Re: ceqli

And Rosta scripsit:

> As for Garth's explanation, Ceqli itself is a
> published work, so its use in a published work of fiction should
> not be criterial, and Ceqli does have a small community of
> supporters; the spokenness of a language is not a necessary
> condition for its being of interest.
No, indeed.  But:

1) Wikipedia is meant to represent a secondary source, not to contain
original content (and the line between secondary and primary is hard
to draw when the same person writes both), and

2) It's conventional not to write Wikipedia articles about one's own
creations (as opposed to the topics of one's research, which *is*
encouraged).

I would have no problem with an article on Ceqli written by someone else.

--
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@ccil.org  www.reutershealth.com
Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out.  He wasn't home.
Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us.  He no show up.  Wednesday he
go to the ball game, and we fool him.  We no show up.  Thursday was a
double-header.  Nobody show up.  Friday it rained all day.  There was no ball
game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio.  --Chicolini

Reply