Hoi,
What difference does it make. The policies are clear, the arguments why
have not been refuted. The discussions have been followed over time by
committee members..
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 14:04, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you happen to know when the previous RFC’s were brought forward? it
> ould be helpful for me to reference these discussions on the current RFC
> alongside any information about the reasons they were rejected.
>
> On 8 Sep 2021, at 06:45, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> The arguments inherent in the policy are not affected by the "fear
> mongering" by some. At the same time in the later suggestions there is
> nothing new.
>
> From my perspective there is no reason to revisit the criteria for a new
> Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 02:00, Phake Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The RFC in past have suffered from fear-mongering by some users on
>> multiple Wikiprojects both internally on sites like Chinese Wikipedia and
>> Chinese Wikisource and then also via some other channels, describing the
>> RFC as a conspiracy to enable the creation of a Literal Chinese Wikisource
>> and to tear apart Chinese Wikimedian communities, despite later
>> clarification that the RFC isn't intended to alter the circumstances around
>> Wikisource since the current language policy already allow creation of
>> Wikisource in ancient languages, yet such misunderstanding generated a lot
>> of unnecessary debate inside the page.
>>
>> 在 2021年9月7日週二 18:44，MF-Warburg <[email protected]> 寫道：
>>
>>> 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]
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
