Language proposal policy/GerardM
From LangCom
![]() |
This page is no longer maintained and may be outdated: moved to m:Special projects subcommittees/Languages/Policy/GerardM. |
Language proposal policy (GerardM proposal) |
This is a draft policy for processing proposals for new language subdomains of existing projects. These are currently processed under a policy drafted by the community.
GerardM wrote this proposal 02 January 2006 and emailed it to the language subcommittee members for discussion. |
Policy for the creation of projects in new languages.
When there is a proposal for a new project in a new language there are several considerations:
- The languages is not used for any project yet
- The language is an established language i.e. it is recognised by one of the ISO-639 standards and it conforms to the full understanding of what this language is considered to mean
- The language is not recognised as such or it is a more narrow or differing meaning from what the Standard describes
When a new project is proposed for a language that has established itself in a WMF project, typically there should be no problem allowing for an other project in the same language.
When the language or linguistic entity is recognised in an ISO-639 standard, typically there is little reason to not allow for a project in this language. However, an argument could be that the language is mutually understandable with another linguistic entity. When this is the case, there is a need for some fine balance judgement why the request makes sense or not. Often political arguments are used to force an issue. For the WMF this does not make a difference.
There are WMF projects where a narrow understanding of the language is what rules a project. This has led to the creation of the nds-NL project; here the insistence of the use of one orthography led to the two projects for what is essentially one language. There are other examples of such practices; some of them like the Belarus Wikipedia are politically inspired and divorce the language from how it is used by the majority of the people that speak the language. These practices are not really compatible with the base understanding of the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.
When a language, linguistic entity has not been recognised, there are several things to consider. It is truly an existing language. If it is not, to what extend has a constructed linguistic entity been able to establish itself. As the WMF is not there to develop new constructed linguistic entities, there has to be an extended body of works before a WMF project should be considered. When it is not a constructed language but an as yet unrecognised linguistic entity, the information that distinguishes this LE from another needs to be presented in such a way that the WLDC will accept it as such. With this understanding it is possible to assert if it makes sense to allow it for a WMF project.
When these basic facts are being sorted out, a project may start to build material that is to serve either as material for the WLDC to assert if the language is to be considered valid in its own right and/or as the start for a project when it is approved as such. This material is to be build in the Incubator wiki. This is also the place where the localisation of the MediaWiki software can be maintained for any linguistic entity.
When the WLDC needs to assert a linguistic entity there is a need for full articles about a spread of subjects. This is to assert the consistency of the language. The WLDC will also require that articles in specific domains will be present. This too serves as a way to consider the completeness of the linguistic entity that is to be asserted.
When a linguistic entity is not controversial as such, there is still a need for creating a minimum amount of content. The moment when a project is to be promoted into full production is a function of the number of people editing on this proto-project, the consistency of the content. The localisation of the MediaWiki software is also a factor in the decision to allow for full project status.
In the past, it has been practice to vote for or against new language proposals. This led to people with no knowledge of such a language to vote in favour. It resulted in people to vote for/against a language out of political motivation. It proved really problematic and resulted in projects that are problematic because of the POV presented and in the quality of the language. We have terminated projects because they were not in the language as advertised. We have projects were people from Belgium create the content with a grammar book from 1915 and a dictionary of 1856. This is not what the WMF is there for. It is therefore that a vote for or against a project is not relevant. When there is an objection to a project, it has to be argued in linguistic terms. The assessment of a project is therefore to be done on linguistic merits. It is therefore relevant to have a linguist determine if a proposed project is indeed in that language and, it is for the WMF to decide if a sufficiently big group is involved or if a sufficiently big sized proto project exists to make it a full fledged project.