Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-05/News and notes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:55, 9 June 2013

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

Wikipedia has Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages. —Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat inactive: the project page and main talk page have a total of one edit so far in 2013. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which makes me wonder why we would bother creating another sister project? It seems to me we should first identify a user base that wants to contribute and then create a project to harness that user interest. Isn't Wikitionary the result of WP:NOTADICTIONARY? If WP:ENLANG isn't active, then there's no market for OmegaWiki's adoption. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Languages are not people; they have no right to exist. The sooner we can all shift to one language, the better for all of us. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Languages are vastly disparate ways of being human. I suspect you must be a native speaker of English, as this sort of bigoted anglocentric assertion is rarely made nowadays by speakers of any other language. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Orangemike: As to which of us is bigoted, I will allow the reader to judge from the above comments. Language exists for the purpose of allowing people to communicate. Learning another language is a major barrier to overcome before people can achieve that communication. Thus teaching everyone a single common language from childhood would facilitate the purpose of language. On the other hand, maintaining a plethora of mutually incomprehensible languages just impedes human progress. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be fair, you are both very correct. JRSpriggs is right that facilitating communication is a high and worthy aspiration, and one that is best served by universalizing language. But Orangemike is also correct that different languages represent different cultures, and diversity in thinking is also a high and worthy aspiration. I'd say that it's not so much the loss of the languages themselves, but rather the loss of the unique ways of thinking and feeling that the languages represent, that is the true loss. Powers ^T 20:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the WikiLang story:
- while I am flattered to be cited, the quote is not from me, it is from User:Ypnypn [1].
- If you read that page, you will also see that my proposition for merging it with OmegaWiki is only a fallback position, and that as a first choice, I'd prefer for them to be a separate project under the WMF umbrella. Should that not happen, I proposed hosting it at OmegaWiki, rather than having the project not exist at all.
- What is called in this story the "OmegaWiki vote" is not a vote. It is a request for comments (the page title says it as well). I don't know if there will be a vote. In the end I think it is the WMF which decides if they want to support it or not, and how it should be integrated with the existing projects. We can only make comments.
- The part about me being the current maintainer of OmegaWiki is true :) --Kipmaster (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order: that was an editing error—sorry! We originally had the right attribution, but I mixed them up when paring the story down.
  - I've added a clarification regarding this point.
  - You're completely right.
  - Well... one out of four at least. ;-) Thank you for commenting! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First time I've seen both logos adjacent: yep, I think the WTO has a case. Why on earth were the same colours chosen? That was asking for trouble. Tony (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because those also happen to be the Wikimedia Foundation colours - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that was an avoidable whoops!... Carrite (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 **Languages are vastly disparate ways of being human. I suspect you must be a native speaker of  English, as this sort of bigoted anglocentric assertion is rarely made nowadays by speakers of any other language. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 ***To Orangemike: As to which of us is bigoted, I will allow the reader to judge from the above comments. Language exists for the purpose of allowing people to communicate. Learning another language is a major barrier to overcome before people can achieve that communication. Thus teaching everyone a single common language from childhood would facilitate the purpose of language. On the other hand, maintaining a plethora of mutually incomprehensible languages just impedes human progress. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
+****To be fair, you are both very correct.  JRSpriggs is right that facilitating communication is a high and worthy aspiration, and one that is best served by universalizing language.  But Orangemike is also correct that different languages represent different cultures, and diversity in thinking is also a high and worthy aspiration.  I'd say that it's not so much the loss of the languages themselves, but rather the loss of the unique ways of thinking and feeling that the languages represent, that is the true loss.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 20:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About the WikiLang story:
 ** while I am flattered to be cited, the quote is not from me, it is from [[User:Ypnypn]] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiLang].