Re: Langmaker and FrathWiki (was Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources)

What you say is Good and True, *except* that both Langmaker
and FrathWiki have been around for years, and merging them
and/or start a new site which would wholly or partly
replace them would require the agreement and cooperation of
a lot of people -- essentially everybody who have ever
contributed to either of the existing sites --, while in
reality a large segment wouldn't bother, and another
segment would be upset. If the old sites still exist there
will inevitably come people along and add content to them
being unaware of the new site.

Still it could be done with a lot of work, a lot of
canvassing, the Preloader extension and a lot of scary
transclusions/soft redirects. If enough people are
interested in doing such a projectI might definitely open
conlang.se for it. But what to call it, as Conlang Wiki is
already taken. Conlang index? (Or Conlang windex as in
Conlang clearinghouse? :-)

FrathWiki could clearly live on as a more informal site for
presentation and self-expression, but Langmaker would
essentially be eclipsed by such a new project, which could
upset or relieve the people involved with Langmaker,
depending.

Sai Emrys skrev:
 > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier
 > <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
 >>  You are right. Now that I think about it, I no longer
 >>  think that merging Langmaker and FrathWiki into one is a
 >>  good idea. Langmaker is a "third-person" database of
 >>  conlangs; FrathWiki is a "first- person" showcasing
 >>  facility for conlangs as much as a repository for
 >>  encyclopedic articles on the art of conlanging.
 >
 > FWIW IMO: Essentially, registry, encyclopedia, and primer
 > are indeed different *functions*, but they need not be
 > different *sites*, and making them the latter would cause
 > stubbing and other problems. Whereas if they're in the
 > same place, all languages could more readily get the a
 > good, thorough treatment.
 >
 > The main article could be, essentially, Wikipedia-ish (if
 > it worked
 > :|) NPOV, third person descriptions. Subpages from that
could be the
 > full first-person elaboration and showcase, in some semi-
 > templated form so that it's consistent and well-described.
 >
 > You'd need somewhat different editorial policies for
 > different types of section, yes, but I believe this is a
 > resolvable issue.
 >
 > E.g.:
 >
 > Foolang - NPOV description, categorizations, and summary
 > (up for editing; author has no special power)
 > Foolang/Purpose - author's statement of intent, laying out
 > what the language does or doesn't try to do (author has
 > exclusive power) Foolang/Commentaries - reviews, comments,
 > suggestions for improvement, etc - like a talk page but
 > directed at the language itself, not the article, and
 > based exclusively on the Purpose (author has no special
 > power) Foolang/Orthography - Omniglot-style full
 > description (author has exclusive power) Foolang/Grammar -
 > full grammar (author has exclusive power)
 > Foolang/Vocabulary - full dictionary w/ good glosses,
 > autosorted and in standard form (ditto) Foolang/Primer -
 > full primer (author has semi-power in that it directly
 > references grammar/vocab)
 >
 >>  Yes, it is a problem with Langmaker that it is
 >>  essentially the effort of a single person who doesn't
 >>  have enough time to maintain it the way one wishes it to
 >>  be maintained.
 >
 > And that's the other reason not to separate it. If it's
 > all in one place, then you can much more easily get the
 > critical mass (as it were) of people needed to make it self-
 > sustaining. If it's separated, then it gets too fragile
 > and dependent on individuals who will inevitably get
 > overwhelmed by other things in life from time to time.
 >
 > I think we all agree that Jeffrey's done an awesome job.
 > His work should be preserved and merged. But it shouldn't
 > *rely* on him to continue to be a valuable (and fresh)
 > resource.
 >
 > - Sai (again just speaking as my opinionated self)
 >
 >
 >

Reply