Re: Reviving Wikipedia:Conlangs
|From:||Herman Miller <hmiller@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, January 26, 2008, 4:36|
Sai Emrys wrote:
> By extension, it is assumed that all conlangs or conlang related
> resources that are primarily known only within the community and
> online are by definition non-notable and thus should be deleted...
> which, let's be honest, is pretty much all of it, given that the 'net
> is our primary means of communication these days.
The problem is the idea of "notability" is not well defined. So how does
it make any sense to say that anything is "by definition" non-notable?
So much writing happens online these days (blogging, etc) that the
online nature of most conlanging activities isn't that unusual any more.
I can see not wanting to flood Wikipedia with articles that no one has
much use for, but many conlangs could be referenced in a summary page.
Wikipedia has a bunch of those already for things like "List of
Middle-Earth Elves" or "Minor Harry Potter Characters".
You could make the case that most conlangs (I'd include my own in that
category) are not inherently notable. But the few that may have been
mentioned on paper in a news article or academic journal aren't
necessarily the best examples of conlangs for someone who might be
interested in learning about the subject.
Anything that involves modifying Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't seem
likely to succeed.
> As far as I can tell there are only really three options (which are
> not entirely exclusive):
> 1. Remove notability as a guideline, either generally or specifically,
> in favor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-notability
> criteria. Would be difficult, given the current trend towards
> 2. Abandon Wikipedia as a place to have conlangs discussed when they
> don't meet notability criteria, in favor of documentation on a
> conlang-centric forum and focusing on a small number of high quality
> omnibus articles (e.g. on each genre of conlang and on the handful of
> most notable examples that have gotten press). *
If more time is spent arguing about whether something is notable than
actually writing about it, there doesn't seem to be much point in using
Wikipedia. Let the Wikipedia regulars write about whatever conlangs
interest them. But there is certainly room for all sorts of articles on
Wikipedia that have a very limited audience, and there ought to be
Wikipedia articles that cover the basics of conlanging and link to
prominent conlang-related sites.
> 3. Make conlangs both notable and verifiable, by publishing academic,
> peer-reviewed articles in a conlang-centric journal. *
On the other hand, just because something is published doesn't make it
notable. Verifiable, certainly, but so much is published that it can't
all be notable. Given the nature of Wikipedia, having a verifiable
source for information about conlangs would certainly be a step in the
right direction, but what we really need is a set of guidelines for what
makes a conlang notable enough to mention. Is it well documented? Has it
reached a certain level of stability? How much text has been written in
> I'd like to hear any other proposals of course, if you have an idea
> for a way that would be stable.
> Comments? Which should we do?
> - Sai **
> * These two will be elaborated on in separate threads, so here please
> confine discussion to the 'what should we do about wikipedia' aspect.
> ** I am writing as myself-personally, not as an LCS representative.
> When I do the latter, I always sign with my LCS title.