Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix VI: Policy issues

This page does not form part of the proposal, but details particular issues

Oustanding or other issues raised

Oustanding or other issues raised

Issue	Description and Other policy considerations	Mitigation	Mitigation applied
Language attack	Description: The ancient language Wiki is attacked with content that is linguistically inaccurate, false, leading to reputational damage, such as the modern language Scots Wiki suffered. Other policy considerations: Risk of attack or reputational damage exist in all Wikis, and must be balanced with delivering Wikimedia's mission. Risk aversion therefore needs to be through mitigation where that is possible; and rejection of a particular language only where it cannot mitigate such risks.	Ensure that only languages with a large potential user base are considered, so that damage is likely to be detected and removed (point 5); ensure that the language is standardised and has methods of modern language formation (point 3)	Yes
Relevance to audience	Description: It has been suggested that Ancient Language wikis may not be useful to any audience as nobody could find value in them as an educational resource, or that they are (inherently) incapable of meeting Wikimedia or Wikipedia's mission. It is unclear what educational value they provide or whether they meet these missions as no assessment has been made. Other policy considerations: This is also an issue of process, as it relates to a lack of evidence and assessment. Some discussion is needed about what the mission and purpose of WM and WP actually require.	Assess the contribution of existing Ancient Language wikis Ensure applicants have policies for audience development	Requirements for audience development applied at 9
Usefulness or originality of the content	Description: It has been suggested that AL Wikipedia's do not produce or codify new material that could be useful as a form of knowledge production. Other policy considerations: The question of scope of Wiki projects is different for each kind of project. With Wikipedias in particular, the question of producing particularly good or deeper specialist content in a particular minority language, be it an ancient language, ConLang or native language, is an important consideration to help secure and develop its audience, and to meet Wikipedia's mission of covering "all branches of knowledge". Policies to develop better support for ALWs that would help with these issues are out of scope for this proposal, but could be developed.	Ensure that there are policies at the Wiki projects to produce content that draws on areas of particular relevance to them.	Requirements for policies applied at 8 and 9
Place the bar to new Wikis at "official usage"	Description: It has been suggested that Latin should 'pass' as a 'used' language because it is used institutionally, in ways that support new language formation. This may be a very high bar for certain Ancient languages depending on how "official" and "institutional" are defined. Other policy considerations: This would still result in different language types being treated differently because of how they originated, so does not achieve a rational basis for different treatment. Unclear if some well used ancient languages would reach this bar; while some less used ones might.	Define "official" or "institutional"	Addressed to a certain extent at (7) of the draft.
Chilling effect on current ALs	Description: Currently, Latin, Sanskrit and so on are not allowed new wikis. This restricts the ability of Wikimedia to support educational materials in these languages, even where WM's educational mission would be more easily met than for Wikipedia. Additionally, should ALWs ever require or apply for funding, the fact that they would not qualify for a WM project under current criteria may be used against these applications. Other policy considerations: The policy would or may not make all current ALs elegible for more wikis. An alternative approach would be to allow Wikis in all currently accepted ALs, but this would likely be perceived as unfair.	Allow ALs meeting specific criteria.	Proposals mitigates by making at least some ALWs elegible.

Process issues

Process issues raised

Issue	Description	Mitigation	Mitigation applied
Unassessed impact or evaluation of Ancient Language wikis	There are a small number of Ancient Language wikis that were allowed under the previous policy. An evaluation of the Wiki projects' impact could help the Committee and Wikimedia assess whether other Ancient Language projects could have value and what that value would be. Other policy considerations: Evidence-based policy making is a good and widely accepted approach. However, statistical information is unlikely to reveal the full impact and value, and care needs to be taken with qualitative data or self-assessment.	Conduct an evaluation of the current AL projects	LangCom have been asked if they are open to engaging with an evidence-gathering exercise.
Support of existing ALWs through cross-language projects is within LangCom remit	LangCom's Charter sets out that "The committee is tasked … [to ensure the] development and maintenance of … support and coordination for cross-language projects, helping smaller communities share resources and maximize their results" and "The goals of the committee are to 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". These should include sufficient support to ensure that ALWs are able to deliver on WM's goals, but are currently neglected in this. Other policy considerations: ALWs are not directly connected to Chapters and need special support. The current policy against further ALWs may encourage neglect of their needs, especially as justifications made for the bar frequently rely on arguments that ALWs serve no real function. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If support is applied, it will become obvious that some ALWs are not in a position to develop, or may not want to develop in a way that meets WM and WPs aims. This may lead to a parting of the ways for those projects. Others may be found to be dormant and need closing. ALWs need to be securely accepted in a reformed Language proposal policy that explains when ALWs are likely to fulfill the WM mission and WP purpose before this work proceeds, or such moves are likely to be interpreted as a precursor to a cull of disliked projects.	Develop support policies	Support policies outlined but need disussion and acceptance by LangCom and ALWs.