As a matter of fact, I've never really understood why Ancient Greek didn't get its own Pedia long before. I mean, if we can have one in Anglosaxon, Old Church Slavonic, Classical Chinese and even Wulfilan Gothic, then why not one in Ancient Greek?
I don't know what the situation in other countries is, but here in the Netherlands Ancient Greek is an important topic on secondary schools of the highest level, and if I am to believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(school), the same goes for many other European countries as well. In other words, there is a large pool of people for whom Ancient Greek is an essential part of their education, including not only students, but also thousands of teachers. I genuinely believe a WP in Ancient Greek could be a great addition for those who'd like to read something else than just Homer, Euripides and Xenophon, and perhaps even to write something. From that point of view, I think it could be a nice learning tool for quite lot of people, and I can clearly see the educational value in that. The only problem might be the lack of words for modern concepts, but I suppose there are several possible solutions for that. Cheers, Jan 2017-02-02 15:52 GMT+01:00 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
