Disputatio:Vicipaedia Latina

E Vicipaedia

According to the comment: I think this page should be better moved to the "Vivipaedia" namespace than being merged with Vicipaedia:Census, because in the first case we could keep the interwiki links. --Roland (disp.) 18:14, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Index 1 Interwiki 2 Graph 3 Interwiki 4 Pagina renovata 5 Greek 6 Why classicists are not embracing Vicipaedia the way they ought to 7 pagina veterrima

[recensere] Interwiki

Whoa! pt: has an article on us! --Iustinus 21:35, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I fear it is just an article about their milestones which links to an article about our milestones. ;-) --Rolandus 21:42, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No, pt: is the only interwiki link where that is not the case. check it out! Of course it is a little odd to have the article on the Latin Wikipedia link to this page on milestones, but that point is lost in all the screamin "PT: HAS AN ARTICLE ON US!!!!!" --Iustinus 21:44, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Aaaahh ... I read "pt:Wikipédia em latim" and wondered about "em latim", but checked pl:Wikipedia:Liczba artykułów polskiej Wikipedii. I mixed up PT with PL. You are right. :-) --Rolandus 21:53, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] Graph

The graph seems not to have been updated since July 2006. IacobusAmor 22:18, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] Interwiki

There seems to be a continuing problem with interwiki links on this page. All the links were for the French Wikipedia, and it seems this has happened more than once. I've corrected it for now, anyway. Andrew Dalby 16:46, 1 Martii 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] Pagina renovata

Magnopere iuvat me renovatam legere paginam optima Latinitate exaratam. Macte virtute! --Neander 18:13, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Ceylon vere hanc paginam optima latinitate scripsit, et cum Harrissimo incepit meliores multas paginas facere quae pertinent ad Vicipaedia:Praefatio--Rafaelgarcia 18:56, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

[recensere] Greek

Somehow that discussion passed me by. --Alex1011 21:20, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Strangely it seems there has not been much of a discussion. I just came across it via the remark on Disputatio:Pagina prima, near the top.--Ceylon 21:40, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Me too. There are now some more comments here. It seems that, a while back, some people on Meta noticed the change of policy and wondered whether it would affect Vicipaedia, but that question was cleared up here, apparently, without ever troubling us. Andrew Dalby 22:20, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I don't quite understand why a wiki in an artificial language with speakers/readers/writers (native?!) is superior to a "classica/dead" language with the same (native?!) speakers/readers/writers. Perhaps I should be making this comment at meta, though. The closing of the Hellenic wiki saddens me... --Ioscius ^(disp) 22:51, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I believe the main criterion they are judging by is the potential number of users that the wikipedia would be useful to. To gauge this they use the number of native speakers as a primary measure, but not exclusively. An additional measure is whether the language can expresss modern concepts. The exceptional character of artificial languages comes from the fact that they have the theoretical potential to become international standards, with an established mechanism for rendering modern ideas, while ancient dead languages (except for latin) do not. From this point of view, it is also easy to see why the latin wikipedia is exceptional: for although it is dead and ancient. it also traditionally plays the role of an international language and has the capability of rendering modern concepts as witnessed by modern living latin books and lexica.--Rafaelgarcia 00:11, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

In view of the fact that the Wikipedia does not consist in speech, it's oddly and overly simplistic to characterise 'dead languages' as languages with no native speakers. Speech isn't the only mode of language use, as is amply witnessed by every Wiki article that exists only in the written mode. A prototypical dead language is an extinct language without literacy network and/or speech community. From the point of view of information transmission, classical languages (incl. Old Indo-Aryan) are all but 'dead', as there are thousands of people who are able to read and write and potentially contribute in these languages. Because encyclopedic information transmission goes in the written mode, it's utterly incoherent to cling to the "no native speakers" argument. --Neander 00:21, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

The "no (potential) contributors" argument fares far better. For example, there are no potential contributors for those ancient languages we know only by name. There are no potential contributors either for, say, those hundreds of tribal languages which lack a viable writing system (though they do have native speakers, apparently to the satisfaction of the subcommittee or whatever fancy name it bears). As far as Greek is concerned, there is a severe recruiting problem. Our Vicipaedia faces a similar problem, though not quite as severe. It's amazing how few (if any) professional classicists are willing to contribute, yet there's no dearth of various greges Latine loquentium [sic!] whose members seem to be engaged in written smalltalk like praising each other's fine-nosed Latin. --Neander 01:28, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why more people who are knowledgeable don't contribute. Perhaps it takes a special kind of worldview to value contributing to an open source encyclopedia. For my part, the resources available to us through wikimedia are nearly irresistible. Or it may be that they are OK talking about Caesar's conquests but fear being inept at writing about more mundane topics...who knows! By the way, I take it "grex Latine loquentium" is meant to be translated as "a group of speakers in Latin"?--Rafaelgarcia 03:31, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but technically, they're not speaking but writing. --Neander 03:55, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument of reaching a critical number of contributors is acceptable, and there are indications that this could be a problem for an Ancient Greek wikipedia (adding to the challenge of input and display of polytonic). But as far as the ability of expressing modern concepts and the use as a language of cultural communication goes, Ancient Greek has no reason to bow to Latin: The bulk of extant literature written in it by far excedes that of Latin (for the classical era, just compare TLG to PHI5), and stretches over a period of comparable length (roughly 800 BC - 1500 AD). Its use as a lingua franca was much more widespread than that of Latin in antiquity. And, if anything, with its huge resources of vocabulary and infinite possibilities of creating new words, it is certainly more flexible and more apt to expressing new concepts than Latin, which even now still displays some of the limitations of the language of an agricultural tribe.--Ceylon 07:42, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

A certain amount of ancient Greek appears right here, of course -- Neander and Iustinus are among those who regularly quote it. Vicipaedia is a nice, hospitable place. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

And I guess we ought not to forget many latin scientific terms, as well as many modern ones in English and other languages, are direct borrowings from ancient Greek. So it is doubly unfair to characterize it as incapable of expressing modern concepts. I hope to learn it someday myself. Although it is a tough decision, I think Wikipedia project is indeed less for outright excluding a classic language such as ancient Greek simply on the basis of number of users and contributers, and just because it is ancient. Eventually I think people will come around to making a special exemption for ancient greek. I just wish the defenders of the ancient greek didn't have to propose killing Vicipaedia to defend theirs.--Rafaelgarcia 11:48, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I copy my intervention on the language subcommitee page: I'm a user and admin of la.wiki. I observe that also the knowledge of an ancient language (e.g its grammar and vocabulary) is a form (I would say a precious one) of knowledge and therefore revive or mantain an ancient languages does not go from my point of view against the Foundation's goals. Besides la.wiki gives the possibility to connect in an easy way to a lot of Latin resources and this is, of course, an other form of knowledge spread; --Massimo Macconi 16:26, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

[recensere] Why classicists are not embracing Vicipaedia the way they ought to

Coming back to Neander's question, I have been wondering about this myself. There are so many students of Classical Philology who write excellent Latin, and quite a few who seem to dispose of remarkable degrees of energy and time in advocating vivam Latinitatem. And yet, almost none of them contribute to Vicipaedia. Of course, classicists have a reputation of being old-fashioned and traditional-minded, and thus naturally sceptical about new concepts like Vicipaedia, which doesn't follow an intellectual meritocracy, but allows contributions even from users with very limited Latin. But on the other hand, so many classical scholars seem so overkeen on appearing modern and open to new ideas - why not this one? Maybe they don't know about it? Or they don't sufficiently understand it? Could it possibly make sense to do a little targeted advertising, like sending some e-mails to classical departments around the world (or even some schools with a heavy Latin syllabus)?--Ceylon 12:57, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Well, I heard from s student at a wikipedia meeting "I do not want to get my Latin spoiled by this vicipaedia". Others, on this vicipaedia, were complaining, that it is not 100 % Latin. --Alex1011 13:33, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can well believe that. "I do not want to get my Latin spoiled ..." is an attitude that existed long before Vicipaedia; it explains why some Latinists don't like to read, or won't teach their students from, the Vulgate or the Bayeux Tapestry or medieval Latin texts. It has to do with the pre-19th century idea of language change as corruption, I think ... It's a viewpoint that may be on the decline now, even among Latinists. Andrew Dalby 13:42, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia isn't widely accepted in academic culture yet, although it is quickly becoming a standard resource. Most physics professors for instance wouldn't admit they contribute to physics wikipedia articles, but postdocs and graduate students do. Thus I think it is a matter of time. In particular for latin, many of our articles are incredible resources for starting investigations into different latin language topics.Also I think as the content and reputation of Vicipaedia improves, more people who are good latinists will be willing to contribute. --Rafaelgarcia 13:59, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the number of Classicists who can write Latin. There's no premium put on Latin composition, as a skill, in most graduate programs. As to not wanting to have their Latin spoiled, it's transparent, or rather opaque, BS. One might as well claim one doesn't want to read professional journals in Classics so as not to have one's command of English spoiled. Jackmitchell 14:53, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I think it's just conservatism. Even if the standard of written Latin is pretty low among Classicists, Vicipaedia would be an excellent way to change that. Perhaps people have not heard of it? It was unknown in the departments I was in, until I tried to point it out.Jackmitchell 14:56, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

At (most?) German universities, prose composition is still required all the way up to finals. At Oxford, you have to take it for Mods - and there's even the option of verse composition. But I know it's on the decline. In German highschools, it was cut out of the syllabus some time in the 60ies or 70ies.--Ceylon 15:00, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, only half a semester is required at UMD. I learned everything I know about prose comp here!--Ioscius ^(disp) 15:07, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's still required over yonder, but I think there's a psychological leap of faith Latinists need to make between just rendering sentences from one language to the other and feeling confident and creative in the other language. As with learning a modern language, really: a big difference between sitting there in highschool French class saying "...afin qu'il puisse y aller" ad nauseam and finding yourself on the streets of Paris. With Latin you need all the more willpower to make that leap. My own prose comp courses were essentially just intensive grammar review, infinite versions of "How would you say, 'Caesar warns the Gauls not to attack his camp'?" I never had to write anything about "What I did last weekend" in Latin. Which is why I find Vicipaedia such a joy. Jackmitchell 15:16, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

This is especially true if you've learnt Latin and Greek at school for years practicing only one-way translation, and then university suddenly forces you to try it the other way round. I distinctly remember this grrrhnk feeling when my brain just refused to do it. But once that's overcome, the language acquires a whole new dimension. This is why I think people who oppose prose composition in teaching the classical languages are wrong. By the way, in Britain there is (or: used to be?) quite a tradition of choosing the most out of the way modern texts for turning into Latin or Greek. There are whole volumes filled with the most fantastic bilingual exercises on this theme.--Ceylon 15:26, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I've copied a short example of this tradition here.--Ceylon 21:56, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Vicipaedia est sicut noster mons, nonne?:)--Rafaelgarcia 00:44, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but most people consider Wikipedia editors (in any language) weird... especially in America, where it still hasn't become "cool" to be smart, or want to learn, and even less cool to want to teach. This is primarily the stuff of our daily bread: It is impossible to work in this environment without the hubris (maybe the wrong word, I certainly don't mean it in a deprecatory sense) associated with wanting to teach, and the humility of wanting to learn and be corrected. Most people lack both, even more lack one of the two.
Add to that... sadly, a bunch of my colleagues are nancies... I don't know if anyone else experiences this in their department, but I am often ridiculed for embracing Latinitas viva at all. When I was in Chicago, at the APA convention, Usor:Sinister Petrus and noster Iustinus were calling me over the telephonum gestabile, and the groans of my colleagues were audible and derisive as I conversed with them Latine. These are MA candidates in Latin and Greek! You would think that they would be immune to the dorky, the weird, the nerdy, the whatever. But even to them, our modus operandi is a new level in dorkdom.
So I think there are really two obstacles to overcome: Before we even pitch the idea of Vicipaedia, we need to 1) Pitch the idea of Wikipedia itself (as Rafael has suggested it's becoming more and more popular to use wikipedia, but I'm not sure it has become popular to edit it), and 2) Pitch the idea of Latinitas viva. Vicipaedia is a beautiful (sometimes) symmetry of the two, but I argue that the people here came to both conclusions (that Latinitas viva is cool AND editing Wikipedia is cool) independently.--Ioscius ^(disp) 15:06, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting piece in the New York Review available here - [[1]] - written by a refugee from edit wars and notability death squads among our English-language confrères. Sounds to me like Vicipaedia retains the fresh spirit of Wikipedia's early days (which I missed). Jackmitchell 15:23, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)

[recensere] pagina veterrima

In hac pagina invenimus verba sequentia de pagina Vicipaediae veterrima: "Ex paginis vicipaediae, prima edita fuit Suecia, die 25 Maii 2002." Sed illa die usor LA2 et "Nuntius" et "Mensis" creaverat prius quam "Suecia"! 65.101.226.226 19:19, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)