OK, my opinion (again) - i said most of this already in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages
If there should be any change in the policy, it should be this: add the
word "native" in front of "speakers". That should add some clarity.
The lack of a sufficient native speaker community causes two problems:
1) they are supposed to be the target audience, the beneficiaries of a
project in their language
2) they should be the ones contributing content and quality control.
With the explicit exception of WikiSource, where texts have basically
been "approved" outside of the projects, all other projects would need
competent speakers to create new content and to check that the content
produced is written in adequate and correct language.
The question remains: *Who would benefit how exactly from a Wikipedia in
an extinct/ancient language?*
j.
Am 14.09.2021 19:34, schrieb Jim Killock:
Gerard, you are indeed a master at moving the conversation in the
wrong direction, this I am learning.
The Committee formed in 2006 and received a Charter in 2007. The
language policy was introduced later, but none of this matters.
What I need is the opinion of the Committee about my points from
yesterday, copied below.
In short:
* The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee
Charter and has produced a problematic AL policy;
* The Committee’s current is in likely breach of the Committee’
Charter language policy as it is not based on “quantative
indicators” but instead changes these indicators according to
preference;
* This tension between the Committee’s Charter and the AL policy is
being consulted on now, there is an alternative approach available,
but so far the Committee do not seem to wish to respond or to discuss
these mitigations
Gerard, I do not need a reply from you.
Dear Gerard,
I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very
surprised how much effort this is taking, especially given that
the request for policy change in the RFC is very limited, and
would help the Committee deal with issues around the ancient
language wikis which are not performing well. Furthermore I have
no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to work with the
Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language Wikis
(ALWs) to meet WM’s mission.
As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer,
having found the email archive. This is important, because some
members of the Committee want to leave the current policy in
place, should the current RFC be rejected.
However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be
seen to be developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt
with all of the issues properly, at the time. Looking at the email
discussion that led to the change I would observe that:
* The change to the status of Ancient Languages was presented as
a minor change to the Language proposal policy
* The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent
* Only three issues were raised; being the need to meet the
mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a
“natural audience”
* There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed
* There was no mention of a public discussion or consultation,
which appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter
commitment to transparency
* There was no discussion of whether qualitative factors (ancient
versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with
different treatment of objective factors (numbers of native
speakers) which appears to be in breach of the Committee’s
Charter, which commits to using objective factors alone.
Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a
consensus, and should not be the property of the Committee to
determine by itself, or via a Board rubber stamp.
All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just
want to be plain that the current RFC process is already a much
more thorough and developed policy process than that in 2007 -
quite naturally, given we have 14 years of further experience to
apply. A review would be quite natural after this length of time
in any case.
So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I
would however like the Committee to approach the current RFC
positively, and use it to take a fresh look.
Thank you again for your time,
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Dr. Jan Wohlgemuth
Depok, Indonesia
www.linguist.de | www.linguisten.de | www.glottopedia.org
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
