Thank you Gerard, it is important to know, as you say, that the “policies are clear, the arguments why have not been refuted” - this is precisely what I would like to check.
Given that the proposal we have written at the RFC is a very narrow and limited change to eligibility, it seems to me that it is quite possible that you may weigh the arguments differently. I must emphasise that nobody wants to open the floodgates to irrelevant projects. As a result, we think that the line has been drawn a little too tightly, and needs a little more flexibility, in particular to permit consideration of well supported languages such as Ancient Greek. I have been able to find the proposed policy as drafted in 2007, which contain a lot of discussion of other issues, but the draft allowed ancient languages, so I have been unable to find the discussions that led up to the change. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Archives/Policy#GerardM-Pathoschild <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Archives/Policy#GerardM-Pathoschild> I can also find the change on the Language proposal policy page itself: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_proposal_policy&oldid=716535 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_proposal_policy&oldid=716535> 15:37, 21 October 2007 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_proposal_policy&oldid=716535> Pathoschild <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild> talk <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pathoschild> contribs <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pathoschild> 9,845 bytes +73 →Frequently asked questions <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Frequently_asked_questions>: updated for policy change However, I cannot find the reasoning. I am guessing that the reasoning was done on email and might not be available. I have also found two RFCs relating to the policy, but neither had a substantive discussion or analysis. These are listed here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix:_Details_for_former_relevant_RFCs <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix:_Details_for_former_relevant_RFCs> As a further item, I wonder if it is worth doing an assessment of the ancient languages that have passed through, to assess their impact. This may take a little while, but again could be useful to assess the current policy, especially if no such assessment has been done. I will start by seeing what we can gather from stats, but a qualititative assessment may also help; after all we cannot see into the experience of these language projects ourselves. I would of course be very willing to help with this, perhaps with a member of the committee to ensure what is collected is useful. > On 8 Sep 2021, at 13:31, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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>] >> For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an ancient or historic language is one >> which >> Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works; >> Is typically acquired by formal learning; >> Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and documented >> while the language was in common usage; >> 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: >> 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; >> 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; >> 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; >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
