Hoi,
I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
current policy and that will not change.
- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
pictures in Commons in the language they know.
In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
do.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Committee,
>
> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
> limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
> There are two options along these lines
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Compromise_Proposal_Option_Two>
> at
> the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Eliminating_potential_discrimination_against_ethnic_and_religious_identities>
>
> *Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
> identities*
>
> *The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against
> people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by
> placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The
> importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be
> seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical
> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox
> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the
> languages of most important theological debates.*
>
>
> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from
> the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which
> is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be
> interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by
> Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is
> dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and
> unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something
> which of course it does have.
>
> Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu
> politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will
> want you to ensure are mitigated.
>
> I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did
> not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of
> the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to
> any particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
>
> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
