Hoi,
The issue is that grc developped over time and consequently what standard
should be followed?
Thanks,
GerardM
Op do 2 feb. 2017 om 15:52 schreef MF-Warburg <[email protected]>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
