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 continues to be taken up more as well as being taught in schools.  The
other side of the equation is that the primary source for Indigenous
language speakers uses a significantly flawed methodology to identify those
who use the language, the primary source being the ABS who ask only what is
the main language spoken at home then lists 9 languages(6 European, 2
Asian, 1 middle east) with a 10 option of other in which the person is then
asked to identify their language.  Indigenous language speakers have a
significant hurdle to actually be counted, and would suspect that this
issue isnt unfamiliar to in many other countries with colonial histories.

It would better if the bar be a two fold thats looks for a significantly
lower number of native speakers with a secondary level of partial
speakers.....  but I'm not sure there are reliable means even flawed ones
to identify partial non native speakers of any language.

Additionally I think counting misses what can be large number of immigrants
who arent no longer a residential part of the speaking community.

On 28 September 2017 at 12:24, Michael Snow <wikipe...@frontier.com> wrote:

> 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 afraid this combination
> is problematic, but thank you for the idea.
>
> Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works to
> modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify "knowledge"
> instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication that knowledge is
> only just emerging in these communities could appear condescending, much
> like the terminology we're trying to get away from. I'd argue that we
> operate on the assumption that as our communities grow, they already have a
> great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of sharing and making it accessible
> to all.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to