Where does the number 750,000 speakers come from? And what is the rationale
to exclude smaller linguistic communities?
I think emerging communities can have less speakers than that. A language
can be viable and alive with less speakers than that, so we are not talking
about preserving a language
Hi Asaf et All,
Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general
on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect
on my chapter.
Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or
census numbers and shift focus to
Besides all discussions on the exact definition, could we please replace
"WMF" with "the Wikimedia movement"? I don't think that supporting emerging
communities, however we define them, should be the prerogative of the WMF,
nor should it be implied. I trust this was not the intention, either :)
> I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly
> discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced
> approach.
Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
for the way our movement works.
Plus we can now stop
Hi all,
In my personal opinion, the term "emerging communities" is much more
healthy and acceptable than Global South, which always sounded patronizing
and diminshing.
And I also like and celebrate the initiative to create our own definition :)
Cheers!
P.S.: The map in the link needs a
Hoi,
For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I
understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a
Wikipedia community is big enough to get "official" attention.
My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with
other practices. It
FWIW, I always liked the term "emerging communities"
because it's very broad, and it can be applied not just to countries but
also cultures, minorities, sub-communities of any sort.
For example,
I would very much like to call the Wikisource community an "emerging" one,
because it needs the exact
I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly
discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced
approach.
I would also urge the remaining teams within the WMF that still use the terms
to consider less offensive alternatives suitable for
One thing that grabs me about this is the Languages section, 750,000
speakers appears to be a rather high bar. To explain there 2.5m people in
Western Australia most of could be classed as speaking nys at a basic level
because of the way the Noongar language has been adopted into the English
and
On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm
Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Ariel
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) <
viswapra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities'
among my crowds during any outreach event.
The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment'
or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about
economic and technological
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
13 matches
Mail list logo
