Hoi,
The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Gerard and Committee
>
> Given that
>
> 1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
> by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the same
> status as nativelangs and conlangs,
> 2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
> second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
> language speakers; and
> 3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
> solve
>
>
> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to
> solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable
> with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>
> *Classical languages*
> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese
> and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of
> second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and
> their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis
> in these languages.
>
>
> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>
>
> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>
>
> - Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
> current policy and that will not change.
>
>
> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>
>
> - 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.
>
>
> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>
>
> - 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.
>
> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
> current policy.
>
> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not
> have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”,
> so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
