Hoi,
I requested an opinion from the other members of the language committee.
They came with the answer that Egyptian Arabic should be considered
eligible. I am completely ok with this result, but for the record I asked
for an opinion and got a favourable decision. The notion that I forwarded an
opinion is not correct.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of
> speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned
> the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the
> freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried to
> point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I
> asked
> whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when he
> said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a
> decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an objection
> to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him
> declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
>
> Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more
> transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its
> members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of
> discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a
> discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt necessarily
> mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt.
> Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of
> langcom
> becomes inactive?
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> > This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are
> taking
> > the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process. I
> > really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
> >
> > Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it
> > provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people
> > collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
> >
> > bilal
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic
> > > Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have
> used
> > > all
> > > kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is
> > > after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will
> > > fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is
> not
> > > their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much
> > is
> > > written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for
> > many
> > > languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of
> a
> > > world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is
> > > perceived others.
> > >
> > > There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line
> and
> > > with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have
> demonstrated
> > > their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
> > they
> > > do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish
> to
> > > do
> > > well for their language.
> > >
> > > The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide
> on
> > > these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not
> agree
> > > what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be
> no
> > > public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
> > >
> > > Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian
> > > Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself
> into
> > > doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the
> > > first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and
> > constructed
> > > languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you
> > should
> > > create the arz.wikipedia.org.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > > > Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International
> > > > > Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
> > > >
> > > > Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer
> > > > appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be
> > > > referred to with a standardized code.
> > > >
> > > > Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a
> > > > bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of
> > > > larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national
> and
> > > > subnational variants.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language
> > > > variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard
> > > > orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written
> > > > communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
> > frequently
> > > > given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
> > > >
> > > > a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at
> > the
> > > > top of the pile
> > > >
> > > > b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz,
> > so
> > > > we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
> > > >
> > > > c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not
> > > > yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
> > > >
> > > > If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it
> up.
> > > > But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
> > wiki
> > > > to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
> > > >
> > > > - -- brion
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > >
> > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz
> > > > IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC
> > > > =A5X/
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Alsebaey
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
