Mailing List Archive

That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a
local variety, there are a small number whose native language is
indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is
a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian,
and they were raised in Yemen.

Mark

On 11/08/2008, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this
> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as
> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and
> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>
> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> proposal has been approved
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> precissely for its native condition.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a
> local variety, there are a small number whose native language is
> indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is
> a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian,
> and they were raised in Yemen.

This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for
language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be
evaluated individually based on the population of content producers
and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the
language and it's speaking population, and other factors. Arabic, if
there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for
efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would
seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language
is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary
speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language
needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is
indeed worthy of having a project.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

There is already an Arabic Wikipedia - I'm assuming its in Standard Arabic.
I think Crazy Lover's point was that the native speaking audience
requirement
was flawed, because few people speak Standard Arabic as a native language.

I think that falls under the "exceptions can be made" rule of common sense,
and the language policy itself is, I think, flexible enough to make use of a
major language even if the number of native speakers is small.

This was discussed previously, but can anyone point me to the thread where
GerardM and others discussed what proportion of the world's population
did not have a Wikimedia project in a language they speak, and also what
proportion is unrepresented with a native language project? It seems like
the
focus ought to be on recruiting people who speak the languages of the
projects
we already have, rather than tweaking our policies to get the maximum number
of empty projects.

Stupid question, perhaps - I know Wikimedia projects don't accept
advertising,
but do we advertise ourselves? Main page banners of popular projects asking
for native speakers to contribute in other projects, banners on websites of
local
or national popularity in areas where the number of our contributors are
small,
etc.? I'm thinking of the CIA's banner ads, like the one with an Arabic
phrase
and then an English one that says "If you can read this, and you're an
American
citizen, you could work for the CIA."

Nathan

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Arabic, if there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for
> efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would
> seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language
> is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary
> speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language
> needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is
> indeed worthy of having a project.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi.
Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an Arab
project and this will continue to be the case.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this
> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as
> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and
> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>
> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> proposal has been approved
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> precissely for its native condition.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If we had the 347 most-spoken languages of the world covered (that is,
all those languages with over 1 million speakers), we would still be
missing 6% of the world.

Someone asked on this list once which tiny number of languages we
could translate documents into to reach the whole world. They seem to
forget the Tower of Babel - even with the 75 most-spoken languages,
you're still missing 20% of humans. When you use a more convenient
number like 8, you're missing a whopping 60%.[1]

Of course, all of these statistics ignore the fact that adults on
Earth are only 82% literate.[2]

We have relatively good coverage of about the 100 most-spoken
languages, and after that, it gradually gets spottier and spottier.

Mark

[1] http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size
[2] http://earthtrends.wri.org/

On 11/08/2008, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is already an Arabic Wikipedia - I'm assuming its in Standard Arabic.
> I think Crazy Lover's point was that the native speaking audience
> requirement
> was flawed, because few people speak Standard Arabic as a native language.
>
> I think that falls under the "exceptions can be made" rule of common sense,
> and the language policy itself is, I think, flexible enough to make use of a
> major language even if the number of native speakers is small.
>
> This was discussed previously, but can anyone point me to the thread where
> GerardM and others discussed what proportion of the world's population
> did not have a Wikimedia project in a language they speak, and also what
> proportion is unrepresented with a native language project? It seems like
> the
> focus ought to be on recruiting people who speak the languages of the
> projects
> we already have, rather than tweaking our policies to get the maximum number
> of empty projects.
>
> Stupid question, perhaps - I know Wikimedia projects don't accept
> advertising,
> but do we advertise ourselves? Main page banners of popular projects asking
> for native speakers to contribute in other projects, banners on websites of
> local
> or national popularity in areas where the number of our contributors are
> small,
> etc.? I'm thinking of the CIA's banner ads, like the one with an Arabic
> phrase
> and then an English one that says "If you can read this, and you're an
> American
> citizen, you could work for the CIA."
>
> Nathan
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth
> <wknight8111@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Arabic, if there are a large number of speakers and if it can be used for
>> efficient communication between speakers of divergent dialects, would
>> seem like a great choice for a new language project. If the language
>> is classified as "dead" or "ancient" or if it has no "primary
>> speakers", those factors can be taken into account, but the language
>> needs to be evaluated from a holistic standpoint to see that it is
>> indeed worthy of having a project.
>>
>> --Andrew Whitworth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think you've missed the point.

Mark

On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi.
> Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an Arab
> project and this will continue to be the case.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense:
>> this
>> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore
>> as
>> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic,
>> and
>> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
>> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
>> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>>
>> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
>> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
>> proposal has been approved
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
>> precissely for its native condition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
No I did not.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you've missed the point.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi.
> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an
> Arab
> > project and this will continue to be the case.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense:
> >> this
> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
> anymore
> >> as
> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic,
> >> and
> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
> >>
> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> >> proposal has been approved
> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> >> precissely for its native condition.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
point in the first place.

Mark

On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> No I did not.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you've missed the point.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi.
>> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is an
>> Arab
>> > project and this will continue to be the case.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
>> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense:
>> >> this
>> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
>> anymore
>> >> as
>> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic,
>> >> and
>> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
>> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
>> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>> >>
>> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
>> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
>> >> proposal has been approved
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
>> >> precissely for its native condition.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made
that point in the first place ??
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
> point in the first place.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > No I did not.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you've missed the point.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hoi.
> >> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
> an
> >> Arab
> >> > project and this will continue to be the case.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > GerardM
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
> >> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> >> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
> consecuense:
> >> >> this
> >> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
> >> anymore
> >> >> as
> >> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
> archaic,
> >> >> and
> >> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> >> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> >> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
> >> >>
> >> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
> of
> >> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> >> >> proposal has been approved
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> >> >> precissely for its native condition.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Please, please, both of you, have this intelligent interaction on a
private mailing. I cant really follow it.

Lodewijk

2008/8/11 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made
> that point in the first place ??
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
>> point in the first place.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > No I did not.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think you've missed the point.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hoi.
>> >> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
>> an
>> >> Arab
>> >> > project and this will continue to be the case.
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > GerardM
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
>> >> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>> >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>> >> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
>> consecuense:
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
>> >> anymore
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
>> archaic,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
>> >> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
>> >> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
>> of
>> >> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
>> >> >> proposal has been approved
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
>> >> >> precissely for its native condition.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I said I *thought* you had missed the point, and you assured me that
you hadn't. It seemed like you did, based on what I thoughed the point
was. Your reaction just seems awfully arrogant to me, as the only way
to know whether you've truly missed the point is to talk it over with
the person who made the point in the first place, which you didn't do.

Let me explain in more detail: This is just an example, much like the
one that I once made (and many people failed to get) about how many of
our present Wikipedias would not have been started if current
requirements had been in place a long time ago. You are insulting
Crazy Lover's intelligence, of course Crazy Lover knows that there is
already an Arabic Wikipedia.

What Crazy Lover is saying, I believe (and I could be wrong, but I
think my way makes much more sense than your way, as your way seems to
presuppose that Crazy Lover believes we have no Arabic Wikipedia), is
that "Any system of rules which would disallow such a language as
Arabic, if it didn't already have a Wikipedia, is bad."

I agree with that - we may already have an Arabic Wikipedia. It's not
necessary to have rules which would make possible ALL current
Wikipedias to have been created, but some of them would not be OK. If
current rules would have excluded, for example, English, or Chinese
Wikipedias, they would similarly be rejected as unacceptable rules.
Yes, we already have those Wikipedias, but that is immaterial because
we are talking about something more abstract than that.

Mark

On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made
> that point in the first place ??
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
>> point in the first place.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > No I did not.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think you've missed the point.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hoi.
>> >> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
>> an
>> >> Arab
>> >> > project and this will continue to be the case.
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > GerardM
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
>> >> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>> >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>> >> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
>> consecuense:
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
>> >> anymore
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
>> archaic,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
>> >> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
>> of
>> >> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
>> >> >> proposal has been approved
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
>> >> >> precissely for its native condition.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

No, I merely stated that I *thought* you were missing the point.
Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but you stated flatly that you
were not.

I don't think the point is worrying about Arabic in particular not
being able to have a Wikipedia, I think it's more of a theoretical
thing, that if Arabic hadn't had a Wikipedia, it wouldn't be able to
have one under these rules, and that this somehow invalidates the
rules because such a major language should be automatically approved
by our rules.

It's a sort of test for any language rules. Not ALL of our existing
languages must pass it, but some of course must - Chinese, English,
Arabic, Spanish, for example, we expect would be considered valid
languages under any reasonable criteria.

Mark

On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made
> that point in the first place ??
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
>> point in the first place.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > No I did not.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think you've missed the point.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hoi.
>> >> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
>> an
>> >> Arab
>> >> > project and this will continue to be the case.
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > GerardM
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
>> >> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
>> >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>> >> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
>> consecuense:
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
>> >> anymore
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
>> archaic,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
>> >> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
>> of
>> >> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
>> >> >> proposal has been approved
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
>> >> >> precissely for its native condition.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable consecuense: this
> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak anymore as
> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's archaic, and
> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is
> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the
> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
>
> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers of
> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> proposal has been approved
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> precissely for its native condition.
>

Arabic is the language, Egyptian Arabic (and the rest of ~20) are the
dialects, regardless of what people say that it is a different language.
please don't compare medieval Latin with Arabic.

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia is a playground, lets hope it becomes something
useful someday.

--
--alnokta
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Standard Arabic is recognised under the ISO-639-3 with the code arb. Were
Standard Arabic started today, the ar code would not be available because it
signifies something different.
Thanks,
GerardM

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=arb

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I merely stated that I *thought* you were missing the point.
> Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but you stated flatly that you
> were not.
>
> I don't think the point is worrying about Arabic in particular not
> being able to have a Wikipedia, I think it's more of a theoretical
> thing, that if Arabic hadn't had a Wikipedia, it wouldn't be able to
> have one under these rules, and that this somehow invalidates the
> rules because such a major language should be automatically approved
> by our rules.
>
> It's a sort of test for any language rules. Not ALL of our existing
> languages must pass it, but some of course must - Chinese, English,
> Arabic, Spanish, for example, we expect would be considered valid
> languages under any reasonable criteria.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made
> > that point in the first place ??
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the
> >> point in the first place.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > No I did not.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > GerardM
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I think you've missed the point.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hoi.
> >> >> > Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There
> is
> >> an
> >> >> Arab
> >> >> > project and this will continue to be the case.
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > GerardM
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
> >> >> always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Reviewing the requirements of current policy
> >> >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
> >> >> >> i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
> >> consecuense:
> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
> >> >> anymore
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
> >> archaic,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd:
> the
> >> >> >> rejection of any new project in this useful language.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> on the other hand, there are several native languages, all
> daugthers
> >> of
> >> >> >> classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose
> >> >> >> proposal has been approved
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> >> >> >> precissely for its native condition.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Etnologue classified Arabic as macrolanguage. not a single language: it's a group of language, form of a collection of several vernacular languages called "arabic"(no mutual intelligibles), and the Standard Arabic (continuer of classic arabic, no vernacular). We are talking about the last one.

it is not comparable to spanish (a vernacular language that all people of hispanic countries understand since they are babies).

And It is comparable to medieval latin because both are not vernacular, but are very useful as culture vehicle. the point is the absurd to insist in Native requirement. the reality is: native condition is not determinant, and not neccesary feature to express culture; the language prestigious is. and that do not mean i oppose native projects, no, i oppose the native requirement.

it isn't acceptable the stubborness of langcom in not replace the "native" requirement for the "Fluent expression" one. result of community consense:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

<<<
----- Original Message ----

From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:07:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Arabic, a non native language

That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a
local variety, there are a small number whose native language is
indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is
a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian,
and they were raised in Yemen.

Mark
>>>

You are supposing. in the example, It is more realistic that the children express in a vernacular form of one of his parents; or merge both vernacular; or express in yemen vernacular (example: it's reported, some children in USA, whose hispanic parents express every time in spanish at home, have as native language english, and are absolutely incompetent in spanish, adopt the vernacular language of the country when they raise). and finally standard arabic has arcaic grammar, is nearer to classic arabic than to the vernacular ones. It's neccesary to learn at school, as medieval europeans learn latin.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth
<wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not true. Although the vast majority of Arabs are raised on a
>> local variety, there are a small number whose native language is
>> indeed Modern Standard Arabic. Imagine, perhaps, that their father is
>> a well-educated Moroccan and their mother is a well-educated Syrian,
>> and they were raised in Yemen.
>
> This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for
> language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be
> evaluated individually based on the population of content producers
> and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the
> language and it's speaking population, and other factors.
[snip]

...and without prejudiced assumptions about what languages are the
"right" or "best" for a person based on the accident of their
geographic location or ethnic heritage.

Thank you for making your point.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Whitworth
> <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is perhaps the perfect example for why cut-and-dry rules for
>> language approval are probably not a good method. Languages need to be
>> evaluated individually based on the population of content producers
>> and content consumers, the efficacy, utility, and longevity of the
>> language and it's speaking population, and other factors.
> [snip]
>
> ...and without prejudiced assumptions about what languages are the
> "right" or "best" for a person based on the accident of their
> geographic location or ethnic heritage.
>
> Thank you for making your point.

That is exactly my point, we shouldn't be taking these preconceived
rules (call them "prejudices" if you want) and using them as the
ultimate standard for selecting new projects. Any time you create a
rule on this issue, people are going to find that one counter-example
and throw a fit. Common sense is hardly common, but I have a high
degree of faith in our languages subcom to make good informed
decisions without needing to be held to some mechanistic rule set.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
SIL both maintains the ISO-639-3 and Ethnologue. In Ethnologue there is no
such thing as a macro language, this is specific to the standard. Both in
the iSO-639-3 and Ethnologue the word "vernacular" is not used, asserting
that all Arabic languages are vernaculars is problematic.

As to stubbornly requiring a "native" requirement, this is something where
you will find that the langcom is not in agreement. The langcom works by
full consensus, there is disagreement on this. Personally I insist that it
is abundantly clear on a meta level that a language is indeed the language
that is being considered. This means that what is in essence a dead language
that has a modern usage is to be taggedd for exactly this. It is for this
same reason that requiring a localisation in such a language is imho a
fallacy.

Then again, we are rehashing things that have been said before.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Etnologue classified Arabic as macrolanguage. not a single language: it's a
> group of language, form of a collection of several vernacular languages
> called "arabic"(no mutual intelligibles), and the Standard Arabic (continuer
> of classic arabic, no vernacular). We are talking about the last one.
>
> it is not comparable to spanish (a vernacular language that all people of
> hispanic countries understand since they are babies).
>
> And It is comparable to medieval latin because both are not vernacular, but
> are very useful as culture vehicle. the point is the absurd to insist in
> Native requirement. the reality is: native condition is not determinant, and
> not neccesary feature to express culture; the language prestigious is. and
> that do not mean i oppose native projects, no, i oppose the native
> requirement.
>
> it isn't acceptable the stubborness of langcom in not replace the "native"
> requirement for the "Fluent expression" one. result of community consense:
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l