[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Dear Gerard and Committee

Given that
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,
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
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  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
> 
>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen > <mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>> 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 > <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> 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 

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Der Gerard

> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen  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  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> 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] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

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 

 at the RFC, which seems stable to me.

I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble 


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


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Jim Killock]

Hi there,

I havew taken the points raised so by the Committee:, which seem to be:

(1) We need an eeasy-to-operate policy
(2) There needs to be an auidience and benefit to Wikimedia for the project
(3) There needs to be quality control

Perhaps the way to do this, is to make it clear that the policy only adddresse 
Classical Languages, and to list those out. This answers the problems 
identified by the Commiittee in the following ways:

(1) The Committee need an eeasy-to-operate policy

It is clear which languages are Classical and they are listed in the policy.

(2) There needs to be an auidience and benefit to Wikimedia for the project

Classical languages typically have audiences with tens of thousands or hundreds 
of thousands of people who are proficient readers and a strong interest in the 
topic matter associated with them, be it history, theology or culturally 
significant works. The high level of training of Wiki participants is likely to 
lead to high quality information transference across language barriers, 
inclduing onward transfer of information to other major language wikis.

(3) There needs to be quality control

Both the high levels of tranining available in lassical Languages and the fact 
they have evolved mechanisms to cope without having native speakers means that 
quality control is very achievable, although it will need a community to apply 
it, just as with other Wikis.

Thus we have suggested you add the sentence:

For the purposes of this policy, Latin, Koine Greek, Classical Chinese and 
Sanskrit are treated as exceptions, due to their long and continuing traditions 
of second-language, non-native production, and communities are allowed to apply 
for new Wikis for these languages.

to the current language proposal policy. The suggestion is here 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Reponse_from_LangCom_requested

I have also archived the material except for the two proposals ad current 
dfiscussions.

Hope this helps.

Jim


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[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,




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Thank you Gerard

This is helpful. When did the Charter come into effect?

> On 14 Sep 2021, at 13:03, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> This committee predates the charter.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
> Do any of the other Committee members have an opinion about this below?
> 
> I do not believe it the problem here to be a "process issue”.
> 
> 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, this does not need a response from you at this stage as we have that 
> already
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 20:31, Jim Killock > <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
>> 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,
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> <mailto:langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> <mailto:langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> <mailto:langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> <mailto:langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langco

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Do any of the other Committee members have an opinion about this below?

I do not believe it the problem here to be a "process issue”.

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, this does not need a response from you at this stage as we have that 
already


> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 20:31, Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
> 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,
> 
> Jim
> 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> <mailto:langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

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,

Jim



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Thank you again Gerard

This is very helpful information. I understand that the Committee was created 
by the Board.

I have seen far les about

(1) How the Board accepted the revision to the language excluding Ancient 
Languages;
(2) How this was explained to the Board;
(3) Whether the Board was given information about any prior consultation, or 
whether that was not seen as necessary at that point

The Board of course will have records, papers and minutes, (maybe public?) so 
this should not be too hard to find, or to point me to where I can find it.

Thank you very much

Jim

> On 13 Sep 2021, at 13:52, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> No the policy was accepted by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The 
> start of the committee was also the result of a board decision. The notion 
> that it was the language committee is a nonsense because it only existed from 
> that moment.
> 
> Explicitly the existence of projects predating the start of the committee are 
> outside the remit of the language committee
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 13:44, Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
> Dear Gerard
> 
> Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say:
> 
> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments 
> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best 
> it shows the genesis of the policy.
> 
> What I take from this is that
> 
> (1) The decision was made as an internal matter by LangCom without 
> consultation
> (2) It is primarily designed to shut down arguments about Ancient Languages
> 
> I fully sympathise with why you did this, re (2). You received may requests 
> for AL projects that made no sense, some got through the gate no doubt and 
> you needed to make this stop.
> 
> However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the 
> Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom 
> are disqualified from further progress. There is a question as to how this 
> plays out for potential funding or project building, and how LangCom ensures 
> the existing projects meet their mission (in my view it seems to leave this 
> problem aide, despite the remit of the committee). Finally there is a 
> question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at a 
> project.
> 
> My point is simply that issues like this require a consultation process, to 
> test for such problems, and mitigate against them.
> 
> The current proposal attempt to mitigate such problems by creating a very 
> slightly looser ruleset. As such it is not a consultation on the mitigations 
> and effects of the current policy.
> 
> So tthe Committee must not simply assume that is if does not like the current 
> RFC it can simply leave the current policy in place. The current policy still 
> lacks consultatation and carries all the rough edges you would expect.
> 
> Thank you again for responding
> 
> Jim
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2021, at 07:19, Gerard Meijssen > <mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hoi,
>> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments 
>> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at 
>> best it shows the genesis of the policy.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:57, Jim Killock > <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg >> <mailto:mfwarb...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a 
>>> list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
>> 
>> Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock 
>>> mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
>>> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a 
>>> > rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right 
>>> > place are left with no formal explanation as to why the Language 
>>> > Committee devised the rules as it did.
>>> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 
>>> >showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that 
>>> >would be great. I have listed what I know at
>>> >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
>>> > 
>>> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Thank you for your time responding.

> On 13 Sep 2021, at 12:56, MF-Warburg  wrote:
> 
> Am Mo., 13. Sept. 2021 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> >However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the 
> >Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom 
> >are disqualified from further progress.
> 
> What is this supposed to mean? If these wikis exist, they are not 
> "disqualified from further progress".

If Latin wants a new kind of wiki, say a Wikiversity wiki, which is more 
flexible for original content creation and educational materials, the policy 
bars this from taking place, because all new ALWs are barred, except Wikisource 
wikis.

The same applies for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese.

> 
> > Finally there is a question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular 
> > deserves a shot at a project.
> 
> Yes, this question has been discussed many times over the last few years, 
> with no positive outcome for an Ancient Greek Wikipedia. None of this is new, 
> which is why it makes no sense to say "the policy lacks consultation" or 
> whatever. Langcom has often discussed about the ancient languages issues, but 
> never with consensus to change the current policy.

This is I’m afraid a circular argument: The policy bans ancient languages from 
a WP; AG has been denied a WP because AG is an ancient language; therefore the 
policy is correct.

I have noted all of the RFCs which appear to have discussed the Ancient 
Language policy, as opposed to Wiki requests, and I can find no discusson of 
the policy itself. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

> It is not just there because some magical force put it there in 2007 and we 
> are too stupid to change it.

I am certainly not accusing anyone of that, but I am drawiting attention to a 
lack of evidence and a lack of consultation delivering some specific but 
limited problems in the current policy.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Dear Gerard

Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say:

The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments that 
were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best it 
shows the genesis of the policy.

What I take from this is that

(1) The decision was made as an internal matter by LangCom without consultation
(2) It is primarily designed to shut down arguments about Ancient Languages

I fully sympathise with why you did this, re (2). You received may requests for 
AL projects that made no sense, some got through the gate no doubt and you 
needed to make this stop.

However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the 
Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom 
are disqualified from further progress. There is a question as to how this 
plays out for potential funding or project building, and how LangCom ensures 
the existing projects meet their mission (in my view it seems to leave this 
problem aide, despite the remit of the committee). Finally there is a question 
as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at a project.

My point is simply that issues like this require a consultation process, to 
test for such problems, and mitigate against them.

The current proposal attempt to mitigate such problems by creating a very 
slightly looser ruleset. As such it is not a consultation on the mitigations 
and effects of the current policy.

So tthe Committee must not simply assume that is if does not like the current 
RFC it can simply leave the current policy in place. The current policy still 
lacks consultatation and carries all the rough edges you would expect.

Thank you again for responding

Jim

> On 13 Sep 2021, at 07:19, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments 
> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best 
> it shows the genesis of the policy.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> 
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:57, Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg > <mailto:mfwarb...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a 
>> list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
> 
> Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock > <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
>> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a 
>> > rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right 
>> > place are left with no formal explanation as to why the Language Committee 
>> > devised the rules as it did.
>> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 
>> >showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that 
>> >would be great. I have listed what I know at
>> >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
>> > 
>> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions>
>> 
>> I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I 
>> have no knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then. However, 
>> I also don't see how this would help now. Some members have previously 
>> commented in the "start allowing ancient languages" RFC with good reasons as 
>> to why such projects shouldn't be approved. If there are "secret reasons 
>> from 2007", they can only further support not allowing ancient languages, 
>> probably.
>> 
>> >This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the 
>> >upset felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a 
>> >policy, but it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to 
>> >them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has 
>> >this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead, 
>> >people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc 
>> >explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and 
>> >grievance.
>> >If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very 
>> >helpful.
>> 
>> If this is a legitimate concern, I feel like the already existing short 
>> explanation at 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Spe

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg  wrote:
> 
> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a 
> list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)

Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.

> 
> 
> 
> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a 
> > rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place 
> > are left with no formal explanation as to why the Language Committee 
> > devised the rules as it did.
> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 
> >showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that 
> >would be great. I have listed what I know at
> >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
> > 
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions>
> 
> I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I 
> have no knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then. However, 
> I also don't see how this would help now. Some members have previously 
> commented in the "start allowing ancient languages" RFC with good reasons as 
> to why such projects shouldn't be approved. If there are "secret reasons from 
> 2007", they can only further support not allowing ancient languages, probably.
> 
> >This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the upset 
> >felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a policy, but 
> >it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to them adhoc and 
> >it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has this policy, as 
> >it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead, people whose 
> >projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc explanations of 
> >Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and grievance.
> >If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very 
> >helpful.
> 
> If this is a legitimate concern, I feel like the already existing short 
> explanation at 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues 
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues> 
> should be made more detailed, with some of the reasons already given, if the 
> current "disallowing" of ancient languages stays in place. That seems better 
> than digging up 2007 discussions.

That is exacly what I mean by “reverse engineering”. If you don’t have the 
reasoning available, and can’t show the consultation process that helped arrive 
at this, then any reasoning now is purely gueswork, or the preferred but 
unconsulted view of the Committee.

In essence, it remains an untransparent process and open to accusations of 
being arbitrary.

I don’t think that is a sound way forward.

> 
> [...]
> 
> >The way forward
> >Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision: I do not 
> >think the committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the 2007 
> >decision, if it turns out to be unavailable, especially as it probably was 
> >made without much public consultation or evidence gathering.
> >If the documentation does turn up, it is still twenty years old and there is 
> >still a need to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs and think 
> >about how they should be best supported.
> 
> As above.
> 
> >Pause before looking again at the recommendations made on the current RFC. 
> >Rather I think there should be a period of evidence gathering and reflection 
> >about ALWs. Once this evidence is gathered, some observations and 
> >recommendations can flow back to the RFC process.
> 
> Can I also ask you to take a pause? I, too, mean this in good faith. But 
> every time I try to follow what is happening at the RFC, new walls of texts 
> have appeared and the RFC now has 5 appendices - it's like every day a new 
> one pops up, and they all were created by you. Indeed I like to assess things 
> thoroughly and carefully, which I feel like I cannot do if the proposals are 
> piling up at such speed.

Yes, absolutely. I am at the end of my own intellectual journey on this. I do 
appreciate I have created a lot of material anjd I would appreciate feedback.

The next step IMO is the evidence gathering to see what kind of policy is 
justifed

But also, I believe there is a way forward which would start to deal with t

[Langcom] Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Jim Killock]

Dear Committee,

I am sorry to write this email in this way and I sincerely ask that you 
consider it in good faith, I am not attempting to cause trouble, but I would 
like you to consider it carefully and thoroughly, and come back with a 
substantive and not knee-jerk response.

This I think needs attention from the committee Board liason, as some of the 
issues go beyond LangCom’s remit, and also reflect on LangCom’s transparency 
commitments made to the Wikimedia Board.

Ancient Language policy

The fact of the change of policy for Ancient Languages was made in 2007 and is 
clear.

However, it appears that the Committee was under a great deal of pressure at 
the time, and there may not have been any public consultation or transparency 
about why this policy took place, unlike for the Language Proposal policy as a 
whole, which was discussed.

While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a rationale, 
people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place are left with 
no formal explanation as to why the Language Committee devised the rules as it 
did.

At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 
showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that 
would be great. I have listed what I know at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
 


Charter and transparency

The Committee’s Charter states that "The whole set of activities of the 
language committee is public, and any advice from the community is welcome”. 
This commitment to transparency is laudable, however as matters stand we do not 
have transparency as to the reasons why the Ancient Language policy is set as 
it is.

Instead, justifications for it can only be considered to be the Committee 
member’s opinion about why people in 2007  set set where it is, as the 
justification for it made at the time appears to be unavailable, undocumented, 
or lost.

This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the upset 
felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a policy, but it 
is not explained. the justifications are communicated to them adhoc and it is 
extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has this policy, as it is in 
fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead, people whose projects are 
turned down are asked to accept the adhoc explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. 
This is bound to cause friction and grievance.

If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very 
helpful.

Clarity about the future of Ancient Languages on Wikimedia

A number of well established Ancient Language Wiki (ALW) projects may be 
neglected in policy terms, as they are regarded as something of an abberation. 
They are not allowed new Wikis; they are not eligible, This and other 
structural issues such as a lack geographical focus may cause them should also 
be considered, not least to reduce the prospect of problems emerging with them 
in the future. It would be useful for Wikimedia as a whole to reflect on the 
role and value of ALWs.

Evidence based policy

Wikimedia as a whole I am sure is committed to evidence-based policy and 
consultation. I am sure this Committee likewise much prefers to deal with 
decisions on the basis of evidence, and has to process many complex problems  
involving difficult to solve issues. This work is extremely important and no 
doubt carried at well, despite the multiple complexities.

The discussions surrounding the Ancient Language policy are difficult to solve. 
They also may result in little change, affecting few wikis if any. This is 
understandably going to feel like a low priority for the Committee.

However, the current policy probably lacked an application of evidence 
gathering and consultation when it was created; furthermore there is also a 
large body of evidence on the performance and potential relevance of these 
projects to be had, should Wikimedia wish to gather it. I have written an 
outline of what evidence I think should be gathered before deciding a policy 
and have had a little feedback on it.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_III:_Current_Ancient_language_assessment

The way forward

Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision: I do not think 
the committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the 2007 decision, if 
it turns out to be unavailable, especially as it probably was made without much 
public consultation or evidence gathering.

If the documentation does turn up, it is still twenty years old and there is 
still a need to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs and think 
about how they should be best supported.

Pause before 

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Jim Killock]

Thank you Amir

> On 9 Sep 2021, at 04:58, Amir E. Aharoni  wrote:
> 
> I don't support these proposed changes.
> 
> The discussion mentions the "success" of Latin. What makes it successful? The 
> fact that some people write there? But who reads it? I'm not talking just 
> about numbers; I'm talking about *who* these people are. And how does it 
> contribute to creating a world in which every single human being can freely 
> share in the sum of all knowledge?

This is a very good point, which has become clear in the later discussions: how 
successful are these projects and in what way? This has not been evaluated.

I have placed a short note about how this might be evaluated here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_III:_Current_Ancient_language_assessment
 


I would be very willing to work with the Committee to find a good way to get 
this kind of evidence. At the moment whether these projects do ineed meet 
Wikimedia’s purposes and more narrowly Wikipedia’s seems to be something that 
nobody can properly answer.

As a further process point, this I believe is Wikipedia’s mission and what 
should be evaluated:

Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most 
widely-available encyclopedia ever written
[to] benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a 
comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of 
knowledge.

But if there is other language that defines Wikipedia’s purpose, please do 
point me to it. This seems critical in reaching a common understanding on this 
matter.


> 
> The discussion mentions that it's not right that there are policy differences 
> between ancient languages and constructed (or artificial) languages, being 
> less strict with the latter. It's indeed not quite right, but it should go 
> the other way around: the policy could be changed to be more strict with 
> them. The support for Kotava (and LFN) in the Language committee was not as 
> enthusiastic as the discussion says it was.
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com 
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 
> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 7 בספט׳ 2021 ב-13:40 מאת ‪Jim Killock‬‏ <‪j...@killock.org.uk 
> ‬‏>:‬
> 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 
> .
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 
> 

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Jim Killock]

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=716535
 
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_proposal_policy=716535>

15:37, 21 October 2007 
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_proposal_policy=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  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  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> 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 > <mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>> 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 > <mailto:c933...@gmail.com>> 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 > <mailto:mfwarb...@googlemail.com>> 寫道：
>> News from this RFC. The ultra-long discussion w

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Jim Killock]

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  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  <mailto:c933...@gmail.com>> 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  <mailto:mfwarb...@googlemail.com>> 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  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> 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=edit=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_allowin

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Jim Killock]

Thank you MF-Warburg

What I ndid was to try to understahnd nthe concerns and objections of those 
opposed to allowing ancient languages, and to write a proposal that would 
exclude problematic languages, eg those without modern formations, without 
sufficient competent writers, or those without a significant audience.

The “compromise proposal” includes several suggestions from people who objected 
to ancient languages being considered on principlel, so I believe ithe RFC is 
complete and sable. While there is still some discussion it is tagential to the 
proposal draft itself.

Thus it is in a position for LangCom to take a look at the text of the proposal 
and as a Committe either accept or reject it, in part or whole, and either 
modify the language policy, or not.

Then the RFC can be closed.

> On 7 Sep 2021, at 11:43, MF-Warburg  wrote:
> 
> 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  <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> 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=edit=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=edit=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 
&

[Langcom] Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Jim Killock]

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 
.

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 
]
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 
]
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.)





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org