Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources

Hallo!

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:43 -0700, Dirk Elzinga wrote:

> I've been thinking about this for a while. If it is true that auxiliary
> language proponents are trying to use Wikipedia for advertisement, then
> doesn't that cast a shadow on the whole constructed language enterprise?
Sure.  The auxlangers are just a big batch of glory hounds who cannot
sleep at night when they have done nothing to promote their projects
on the closing day.  We should not be imitative of that.

>       On
> the other hand, how else can they get the word out effectively? Like it or
> not, Wikipedia seems to be the source of first (and sometimes only) resort
> for information on a whole host of topics, and if someone can get a mention
> on Wikipedia, that's bound to result in a few more hits to their website.
> But all of that has been said before.
>
> Are there other reasons why we should care about being represented/mentioned
> on Wikipedia?
Actually, I don't really care whether my conlangs show up on Wikipedia
or not, all I care about is that Wikipedia does not create the impression,
as so many other works of reference do, that international communication
was the *only* motivation for making up languages.  But to get the
picture right, there is no real need for hundreds of Wikipedia articles
on obscure artlangs.  A much better way is an article on the subject
"constructed language" that mentions artlanging as an equally valid
mode of conlanging, with reference to a selection of artlangs - and the
article that's there *does* this.

> Personally, I'm not interested in advertising my projects beyond this list
> and a few friends who aren't here. I'm pointedly *not* interested in
> gathering disciples, so I really could not care less if Tepa/Miapimoquitch
> shows up on Wikipedia (though I was surprised and pleased to find Tepa
> getting a nice mention in Sally's recent book--everyone likes having their
> ego stroked).
Proselytizing is not my kettle of fish, either.  Old Albic is just a part
of a larger framework meant to express my personal thoughts and feelings
about the world and the human condition - a public but still very personal
creation.  I am doing this mainly for my own enjoyment.  If other people
like it, only the better, but I am doing it just because it means something
to *me*.

>       I also do not agree with the premise that language
> construction is an "art." I do not engage in language construction as an
> artistic endeavor. For me it really is like building a model train (a cliche
> by now, but appropriate here). It involves some skill and a fair amount of
> aesthetic judgment, and so is something that may better be called "craft."
The lines between art and craft are blurry.  Most conlangs are indeed more
like a model railroad rather than a symphony, but there are a few conlangs
which can verily called works of art.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf