Steven announced that he will send another mail with arguments in favour of the approval of Montenegrin. You seem unwilling to consider new arguments. That's ok, you can do that. I won't.
The question which he was asked was "Why do you think Langcom is wrong about Montenegrin?". I don't see how you can say he did not answer that question after these mails arrived. 2018-03-06 6:48 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > Hoi, > These argument has been dealt with in the last week and Steven threatened > to make this post because he did not get his way. He has been a asked a > question by one of the other members of the committee that he did not > answer. As far as I am concerned there is no room for forum shopping, this > post was known by him to be seen as problematic. It is. It only solidifies > the shared opinion that there will be no project in Montenegrin. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 6 March 2018 at 00:28, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> *I. The language itself* >> >> The proponents of the project have convinced me that Montenegrin is >> comparable as a language standard to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian. That, by >> itself, does not justify the creation of a Montenegrin Wikipedia. Surely >> it's mutually intelligible with other varieties, so to that extent you >> could argue that Montenegrin speakers *could *contribute elsewhere (at >> least if forced, but see points below). That having been said, if we were >> starting over now—if we had no projects in Serbo-Croatian at all, or if >> only the macrolanguage project currently existed—it would be very hard to >> justify treating any of the four differently from each other. >> >> >> If that were the current situation, I'd probably agree with you not to >> create Montenegrin Wikipedia ... or Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian. But if >> you insisted on creating the other three, I would require you to create >> Montenegrin, too. >> >> >> *II. Current facts on the ground* >> >> The proponents of the project have convinced me that, at best, it is >> difficult for Montenegrins to contribute constructively to the other >> projects. This is true from the point of view of both language standards >> and content. There are many examples both of NPOV violations on subjects >> related to the politics of the region and on the use of >> Montenegrin linguistic varieties being rejected on the other projects. >> Based on the usual standards of project autonomy, it is very difficult for >> us to force these other communities to give equal access to the Montenegrin >> community. (And to some extent, it's probably reasonable for the Serbian, >> Croatian and Bosnian projects to prefer their own linguistic standards, >> even if the NPOV issue itself is still a problem on those projects.) >> >> >> As far as the macrolanguage project itself, I suppose we could hope to >> reserve that for the use of Montenegrin. But we can't really enforce that >> position on that community, either. And shwiki is such a mess now that the >> Montenegrin community would have an easier time starting over than in >> fixing it. >> >> >> The other result of all this is that a lot of Montenegrins simply don't >> care to participate; they simply don't want to bother fighting. And that >> goes toward violating WMF's goal to give everyone access, as per the next >> point. >> >> >> *III. Rule 3: "Sufficiently unique" vs. "free and unbiased access"* >> >> The long-time position being articulated by members of the >> committee relies on Point 3 of the "Requisites for eligibility": "The >> language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more >> general wiki." It seems to me, though that the rest of the point is being >> ignored: "The committee does not consider political differences, since >> the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, >> unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information >> from the viewpoint of individual political communities." >> >> >> The position that "the committee does not consider political differences" >> is a fine one when we are starting off on a level playing field. But under >> the circumstances, it is my view that it is not viable to ignore political >> differences in this case. After all, the current situation is not one where >> "the viewpoint of individual political communities" is fully equal. Where >> we are now, in fact, is that every single "individual political >> community"—except the Montenegrin community—has its viewpoint already >> entrenched in the system. If we do not consider political differences in >> this case, we are, in fact, entrenching the viewpoint of some individual >> political communities at the expense of others. And that expressly violates >> the remit of the Language Committee. >> >> >> I suppose that instead of creating Montenegrin Wikipedia, we could try to >> get the other projects to give equal access to the Montenegrin community. >> Good luck enforcing that, though. >> >> >> I will argue in point V below that it is more politically neutral to >> allow Montenegrin than to reject it. >> >> >> *IV. Committee position on macrolanguages* >> >> The committee's current position allows projects in macrolanguages >> sometimes, but expresses a clear bias in favor of having projects in >> individual component languages rather than in macrolanguages. It is clear >> that this position is not absolute. Still, ruling against Montenegrin goes >> *against* that trend, rather than for the trend. >> >> >> *V. Language codes, LoC/SIL and LangCom's neutrality* >> >> Surely, the main reason we rely on SIL's decisions around language codes >> is that they are the official standard-keeper, and we are not. But as part >> and parcel of that, by relying on SIL's decisions, we are putting the >> burden of sorting out linguistic considerations from political ones on SIL, >> not on ourselves. Now, we are all aware that sometimes, at the borders, we >> might prefer to see things differently from the way SIL does. That is why >> there is now a procedure in place for situations where language codes don't >> exist. But unquestionably the existence or non-existence of a language code >> represents a strong default position on how LangCom should act. Indeed, we >> normally require a supermajority to allow projects that don't have >> ISO 639–3 codes. >> >> >> In the past, part of the argument against Montenegrin has been "SIL >> [Ethnologue] describes it as just another name for Serbo-Croatian". Fine. >> Then, it was a politically neutral decision to reject Montenegrin, >> and would have been a politically "motivated" position to accept it. Now, >> the situation is reversed. Now, it is a politically neutral decision to >> accept Montenegrin, and a politically "motivated" position to reject it. >> >> >> I am fully aware that many of you believe that Montenegrin's winning of a >> code was a political, rather than a purely linguistic, victory. There are >> academics who don't agree with that, but suppose that it is true. Let that >> be SIL's problem (or the Library of Congress's), not ours. When we choose >> to disagree with SIL, I think we have to justify that. >> >> >> Finally, let me add that the Montenegrin community managed to get action >> not only at SIL, but actually at LoC first, getting the first change to ISO >> 639–2 in about five years. Again, maybe that was a political victory. But >> personally I don't think we ought to putting ourselves in a position where >> we are second-guessing all these experts. >> >> >> *VI. The Incubator test* >> >> The rules for allowing a test on Incubator are less stringent than the >> rules for approving a project. Accordingly, there has been a test project >> on Incubator since December. At this point, it is probably the >> highest-quality project we have in Incubator now, including the ones just >> being approved. There are about 65 editors (33 with over ten edits each) >> and 1,200 main space pages in the project. Pretty much none of them are >> the 1–2 sentence pages we often see on Incubator projects. Of the ten pages >> I just checked, nine had references, and the other was a list page. Solely >> on the basis of whether the community is working to create a serious >> encyclopedia project consistent with WMF's goals, I'd say that this >> community is very deserving of recognition. >> >> >> *VII. Appearance of neutrality and fairness* >> >> Say what you will about the rules, a situation where Montenegrin doesn't >> get a code appears profoundly unfair. Superficially, this situation is not >> much different from supporters of Ancient Greek complaining that Latin has >> a project, but they don't, because the rules changed at a certain point. >> But the intense political rivalry in the Balkans makes this a much less >> trivial case; after all, supporters of Ancient Greek don't try to interfere >> with the use of Latin on Latin Wikipedia. This case is simply one that I >> don't think we can justify by falling back on the rules. I'd far rather >> "bend the rules" in the direction of fairness—particularly because I don't >> even think this would be bending the rules. I think the rules can easily be >> interpreted to allow Montenegrin, rather than to reject it. >> >> >> *Conclusion* >> >> Several people have said to me that Montenegrin is more similar to other >> Serbo-Croatian varieties than US and UK English are to each other; would I >> insist on separate projects if they happened to have separate language >> codes? No, I wouldn't. But that's because on the whole, the various >> English-speaking communities around the world do manage to co-exist with >> each other quite well—and tend to blunt each other's excesses a bit, too. >> Sadly, that's not the case here. It is difficult, though not quite >> impossible, to justify Montenegrin Wikipedia solely on the grounds of >> linguistic uniqueness. But based on every other criterion we are supposed >> to evaluate, if we were starting over now, we'd either have only one >> Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, or we would have separate projects for Serbian, >> Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Since we can't stuff the other three >> back in the bottle, the right thing to do now is to accept Montenegrin >> Wikipedia. >> >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Steven >> >> >> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom