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>
