Luxembourgish has an ISO code, doesn't it? Why wouldn't it be allowed? Mark
2009/1/11 Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]>: > The problem seems to be not the lack of a linguist's knowledge. We > Wikimedians are not sure or unanimous about what to expect from a Wikipedia > language edition, and what languages (language communities) we trust to > conform to our expectations. > > My thoughts about the questions discussed here: > > - The language comittee could be organised differently, with more rules > about communication and decision making and also majority rule instead of a > veto for every member. > > - I don't think that Gerard deserves the aggression I have noticed here. > > - Wikipedia can not be a solution for all problems of the world. Language > planning is difficult and includes also the implementation of a language > (acquisition planning, status planning). I do not believe that creating an > encyclopaedia should be at the beginning of this long way. > > - Our present day rules for new proposals would outlaw language editions > already existing and doing well, like Esperanto ("constructed"), Latin > ("ancient") or Luxembourgish (dialect). It would be a pity if a Wikipedia > language edition does not exist for the only reason that a rule prohibits > it. > > - Labeling languages and forbidding them is not a good point to start. It > should not be said "this is a dialect, we don't want ist", but looked > whether there is an actual linguistic community that already uses the > language for purposes similar to Wikipedia (scientific, popularizing texts). > > - And, as already said, the decisive point is what we expect from a > Wikipedia. For some the Wikia of "Lingua Franca Nova" would have been a > great Wikipedia, for others it shows that a Wikipedia in it would have been > disappointing. > > Ziko > > > P.S. Maybe I should go on with translating my handbook about multilingual > Wikipedia to English. > > > > 2009/1/11 Milos Rancic <[email protected]> > >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Well, I think there should be not only computer-linguists experts like >> >> Evertype in LangCom, but you desperately need people who have good >> >> knowledge about culture, sociology and history of the main language >> >> groups, or at least you should be ready to ask relevant outside >> >> experts. I have a feeling that current LangCom completely ignores >> >> historical and cultural background related to language problems which >> >> is quite often a key to make resonable decissions. >> > >> > Actually, it is a misunderstanding of Michael's knowledge. His >> > expertise is, for example, making an orthography for a random language >> > [without orthography]. In fact, we need exactly his kind of linguists. >> > As I mentioned, we are working on raising expertise quality inside of >> > LangCom. >> >> And just to be more precise. After a couple of years of interacting >> with people in relation to Wikimedia projects, I realized that it is >> not so possible to get a random academician and put them into some >> Wikimedian working body. Usually, those persons are not so interested. >> >> I see that we have two more options for finding persons with relevant >> level of expertise: >> * to find Wikimedians with this kind of expertise; or >> * that some interested academician contacts us. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > -- > Ziko van Dijk > NL-Silvolde > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
