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 even if there are less speakers than that. If the language is used in day to day life and to teach at schools, why wouldn't it be considered for a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary even if there are less than 750,000 speakers? Thank you, Jean-Philippe Béland Vice President, Wikimedia Canada On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 04:29 Balázs Viczián, <balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > 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 existing communities based on their > actual state and health. > > I would suggest not stopping here but going forward by completely > abandoning geography and such overgeneralization where the entire world can > be described by 3 (that is three) labels. > > Instead evaluate each community topic by topic. > > Say one: governance. Even WMF itself had such a crisis, not to say the > British, German and now the French "developed" chapters. For them, better > organized but ever labeled "emerging" communities might have been able to > provide support, if their category would not be discouraging them from > stepping in. > > Discouraging, yup. Put your hands on your hearts and be honest. We all > think that at least on a general level the "developed" should teach and > support the "emerging" and not the other way around, right? > > Yet said governance as an example appears to be a lot more problematic for > the ever "developed" than the ever "emerging". > > This proposal does not recognize such patterns but it is a big step forward > nevertheless as it shifts more focus on the existing communities. The > labels are in my subjective opinion are somewhat patronizing as per above. > > Balazs, > from an ever "emerging" community > > On Sep 27, 2017 19:30, "Asaf Bartov" <abar...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve > > impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge. > > > > However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based > on > > UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to > > nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for > > distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and > > happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or > > next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at > geography, > > whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by > > geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people. > > > > In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as > > unloved and rejected by many. > > > > The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been > thinking > > about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a > > much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state > of > > editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and > > would be less controversial. > > > > We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a > > replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our > intention > > to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed > > definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we > are > > ready to share the proposed definition today: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ > > Defining_Emerging_Communities > > > > > > We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread. > > The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to > > incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st. > > > > Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, > too. > > :) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Asaf > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>