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

>It's true though that I *also* support editing form in the sense of
>how Wikipedia treats new content within an article. It's fair game to
>be copyedited, laid out differently, combined with other sections for
>better flow, etc.
>
>So to me 'content' as it were, most basically, is the *ideas* being added.
>
>However, I should underline that this is distinct for me from "fair
>game" on the description of a language from within itself - that I
>believe should be the author's exclusive purview (as I laid out as
>Grammar, Vocab, & Purpose).
And this may be confusing peeps, because conlang-specific content aside from
the "internal description" as you call it, does not really seem to exist at
all outside of Langmaker.

Yes, there is indeed some general linguistic information on Frath etc - and
while much of that tends to be covered by Wikipedia and actual linguistics
resorces anyway, I do support the idea of merging *that* information in one
place. With usual wiki licencing policies this would probably be possible to
do even without any general consensus, and hopefully without angering anyone
much.


>Certainly some conlangers want that and don't want any interaction
>from others, or perhaps only a "ooh pretty" and nothing more
>substantial - and where this is the case, it should by all means be
>respected. But my suspicion is that more people want feedback than
>don't.
Isn't *this list* for feedback?


>... which, btw, is why the "Purpose" page as I proposed it is crucial.
>- Sai
A suspicion of mine is that very very few conlangers have anything
resembling a "purpose" to go with, beyond the basic artlang vs auxlang vs
engelang division (and in some cases, like me, not even that.) It becomes
clarified over time as the language itself progresses, it isn't something
you begin with & keep around as a reference.

John Vertical

Reply