Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive

[Samuel Klein]

Seb, I agree with you 100%.

We need to advertise more clearly how the current projects, without
modification of scope and purpose, can be useful tools and platforms
for linguists and preservationists to extend and share their work.

In the US, we have had good relations with the Long Now Foundation
which runs the Rosetta Project to preserve languages.

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Seb35  wrote:
> Hei,
>
> As a supporter of language diversity, I’m a bit sad of this thread because
> some people find we should not engage in language revitalisation because:
> 1/ it’s not explicitely in our scope (and I don’t fully aggree: "sum of
> all knowledge" also includes minority cultures expressed in their
> languages, as shown by Hubert Laska with the "Kneip"),
> 2/ it’s too difficult/expansive "to save most languages".
>
> Although there are obviously great difficulties, I find it shouldn’t stop
> us to support or partnership with local languages institutions,
> particularly if there are interested people or volunteers: we are not
> obliged to select the 3000 more spoken languages and set up parterships to
> "save" these 3000 languages, but we can support institutions or volunteers
> _interested_ in saving some small language on a case-by-case basis (Rapa
> Nui, Chickasaw, Skolt Sami, Kibushi, whatever) if minimum requirements are
> met (writing system and ISO 639 code for a website, financial ressources
> for a project), i.e. crowdsourcing the language preservation between
> Wikimedia, volunteers, speakers, and institutions.
>
> When multilinguism in the cyberspace is discussed by linguists, Wikipedia
> is almost every time shown as *the* better successful example. As
> discussed in this thread, perhaps some projects (Wikisource, Wiktionary,
> Wikidata) are easier to set up in these languages and this could be a
> first step, but these will only preserve these as non-living objects of
> interest, at the contrary of a Wikibook/Wikipedia/Wikinews/Wikiversity
> where speakers could practice the language, invent neologisms and
> terminology, create corpora for linguists, and show the language to other
> interested people in the world (I’m sure there are).
>
> As an example in France, Wikimédia France has quite good relationships
> with the DGLFLF (Delegation for the French language and languages of
> France), and this institution census 75 languages in France, whose 2/3 are
> overseas [1]. The DGLFLF contributed ressources on some small languages
> and multilinguism on Wikibooks [2] and Commons [3].
>
> [1] (fr)
> http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lgfrance/lgfrance_presentation.htm
> [2] (fr)
> https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer
> [3] (fr)(mul)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer
>
> ~ Seb35
>
> 20.04.2014 05:46:47 (CEST), Milos Rancic kirjoitti:
>
>> There are ~6000 languages in the world and around 3000 of them have
>> more than 10,000 speakers.
>>
>> That approximation has some issues, but they are compensated by the
>> ambiguity of the opposition. Ethnologue is not the best place to find
>> precise data about the languages and it could count as languages just
>> close varieties of one language, but it also doesn't count some other
>> languages. Not all of the languages with 10,000 or more speakers have
>> positive attitude toward their languages, but there are languages with
>> smaller number of speakers with very positive attitude toward their
>> own language.
>>
>> So, that number is what we could count as the realistic "final" number
>> of the language editions of Wikimedia projects. At the moment, we have
>> less than 300 language editions.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> There is the question: Why should we do that? The answer is clear to
>> me: Because we can.
>>
>> Yes, there are maybe more specific organizations which could do that,
>> but it's not about expertise, but about ability. Fortunately, we don't
>> need to search for historical examples for comparisons; the Internet
>> is good enough.
>>
>> I still remember infographic of the time while all of us thought that
>> Flickr is the place for images. It turned out that the biggest
>> repository of images is actually Facebook, which had hundred times
>> more of them than the Twitpic at the second place, which, in turn, had
>> hundred times more of images than Flickr.
>>
>> In other words, the purpose of something and general perception of its
>> purpose is not enough for doing good job. As well as comparisons
>> between mismanaged internet projects and mismanaged traditional
>> scientific and educational organizations are numerous.
>>
>> At this point of time Wikimedia all necessary capacities -- and even a
>> will to take that job. So, we should start doing that, finally :)
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> There is also the question: How can we do that? In short, because of
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> I announced Microgrants project of Wikimedia Serbia yesterday. To be
>> ho

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive

[Seb35]

Hei,

As a supporter of language diversity, I’m a bit sad of this thread because
some people find we should not engage in language revitalisation because:
1/ it’s not explicitely in our scope (and I don’t fully aggree: "sum of
all knowledge" also includes minority cultures expressed in their
languages, as shown by Hubert Laska with the "Kneip"),
2/ it’s too difficult/expansive "to save most languages".

Although there are obviously great difficulties, I find it shouldn’t stop
us to support or partnership with local languages institutions,
particularly if there are interested people or volunteers: we are not
obliged to select the 3000 more spoken languages and set up parterships to
"save" these 3000 languages, but we can support institutions or volunteers
_interested_ in saving some small language on a case-by-case basis (Rapa
Nui, Chickasaw, Skolt Sami, Kibushi, whatever) if minimum requirements are
met (writing system and ISO 639 code for a website, financial ressources
for a project), i.e. crowdsourcing the language preservation between
Wikimedia, volunteers, speakers, and institutions.

When multilinguism in the cyberspace is discussed by linguists, Wikipedia
is almost every time shown as *the* better successful example. As
discussed in this thread, perhaps some projects (Wikisource, Wiktionary,
Wikidata) are easier to set up in these languages and this could be a
first step, but these will only preserve these as non-living objects of
interest, at the contrary of a Wikibook/Wikipedia/Wikinews/Wikiversity
where speakers could practice the language, invent neologisms and
terminology, create corpora for linguists, and show the language to other
interested people in the world (I’m sure there are).

As an example in France, Wikimédia France has quite good relationships
with the DGLFLF (Delegation for the French language and languages of
France), and this institution census 75 languages in France, whose 2/3 are
overseas [1]. The DGLFLF contributed ressources on some small languages
and multilinguism on Wikibooks [2] and Commons [3].

[1] (fr)  
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lgfrance/lgfrance_presentation.htm
[2] (fr)  
https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer
[3] (fr)(mul)  
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer


~ Seb35

20.04.2014 05:46:47 (CEST), Milos Rancic kirjoitti:

There are ~6000 languages in the world and around 3000 of them have
more than 10,000 speakers.

That approximation has some issues, but they are compensated by the
ambiguity of the opposition. Ethnologue is not the best place to find
precise data about the languages and it could count as languages just
close varieties of one language, but it also doesn't count some other
languages. Not all of the languages with 10,000 or more speakers have
positive attitude toward their languages, but there are languages with
smaller number of speakers with very positive attitude toward their
own language.

So, that number is what we could count as the realistic "final" number
of the language editions of Wikimedia projects. At the moment, we have
less than 300 language editions.

* * *

There is the question: Why should we do that? The answer is clear to
me: Because we can.

Yes, there are maybe more specific organizations which could do that,
but it's not about expertise, but about ability. Fortunately, we don't
need to search for historical examples for comparisons; the Internet
is good enough.

I still remember infographic of the time while all of us thought that
Flickr is the place for images. It turned out that the biggest
repository of images is actually Facebook, which had hundred times
more of them than the Twitpic at the second place, which, in turn, had
hundred times more of images than Flickr.

In other words, the purpose of something and general perception of its
purpose is not enough for doing good job. As well as comparisons
between mismanaged internet projects and mismanaged traditional
scientific and educational organizations are numerous.

At this point of time Wikimedia all necessary capacities -- and even a
will to take that job. So, we should start doing that, finally :)

* * *

There is also the question: How can we do that? In short, because of  
Wikipedia.


I announced Microgrants project of Wikimedia Serbia yesterday. To be
honest, we have very low expectations. When I said to Filip that I
want to have 10 active community members after the project, he said
that I am overambitious. Yes, I am.

But ten hours later I've got the first response and I was very
positively surprised by a lot of things. The most relevant for this
story is that a person from a city in Serbia proper is very
enthusiastic about Wikipedia and contributing to it (and organizing
contributors in the area). I didn't hear that for years! (Maybe I was
just too pessimistic because of my obsession with statistics.)

Keeping in mind her position (she said that s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Balázs Viczián]

imo WMF is a mid-to-large sized IT company operating on a non-pofit basis.

Whoever has _both_ the skillset (and history) of reviewing IT companies and
charities, both types above 100+ employees can be considered capable of
reviewing WMF as a whole.

Cheers,
Balazs
2014.04.25. 21:17, "Michael Peel"  ezt írta:

> Hi Risker,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> > Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an
> > independent third party review if it feels that there is not the
> necessary
> > ability for the FDC to produce its own assessment.
>
> I'm personally curious to know whether you have any suggestions of third
> parties that might be able to carry out this sort of review, considering
> the requisite knowledge of the Wikimedia movement? It might be an option
> worth thinking about in future years.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,