Good news at the end of the year: From Nurdin Kodzoev, the head of the history department of the 'Ingush Research Institute of Humanities' http://ingnii.ru/ I got the following confirmation:
“We reviewed the texts from this project and confirmed that they were written in the correct literary Ingush language. They uses the current rules of grammar of the Ingush language. I express my gratitude to Language Committee, and I hope that this section of Wikipedia in the Ingush language will be approved.“ Do we need a proposal for approval, or did we already have it? Am 27.12.2017 12:40 vorm. schrieb "MF-Warburg" <[email protected]>: > I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be > found to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian > Wikipedia case. So far we always found someone. > > That said, funnily <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Final_approval> says "If all requirements > have been met and a detailed investigation finds no unresolved problems", > but does not explicitly mention the expert verification which we do as part > of the "detailed investigation". So it's already possible to do this in a > different way if we really really want to in a justified case. > > > 2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White <[email protected]>: > >> In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this >> Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new >> projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make >> themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, >> contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And >> if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should >> be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a >> response from language experts. >> >> >> I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request >> for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone: >> >> >> RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2 >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval>, >> add the following: >> >> >> 4. If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not >> respond, the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of >> two additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted >> as above. >> >> 5. If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have >> passed since the first request for language verification, the following >> procedure applies: >> >> 5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project >> content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the >> length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number >> of different contributors that have participated over time. >> >> 5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote >> can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, >> with at least five positive votes, agree. >> >> 5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is >> told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue >> working on the test project for another six months, at which time another >> attempt will be made for language verification. >> >> >> Again, these are just ideas for now. >> >> Steven >> >> >> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
