News from this RFC. The ultra-long discussion was archived by this user in favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <[email protected]>: > Dear LangCom, > > I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and > Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong > to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own > Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that > Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this > is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still > employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that > some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar > position. > > You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes an > auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be revisited > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Discussion> > . > > After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is > something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of > general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the > policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages > which are *historic, learnt, but in use*. > > I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your archives, > which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach while > constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but an > ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed. This > I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for which > a discussion is still open. > > I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the > constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most > historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless, > in some important exceptions, where there is a *credibly large enough > number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external > usage of that language,*, these languages could be allowed without > opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy. > > I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help > frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest. > > Thank you for your time, > > Jim > > > Definition of *ancient or historic language*[edit > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=12> > ] > > 1. For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an *ancient or historic language* is > one which > 1. Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works; > 2. Is typically acquired by formal learning; > 3. Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and > documented while the language was in common usage; > 4. May or may not not be used in modern linguistic domains, such > as: trade; education; academic discourse; music; poetry; religious > discourse; etc. > > Qualification of an *ancient or historic language* for a Wiki project[edit > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages&action=edit§ion=13> > ] > The same basic eligibility criteria should apply in a similar but somewhat > stricter manner than artificial languages, recognising that acquisition is > likely to be harder than is typical for constructed languages, but also > that acquisition *may* be more common and resources more developed; and > also that practical usage is likely to be *lower* than for many > contemporary natively-acquired languages. > Therefore I propose that: > > 1. *Wikis* are allowed in ancient or historical languages despite > having no native speakers; although these should be on a wiki for the most > widely used form of the language, when possible; > 2. There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and > evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for > instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language; > 3. There should be a significant historical corpus *and usage for > modern authors to draw upon, for instance, a large volume of extant texts > or a large volume of recordings, sufficient to understand the idiom as well > as the grammar of the language*; whether generated as an auxiliary > language, domain specific language or a native language; > 4. The language must have a reasonable degree of contemporary usage as > determined by discussion. (Some recognition criteria include, but are not > limited to: independently proved number of speakers or writers, use as an > auxiliary or domain-specific language outside of online communities created > solely for the purpose, usage outside of Wikimedia, publication of works in > the language for general sale, publication of academic papers in the > language, availability of courses or training which aim at fluent > compositional or oral usage.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
