[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Wed Oct 18 13:56:35 UTC 2006

Hoi,
You are utterly barking up the wrong tree. Complying with standards does 
not mean that you cannot have things outside of the standards. It means 
that you comply with the standards as far as they go. There is no reason 
at all not to have new projects when these projects comply with what the 
Wikimedia Foundation accepts as it's policy for that type of project.

Your assumptions are blinding you. It is also rich that you use "the 
community" as an argument. This same community has asked for the closure 
of wikipedias that you fought tooth and nail to preserve. In a previous 
post you were talking about political reasons to do certain things. 
Political arguments are the ultimate POINT OF VIEW. When we are to come 
to a reasonable policy for new projects, flash crowds and political 
arguments will have to be considered of little importance because they 
either deny or ask for things that have little linguistic merit. 
Remember, what we aim to achieve; bringing knowledge to all people in 
their own language.

To repeat and conclude; compliance with standards does not prevent the 
creation of new version of WMF projects.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Again, this seems like a view not shared by the community. If we have
> a subcommittee full of people who have no wiggle room when it comes to
> codes, it won't be very good for us in the long term.
>
> Wikimedia language codes are not permanent! This needs to be
> emphasised. If a new code is accepted in the future, we can adopt it
> (as we hopefully will with BAT-SMG -> ZOG).
>
> In the mean time, though, it is awfully mean of us (or rather, of
> you), to restrict Wikipedias to those varieties viewed by SIL as
> languages.
>
> So in the mean time, thanks to you guys, we can have a yib.wp in a
> language that is universally agreed to not be a language, while we
> must have a single yuf.wp against the wishes of the speakers of those
> 3 languages, who request and require separate literatures? That makes
> no sense.
>
> Compliance with standards is good, but if it prevents the creation of
> a Wiki, we should ignore it.
>
> You and Gerard award ISO 639 too much importance.
>
> Mark
>
> On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>   
>> So would you say: hey, codes are fun, let's invent some new ones to give
>> some languages/dialect a space?
>>
>> And then you would go to iso and say: hey guys - we have that neat code
>> ... it is a bit messy, but you should adopt it since otherwise it is not
>> going to end up in software localisation etc?
>>
>> Great point ... by not attributing a proper code you help those who are
>> against that regional language or dialect, because you prevent a code
>> from becoming official and you contribute to the fact that these poeple
>> will much a harder time to get software etc. in their language.
>>
>> Sun is still at iso 639-2 and sooner or later will go to 639-3 and this
>> means for example that when it comes to languag code an "any code
>> language" will not be included. Software that works with such language
>> codes and locales will not be able to handle the fantasy code.
>>
>> We are well aware of the fact that we require a lot - but please
>> understand also that by requiring certain things we make sure that these
>> languages really have a chance ... otherwise they would be confined into
>> wikipedia (that has some kind of relevance) and certain other less
>> relevant projects without even becoming the chance to reach an official
>> standing.
>>
>> I'd say that by making such things sure for those small communities we
>> well do something for them: assure that their language has a real
>> chance. Well of course ... if the community then prefers not to have an
>> easy way to being reknown officially ...
>>
>> Thanks, Sabine
>>
>>
>> Mark Williamson schrieb:
>>     
>>> The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community.
>>> When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to
>>> act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you
>>> advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community
>>> believes to be reasonable.
>>>
>>> You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the
>>> code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from
>>> the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia
>>> projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such
>>> as "lat-ltg",  which community and requester deemed unacceptable due
>>> to its political implications,  of which the current proposed code has
>>> none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or
>>> language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more
>>> inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it
>>> needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about
>>> the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably
>>> and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the
>>> larger community which they serve.
>>>
>>> The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and
>>> imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out
>>> minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a
>>> solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.
>>>
>>> Mark