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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
