Hoi,
I like the argument put forward by Jan and Michael. Personally I do
not mind when people are busy with knowledge in any language and we do
know that some say that the WMF is in the business of education..
Surely people get educated in this way.
The problem is in two parts. How do we prevent an environment that is
out of control ... (This is not specific to a conlang) and two, what
does it take to prevent death by lack of attention in the future.
The first is not really a problem we have a precedent whereby a
project can be closed. The second does not need to be a problem when
there is attention for its quality (also automated).
So I am rather positive to allow for a change of heart.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 1 February 2017 at 12:57, Jan van Steenbergen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not a member of the Langcom, but I've been subscribed to this
mailing list for quite a while now. Since my primary field of
interest is constructed languages, let me tell you why I am
inclined to support this request. Mind, I am in no way involved
with LFN itself.
My point of view is that there is only one criterion that should
really matter for allowing a project to exist, namely the
question: is it sustainable?
At present, we have Wikipedias in seven constructed languages:
Esperanto, Volapük, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental),
Novial and Lojban. Of these, only Esperanto has native speakers,
albeit an extremely low number compared to virtually all ethnic
languages with a Wikipedia. Yet, the project is thriving. With
>236,000 articles it is #32 on the list, which is more than
Wikipedias in for example Greek, Danish, Bulgarian and Hindi. Ido
and Interlingua (#98 and #109) are doing fine as well, in spite of
the fact that both languages have no native speakers and less than
a thousand users. The number of Volapük users is not more than a
few dozens, but the "Vükiped" is doing reasonably well anyway.
Even Interlingue seems to manage somehow, although its number of
users (I always avoid the word "speakers" in the case of
constructed languages) is probably less than ten.
The only project that IMO has become a failure is Novial.
Currently it has 1,644 articles. About 50 of them have some real
critical mass, perhaps another 200 are more than just one or two
lines of text, tables and infoboxes. After its foundation it had a
few enthusiastic, active users, but they all seem to have vanished
a long time ago. Since 2011 practically nothing has been happening
over there. New articles still appear every once in a while, but
most of these are the work of people who don't even know the
language and just copy info from other articles, giving articles
whose sole content is: "George Clooney is an American actor".
Wikipedia projects in three other constructed languages have been
closed in the past, for different reasons: Siberian because it
turned out a hoax, Toki Poni because it is a minimalistic language
with just ±120 words, Klingon because it is a work of fiction with
a vocabulary too small for creating a viable project in it. For
the same reason, Quenya and Sindarin are not suitable either.
Anyway, compare all this to Wikipedias in African languages, for
example Oromo: a major language with 60 million speakers, but only
726 articles, most of which are oneliners like "Germany is a
country in Europe" or even empty. Where's the educational value in
that?
Speaking about educational value, I think this boils down to two
things: communicating valuable content, and working with the
language itself.
When it comes to perusing Wikipedia because one is looking for
info, a vast majority of the projects we have are quite
unnecessary. Speakers of Bavarian, Luxemburgish, Rhaeto-Romance,
Belarusian, Bashkir or Pennsylvania German won't be looking for
information in their native language, they will look for info
where they can find it, and in a language they speak fluently,
i.e. in German, Russian, English etc. Wikipedias in languages like
that serve an entirely different purpose: they offer a platform
for generating content in a particular language, for practicing
it, developing it, showcasing it. In other words, these projects
are there for the sake of the language itself rather than the
information presented in it.
And in this respect, numbers of native speakers are completely
irrelevant. Latin has no native speakers, but its Wikipedia is
still a success. What really matters, in other words, is whether
there are people willing to write in it and read in it.
LFN is of more recent date than the other auxlang projects, but
remarkably vivid nonetheless. I don't know if it really has 100
active users; numbers like that are notoriously difficult to
verify, and the only persons who really have an idea about these
figures are the same ones who have a vested interest in
exaggerating them. But it is clear that there is a large number of
people involved in it anyway, enough to generate quite some
content. Of course, nobody knows what will happen when the author
of the languages stops being involved with the language for
whatever reason: it might go down the same road as Novial, but
that would be a worst case scenario. In any case, the LFN wiki at
Wikia (http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Paje_xef
<http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Paje_xef>) has 3,774 pages at present,
and keeps growing. Quite a lot of these pages are substantial
articles, some of them having even more content than their
equivalents in the major European languages. Obviously, not all
pages could be moved to a Wikipedia in LFN, as they also contain
translations of poetry and prose, but still, even at the very
start this Wikipedia would be at a higher level than those in
Interlingue, Novial, Volapük and Lojban. Not only in terms of
numbers, but also in terms of substance and quality. So why not
give it a chance?
Best regards,
Jan van Steenbergen (User:IJzeren Jan)
2017-02-01 10:15 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
> We had in the past really well functioning languages that
were also shifted
> to Wikia. It is all part and parcel of the original idea of
the policy to
> prevent the easy creation of new projects. This was needed
because at the
> time there was a groundswell of sentiment to prevent new
projects all
> together.
>
> When one member of the committee says "NO", it will not
happen. Wen doubts
> are raised it is not no. So please be clear what your
intentions are.
True. Here is my more precise position.
My basic position is on the Amir's line: So weak against ("Wikia
should be good enough") that I don't want to be the one who
blocks it.
However, for me it *is* mandatory to have a good reasoning in
favor.
That's why I asked Michael to make one. I see that as mandatory
because of the future request.
There is a tiny line, invisible from both sides, which differs
relevant institutions from irrelevant ones. LangCom exists to keep
Wikimedia relevant institution in relation to the languages. I
would
define relevancy as.
We are still on the relevant side and LFN is one of the
possible lines
and we need to make a good decision here. And I have to say
that what
Amir's said about LFN doesn't sound promising at the moment.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
