Shouldn't we, when we accept this line of argument, also accept Ancient Greek (grc)?
2017-02-02 12:34 GMT+01:00 Oliver Stegen <[email protected]>: > Hi, > I found Jan's exposition most helpful and actually convincing - thanks! > > In response, I am no longer opposed to make lfn eligible. Go ahead! (And > may it thrive.) > > Oliver > > On 02-Feb-17 10:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > 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]> > 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) 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]>: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen >>> <[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] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing > [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
