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

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)

Replies