Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources

I don't see any reason for most individual conlangs to have wikipedia
entries.  Not to say that all the things that have entries should, but
it's just silly.  If you don't know what conlanging is, Wikipedia will
tell you and refer yoiu to several external sites that will lead you
to all sorts of conlangs.  There's no need to have articles for them.
Esperanto, Klingon, and Quenya are probably the only ones that warrant
full entries. Volapük has primacy and might belong on the list, but
really, even Toki Pona is largely unknown outside the conlang
community.
  Could we please get back to important stuff like YAEPT's? :)


On 2/25/08, Rick Harrison <rick@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:31:38 -0800, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Whoa...  A generator was good enough to do *all* those articles?!
> >Why don't they do them for natlangs, too?  Are they accurate?
>
> This is my hazy understanding... I have not looked at the bot-generated
> articles, but I
> gather from reading the discussions about them, that they are very brief
> descriptions of
> cities, towns and villages around the world. "I've found literally hundreds
> of Volapuk articles
> which still have vast amounts of English text in them, due to bot-copying
> errors," wrote one
> Wikipedian who favored a forced deletion of all the bot-generated articles
> from the
> Volapuek Wikipedia.
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Replies