So, Mr Formulax, now do you claim to speak for these Singaporeans and
Hong Kongers? I find this extremely insulting.
Mark
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:26:24 +0800, Sheng Jiong <sheng.jiong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see no
particular reason not to, if it's the case (which I don't know)
that a significant number of people communicate largely in Singlish and
find it more natural than "standard English". We already have a
ht.wikipedia.org for the Haitian creole, which is basically a French
dialect with significant influences from a number of African languages.
For a long time it was considered basically "improper French", and
people spoke it but didn't write it---indeed, writing in it would earn
you an F on your essay in school. More recently, that's been recognized
as a sort of cultural elitism, and it's becoming recognized as an
acceptable language to write in, and in fact the standard language of Haiti.
It might be worth pointing out that "standard English" for Wikipedia's
purposes is itself already different from what your English teacher
might say is standard. We tend to avoid (for the most part) not only
local dialects that are "improper" but also avoid "proper English"
that
is not commonly used, or is only used in some regions of the world.
This is in some sense basically the [[en:Prescription and description]]
debate. Should we be enforcing handed-down rules of "correct language",
whatever that might mean, or should we merely be documenting language as
it is actually used by real people?
(Of course, whether written Cantonese and Singlish are used by many
people or not is another issue. I'm just arguing that the fact that the
Chinese and Singaporean governments dislike them and consider them
"improper" shouldn't be the deciding factor.)
I cannot agree with you. I agree that we should not use "proper
English" that no one today understands. But if we accept languages
that are not commonly used in formal writings, we bear a danger of
undermining the credibility of Wikipedia, and credibility is one of
the most important considerations for readers.
Wikipedia has long been doubted for its credibility. I personally do
not agree with the view that Wikipedia cannot be trusted because
everybody can edit. I have this trust in Wikipedia because since I
discovered Wikipedia I have always seen it as a serious effort to
build an encyclopedia, despite its unconventional way to writing it.
But if I am told today, that Wikipedia has a version written in
Singlish or Cantonese or other spoken languages that are rarely or
even never used in formal writings and academic discussions, I will
begin to doubt if the aim of the Wikipedia is serious and its goal is
to build a trustworthy encyclopedia. And this in turn will undermine
my confidence in the credibility of Wikipedia.
Singlish, like Cantonese, are widely used in informal dialogues and
writings. But it not "natural" for Singaporeans or Hong Kongers to
write formal essays using Singlish or Cantonese, and neither are they
accustomed to read any formal written works (such as an encyclopedia)
that are published in languages that they think should only occur in
daily conversations.
formulax
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l