Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix III: Current Ancient language assessment
This page does not form part of the proposal, but details particular background issues
Ancient Language wikis[edit]
A number of Ancient Language wikis (ALWs) exist, that were created before the 2007 policy change disallowing these except for Wikisource. These projects are now up to 20 years old, but have not been assessed for their value and educational contribution, as defined by Wikimedia mission and Wikipedia's purpose statement. The lack of such an assessment makes responding to the current RFC difficult, as there is no easy way to understand what value the ancient language wikis have created.
Additionally, the ALWs appear to be structurally distant from Wikimedia, lacking the kind of resourced Chapters and so on that help with other Wikis. This contributes to a lack of institutional understanding of the ALWs work.
Nevertheless, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese and Latin are very widely used and understood languages. Identifying development and support needs could put them on a path to being highly successful and visible projects.
In assessing ALWs, some will inevitably appear to be dysfunctional. In these more extreme cases, the recommendations of this study would need include to identify what remedial action is needed.
Consent and involvement of the ALWs[edit]
In order to make this study work, the consent and involvement of the Wikis will be needed. It will be especially important that it is clear that the aim of the study is to identify their needs from Wikimedia so that they can build their capacity and efficacy.
The study will need to consult with the ALWs at an early stage.
LangCom's remit[edit]
Ensuring that ALWs can meet their mission is to a certain extent within the scope of LangCom, whose Charter's scope includes: "The development and maintenance of … support and coordination for cross-language projects, helping smaller communities share resources and maximize their results" and also to help them maximize the reuse of proven marketing techniques among different editions; [and] maximize the co-operation level among different language communities by providing common fields of activity.
Ensuring that ALW's can develop or receive the kind of support necessary to fulfill WM's goals is therefore within the Committee's remit, although it is not their remit to deliver the support or be a support mechanism.
A study along these lines can therefore also help LangCom fulfill its own duties and responsibilities towards existing ALWs.
What needs to be assessed[edit]
Assessment against Wikimedia's mission and Wikipedia's purpose statement[edit]
The current Wiki projects should be assessed to find whether:
- The current Ancient Language editions meet Wikimedia's mission and how; and
- the current Ancient Language editions meet Wikipedia's purpose and how
Wikimedia's mission is to:
empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally[1]
Wikipedias are the most common type of ancient language editions. Wikipedia's purpose described thus:
Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written
[to] benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.[2]
Editors collaborate to write about virtually any topic, from ancient history to science to the arts.[3]
In addition, the process can document the challenges these editions face and make other recommendations about how they may be better supported to meet these missions.
How we establish how well these criteria are met[edit]
The study needs to look at how and how well do Ancient Language wikis contribute to the two missions:
- Wikimedia mission
- How do they "Empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content"
- How do they help "Disseminate this content effectively and globally"
- Wikipedia mission
- How do they help "create the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia"
- How do they "benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia"
- How do they contribute to creating a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"
In order to assess these questions, the study needs to look at the kinds of knowledge production and knowledge consumption that takes place. The latter is likely to be harder to assess, as it requires finding and talking to people who read, rather than write the Wikis.
What needs assessing under knowledge production[edit]
- Are there areas that Ancient Language Wikis cover better than other wikis?
- Does knowledge produced by ALWs flow back to other wikis? How and why?
- What kinds of language-specific knowledge is codified through these projects, eg nomenclature, terminology, in-language resources? How important is this?
- Why do writers want knowledge written in their chosen Ancient Language?
- Do contributors to ALWs work on other projects also? What benefits does this create?
- Would contributors to ALWs work on other projects if ALWs did not exist?
- Do ALWs draw in contributors specifically to work on them?
- To what extent to volunteers largely or exclusively work on ALWs?
What needs assessing under knowledge consumption[edit]
- What kinds of Wiki readers do we know about?
- Do any users choose to read Ancient Language wikis rather than other wikis? Why?
- Can users find information on ALWs that they cannot find elsewhere? What information is most useful or popular?
- Are there academic readers of ALWs? How do they benefit?
- How useful are ALWs as a language-learning tool?
- What other features or content do users want in the current ALWs and why?
Expert input[edit]
The design of a study like this needs input from linguists, historical linguists and other academics, such as those who work with the languages involved. Some of the evidence and practice of users will be hard to find. They should help with its methodology and the discern what kinds of evidence should be regarded as acceptable for LangCom's purposes. They may be able to help locate existing evidence from prior academic studies.
Other issues to assess[edit]
During discussions a number of other aspects of the use of Ancient Languages were raised. Some of these are also important to evaluate.
- Language formation: Not all ancient languages will have processes for modern language formation. This is a potential barrier to a Wikipedia project in particular, because the content cannot rely on attestable formulae for many modern topics. The study should examine how this has been dealt with by each Wiki, and how well.
- Project sustainability: The Ancient Languages vary in size of community. Other than assessing from statistics, how do the projects attempt to sustain themselves? How do they recruit new editors?
- Language quality: Related to sustainability, how do the Wikis attempt to ensure a high standard of the language is used? Are they successful, and how does this compare to other languages in a similar position, eg minority language communities?
- Reaching a readership and users: Do the Wiki communities have any methods to reach users and communities, or do they rely on users finding them? Is there other evidence for how users might reach the projects?
- Value and purpose: We should also ensure that we ask the projects themselves for how they view their role and purpose, whether these easily fit WM/WPs criteria or not.
- Diversity, ethnicity and religion: Some of these languages are particularly important for issues of diversity, ethnicity and religion, even though they are learnt languages. We should assess how these projects contribute to diversity goals at Wikimedia, and what particular contributions they are making to specific communities.
- What help do they need: Whether new ancient language projects are allowed or not, these projects are currently hosted by Wikimedia. They may however lack a natural structure for engagement, as the languages are not necessarily tied to a particular nationality or Wikimedia grouping; and even if they are, they are not likely to be the priority of those projects. We should not miss the opportunity to understand their needs better.
Evidence sources[edit]
Ancient language wikis that could be assessed[edit]
There are a number of wikis, that range from active to moribund, as with any language set. They will range in their achievements, so should be a useful set to explore.
| Geographical usage | Wiki | WP | Usage notes | Recent edits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe, Americas, Global | Latin Wikipedia; Latin Wikisource Latin Wikibooks, Latin Wiktionary | w:Latin | Liturgical, government and education, and official status; vast and varied recorded literature; used for botanical naming and description, zoological naming, and in certain other scientific fields | |
| India and some other Asian countries | Sanskrit Wikipedia, Sanskrit Wikisource Sanskrit Wiktionary | w:Sanskrit | Literary, social and liturgical language, includes revival efforts and official status, important for several religions and many countries; vast and varied recorded literature | |
| Sinophone areas, also in Japan, Korean peninsula and Vietnam | Literary Chinese Wikipedia | w:Literary Chinese | Extremely long usage, lost official status in 1960s; decline in liguistic competence but output still present; vast and varied recorded literature |
| Geographical usage | Wiki | WP | Usage notes | Recent edits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| East Europe | Church Slavonic Wikipedia | w:Church Slavonic | Liturgical language; secular written language in Russia into 1700s | |
| India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand | Pali Wikipedia | w:Pali | Buddhist liturgical language, widely studied; large recorded literature |
| Geographical usage | Wiki | WP | Usage notes | Recent edits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Europe, Asia | Gothic Wikipedia | w:Gothic language | Historical and partially reconstructed language with limited corpus | |
| North Europe | Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia | w:Old English | Historical language with moderately sized corpus |
Available evidence[edit]
Statistics[edit]
Statistical information about the ancient language wikis is available. This can give us an indication of the activity and sustainability of the projects. It cannot however demonstrate the kinds of value their users believe they are getting from the projects.
Academic studies[edit]
There may be some academic studies of ancient language Wikipedias.
Qualitative assessment[edit]
A qualitative assessment could provide a deeper analysis of the impact of these Wikis. Contributions could be sought from:
- Wiki editors
- Wiki users
- Academics with a particular knowledge of the languages concerned
Quora questions[edit]
Quora questions can give us some broad ideas and feedback to work with. While responses should not be seen as complete assessments, may be partial and cannot give us a full view of the performance of a ALW project, they can give us a valuable perspective and help us diagnose issues for further investigation.
- What is your impression of the Church Slavonic Wikipedia? How do they deal with words for modern concepts?
- What do you think of the Sanskrit Wikipedia? Is it written well or badly, and what topics is it good for, if any?
- What do you think of the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia? Is it written well or badly, and what topics is it good for, if any?
- What do you think of the Latin Wikipedia? Is it written well or badly, and what topics is it good for, if any?
- What do you think of the Classical Chinese language Wikipedia? Is it written well or badly, and what topics is it good for, if any? (Also "what is the point of" … and "Can Japanese and Korean people read …")