[Foundation-l] [Langcom-l] Ancient Greek reconstructed an analysis of a proposal for a new Wikipedia
Mark Williamson
node.ue at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 10:10:17 UTC 2008
Well, we're not discussing Latin, are we? They already have every
project besides Wikiversity, as far as I know, so there is no need to
discuss approval of Latin projects.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> If that is all you want to discuss, the status quo is that Ancient Greek has
> been denied. I do not want to discuss Ancient Greek only. If that is all we
> are discussing, I am done talking.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stop saying Latin, we already have a Wikipedia in Latin. We are
> > discussing the denial of a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 17/04/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
> > > <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Further, I've painstakingly followed every thread in this
> > discussion,
> > > > and I have not seen any strong argument for allowing languages
> > nobody
> > > > uses natively. Wikimedia wikis exist to make the sum of human
> > > > knowledge available to everyone, not to practice or preserve
> > > > languages.
> > > >
> > > > I think the argument that they act as a common language for scholars
> > > > of the ancient language is not valid; we are not a forum for
> > academic
> > > > exchange.
> > >
> > >
> > > You have to remember that "everyone" includes people who consider
> > > written-only languages a part of their intellectual sphere. If
> > > Wikimedia was around 500 years ago, would we deny Latin for purely
> > > ideological reasons, even though it was very widely used in
> > > literature? And though that use has declined greatly for Latin and
> > > similar classical languages, I do not think we can say that such a use
> > > is dead, nor can we at all predict the future course for such
> > > languages.
> > >
> > > And is it not true that certain topics are best researched in certain
> > > languages? If one were to collect writers from around the world to
> > > write an encyclopedia article on medieval ecclesiastical history,
> > > based on the most relevant and important sources, would not the
> > > optimal language for collaboration be Latin? And if one were to write
> > > an encyclopedia article on early 20th century artificial languages,
> > > would not the optimal language for collaboration be Esperanto?
> > >
> > > Surely such articles, written in one context but translated into many
> > > other languages, would be very valuable to all of our Wikipedia
> > > editions.
> > >
> > > Not that I agree with Gerard's specific proposal, but the case for
> > > Wikipedias in written-only languages is quite clear to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pharos
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list