very faint existence if at all: all the
>  >  others (more than 1000 projects), including Novial, Lojban
>  >
>  >  Following Heinz Kloss (Die Entwicklung neuerer germanischer Kultursprachen,
>  >  1978), a small language does not cover all fields of a big language. It will
>  >  make it possible to speak on a level of low education about 1) matters close
>  >  to the language community (language and culture, history of the region,
>  >  maybe a craft common in the region), 2) cultural subjects of a larger range,
>  >  like general politics, philosophy, 3) subjects of science and technology.
>  >  On a level of higher education the small language works only on the subjects
>  >  1) and 2).
>  >  On a scientific level the small language works only on subject 1).
>  >
>  >  From this one could draw conclusions whether to accept a language edition of
>  >  Wikipedia, like: a planned language should be a Semiplansprache at least; an
>  >  ethnic language should cover the subjects as described by Kloss.
>  >  One criterion useful especially with regard to Wikipedia might be: Is there
>  >  a vocabulary about computer and internet matters? Would it be a major
>  >  difficulty to the language community to translate the MediaWiki? This
>  >  criterion would cause no problem to Latin and certainly not Esperanto, but
>  >  would ban very recent projects of planned languages and regional idioms who
>  >  merely are dialects or local varieties of the standard language.
>  >
>  >  Ziko
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  >    - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
>  >  >    - We need full WMF localisation from the start
>  >  >    - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
>  >  >    encyclopaedia
>  >  >    - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
>  >  >    demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide
>  >  > range of
>  >  >    topics
>  >  >    - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
>  >  >    project
>  >  >
>  >  > Thanks,
>  >  >       GerardM
>  >  > _______________________________________________
>  >  > foundation-l mailing list
>  >  > [hidden email]
>  >  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  >  Ziko van Dijk
>  >  Roomberg 30
>  >  NL-7064 BN Silvolde
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  >  foundation-l mailing list
>  >  [hidden email]
>  >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Jesse (Pathoschild)
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard,

I disagree with your proposal.

I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is
"sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent
many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for
advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be
perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they
might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?

Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
languages.

I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does)
use English in his everyday life, including research and
communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which
exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead
languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European
does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.

So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this change.

(As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only
there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove
it.)

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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used
for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages.
Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.

If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken
natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and
Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead
languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.

This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague
because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not
intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the
rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.
Thanks,
     Gerard

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> I disagree with your proposal.
>
> I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is
> "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent
> many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for
> advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be
> perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they
> might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
>
> Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
> and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
> uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> languages.
>
> I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
> of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
> exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does)
> use English in his everyday life, including research and
> communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which
> exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead
> languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European
> does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
>
> So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this
> change.
>
> (As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only
> there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove
> it.)
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Jesse (Pathoschild)
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
>  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
>  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
>  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
>  languages.
>
>  I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
>  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
>  exchange.

You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and
similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use
is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
languages.

And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain
languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world to
write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to write
an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages,
would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?

Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many
other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
editions.

Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.

Thanks,
Pharos

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

M. Williamson
Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.

Mark

On 17/04/2008, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
>  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
>  >  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
>  >  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
>  >  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
>  >  languages.
>  >
>  >  I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
>  >  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
>  >  exchange.
>
>
> You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
>  written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
>  Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
>  ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
>  literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and
>  similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use
>  is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
>  languages.
>
>  And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain
>  languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world to
>  write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
>  based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
>  optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to write
>  an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages,
>  would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
>
>  Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many
>  other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
>  editions.
>
>  Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
>  Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
>
>  Thanks,
>
> Pharos
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
So Ancient Greek is not a natural language? 100 out of 100 linguists
would beg to differ.

Mark

On 17/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
>  Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used
>  for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages.
>  Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.
>
>  If you have not found arguments for the use of languages that are spoken
>  natively, you are effectively denying the use of projects like Latin and
>  Esperanto and are in effect blanket blocking all constructed and dead
>  languages to have a Wikipedia. It is nice to have that in the open.
>
>  This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague
>  because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not
>  intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the
>  rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.
>  Thanks,
>
>      Gerard
>
>
>  On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
>  [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > Gerard,
>  >
>  > I disagree with your proposal.
>  >
>  > I think some of the proposed criteria are very arbitrary. What is
>  > "sufficiently expressive" for a modern encyclopedia? Does that prevent
>  > many natural languages (such as Navajo) which don't have words for
>  > advanced technology? Wouldn't "insufficiently expressive" languages be
>  > perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of concepts, even if they
>  > might not have an article on quantum superstring theory?
>  >
>  > Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this discussion,
>  > and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages nobody
>  > uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
>  > knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
>  > languages.
>  >
>  > I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
>  > of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for academic
>  > exchange. An English scholar of Ancient Greek can (and probably does)
>  > use English in his everyday life, including research and
>  > communication. An exception can (and is) made for Wikisource, which
>  > exists to collect existing literature, but other projects in dead
>  > languages do not serve our mission. A scholar of Proto-Indo-European
>  > does not communicate in Proto-Indo-European.
>  >
>  > So while I'm open to further debate, I currently disagree with this
>  > change.
>  >
>  > (As an aside, the vague statement in the policy you point out is only
>  > there because you consistently blocked a majority agreement to remove
>  > it.)
>  >
>  > --
>  > Yours cordially,
>  > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > [hidden email]
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Hoi,
If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has
been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we
are discussing, I am done talking.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
> discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
>
> Mark
>
> On 17/04/2008, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> >  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  >  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
> discussion,
> >  >  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
> nobody
> >  >  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> >  >  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> >  >  languages.
> >  >
> >  >  I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
> >  >  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
> academic
> >  >  exchange.
> >
> >
> > You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
> >  written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
> >  Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
> >  ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
> >  literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and
> >  similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use
> >  is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
> >  languages.
> >
> >  And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain
> >  languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world to
> >  write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
> >  based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
> >  optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to write
> >  an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages,
> >  would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
> >
> >  Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many
> >  other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
> >  editions.
> >
> >  Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
> >  Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> > Pharos
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  [hidden email]
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

M. Williamson
Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every
project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to
discuss approval of Latin projects.

Mark

On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
>  If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has
>  been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we
>  are discussing, I am done talking.
>  Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
>  > discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
>  >
>  > Mark
>  >
>  > On 17/04/2008, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
>  > >  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > >  >  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
>  > discussion,
>  > >  >  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
>  > nobody
>  > >  >  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
>  > >  >  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
>  > >  >  languages.
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
>  > >  >  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
>  > academic
>  > >  >  exchange.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
>  > >  written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
>  > >  Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
>  > >  ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
>  > >  literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and
>  > >  similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use
>  > >  is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
>  > >  languages.
>  > >
>  > >  And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain
>  > >  languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world to
>  > >  write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
>  > >  based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
>  > >  optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to write
>  > >  an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages,
>  > >  would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
>  > >
>  > >  Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many
>  > >  other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
>  > >  editions.
>  > >
>  > >  Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
>  > >  Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
>  > >
>  > >  Thanks,
>  > >
>  > > Pharos
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  _______________________________________________
>  > >  foundation-l mailing list
>  > >  [hidden email]
>  > >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  > >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > [hidden email]
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Jesse (Pathoschild)
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Please read the proposal better next time. "sufficiently expressive" is used
>  for the proposed criteria for constructed and reconstructed languages.
>  Natural languages are not like Navajo are not in that class.

The "reconstructed" languages you suggest are natural languages
without modern native speakers.


Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  This "vague statement" has been there from the start, it is only vague
>  because of your insistence that it is to be interpreted in a way it was not
>  intended to be. The intent was that it was to be read as an exception on the
>  rule for native speakers. I know because I put it there.

You did not put it there. It was present in my original draft written
in November 2006:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy?diff=466496#Prerequisites>.
This predated my joining of the subcommittee, so you had no say in
that draft. It was intended as an additional requirement, as shown by
the fact that there's no requirement for native speakers in that draft
to exempt them from. It was only left as an oversight, and then you
blocked its removal when we noticed.

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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

とある白い猫
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
I think we may want a "historic texts" wikisource/wikibooks particularly for
texts in now extinct languages. Something sort of like commons for historic
texts for all extinct languages. I do not know something like this was
proposed before.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)


On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every
> project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to
> discuss approval of Latin projects.
>
> Mark
>
> On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> >  If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient
> Greek has
> >  been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is
> all we
> >  are discussing, I am done talking.
> >  Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> >
> >  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
> >  > discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
> >  >
> >  > Mark
> >  >
> >  > On 17/04/2008, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> >  > >  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  > >  >  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
> >  > discussion,
> >  > >  >  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
> >  > nobody
> >  > >  >  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> >  > >  >  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> >  > >  >  languages.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  >  I think the argument that they act as a common language for
> scholars
> >  > >  >  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
> >  > academic
> >  > >  >  exchange.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
> >  > >  written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
> >  > >  Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
> >  > >  ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
> >  > >  literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin
> and
> >  > >  similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a
> use
> >  > >  is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
> >  > >  languages.
> >  > >
> >  > >  And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in
> certain
> >  > >  languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world
> to
> >  > >  write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
> >  > >  based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
> >  > >  optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to
> write
> >  > >  an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial
> languages,
> >  > >  would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
> >  > >
> >  > >  Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into
> many
> >  > >  other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
> >  > >  editions.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
> >  > >  Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Thanks,
> >  > >
> >  > > Pharos
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >  _______________________________________________
> >  > >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  > >  [hidden email]
> >  > >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > foundation-l mailing list
> >  > [hidden email]
> >  > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >  >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  [hidden email]
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

M. Williamson
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!

This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't that
already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?


2011/9/20 とある白い猫 <[hidden email]>

> I think we may want a "historic texts" wikisource/wikibooks particularly
> for
> texts in now extinct languages. Something sort of like commons for historic
> texts for all extinct languages. I do not know something like this was
> proposed before.
>
>  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every
> > project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to
> > discuss approval of Latin projects.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > >  If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient
> > Greek has
> > >  been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is
> > all we
> > >  are discussing, I am done talking.
> > >  Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >  > Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
> > >  > discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
> > >  >
> > >  > Mark
> > >  >
> > >  > On 17/04/2008, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> > >  > >  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  > >  >  Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
> > >  > discussion,
> > >  > >  >  and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
> > >  > nobody
> > >  > >  >  uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> > >  > >  >  knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> > >  > >  >  languages.
> > >  > >  >
> > >  > >  >  I think the argument that they act as a common language for
> > scholars
> > >  > >  >  of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
> > >  > academic
> > >  > >  >  exchange.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
> > >  > >  written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere.  If
> > >  > >  Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for
> purely
> > >  > >  ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
> > >  > >  literature?  And though that use has declined greatly for Latin
> > and
> > >  > >  similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such
> a
> > use
> > >  > >  is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
> > >  > >  languages.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in
> > certain
> > >  > >  languages?  If one were to collect writers from around the world
> > to
> > >  > >  write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
> > >  > >  based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
> > >  > >  optimal language for collaboration be Latin?  And if one were to
> > write
> > >  > >  an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial
> > languages,
> > >  > >  would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into
> > many
> > >  > >  other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
> > >  > >  editions.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case
> for
> > >  > >  Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  Thanks,
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Pharos
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  > >  foundation-l mailing list
> > >  > >  [hidden email]
> > >  > >  Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > >  > foundation-l mailing list
> > >  > [hidden email]
> > >  > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >  >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  foundation-l mailing list
> > >  [hidden email]
> > >  Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

John Mark Vandenberg
2011/9/21 M. Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
>
> This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't that
> already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?

Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual
Wikisource project.

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages

Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.

http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792
(Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)

Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

とある白い猫
Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than
exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the two
as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)


2011/9/20 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>

> 2011/9/21 M. Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
> >
> > This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't
> that
> > already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
>
> Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual
> Wikisource project.
>
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages
>
> Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.
>
> http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792
> (Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)
>
> Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The language policy does not allow for Wikipedia in extinct languages.
However, a Wikisource for the old Greek languages does make sense.

When such a Wikisource would be created, the user interface would by default
not be in modern Greek because more people study old Greek outside Greece
then inside Greece. We do not accept a user interface in old Greek for the
same reasons we do not accept a Wikipedia in old Greek.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2011/9/21 とある白い猫 <[hidden email]>

> Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than
> exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the
> two
> as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.
>
>  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
>
> 2011/9/20 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>
> > 2011/9/21 M. Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > > Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!
> > >
> > > This seems like a good idea... but in the case of Wikisource, wouldn't
> > that
> > > already be covered by multilingual Wikisource?
> >
> > Yes, extinct/historical languages are collected by the multilingual
> > Wikisource project.
> >
> > http://wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Classical_and_historical_languages
> >
> > Ancient Greek works can also be found on the Greek Wikisource project.
> >
> > http://el.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=19792
> > (Category:Αρχαία Ελληνικά)
> >
> > Old English can also be found on the English Wikisource project.
> >
> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_works
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by とある白い猫
2011/9/21 とある白い猫 <[hidden email]>:
> Yes but isn't multilingual wikisource more of an incubator rather than
> exclusively for historic texts? It would make more sense to separate the two
> as inherently the two tasks have different goals in mind.

Multilingual Wikisource is a place for any texts which do not have
their own project (yet).  each text is a discrete work, and dont need
an active community in order to be a useful resource.  Eventualism is
stronger on Wikisource, which is why texts are not forced to reside on
the normal incubator.

--
John Vandenberg

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