[Foundation-l] Language proposal policy

Tue Sep 16 14:25:05 UTC 2008

The ISO code - 3 is remained, please review carefully the draft. but the ISO-3 can also make mistake, Europanto, a joke language, has its own code:

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=eur

And about the localization, if we read the manual. 

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#Localization

we realize that for the first project only we need the 500 most used mediawiki messages, i think it is a reasonable midpoint between total and null localization. the localization requirement could return.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#Localization

c.m.l.

<<<<<

----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language proposal policy

Hoi,
The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous
what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding
what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well
for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor
of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be
responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we
choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a
language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project
that was closed with prejudice.

The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with
the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim
that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no
credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a
lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better
then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then
50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality
and quantity.

What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages.
Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only
74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised.
The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new
language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work
done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new
projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60
days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project
is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this
situation.

This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of
the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless
discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the
implementation of the current policies.

The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would
characterise it.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever at yahoo.com> wrote:

> we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>
> it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely.
> remember many projects is waiting for it.
>
> Give your comments.
>
> C.m.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