Re: Wikipedia: Conlang articles in danger

BP:
> And Rosta skrev:
>> I read the Brithenig discussion, & the arrogance & ignorance of some of
>> the
>> pro-deletion contributors made me so angry that it made me want to wash
>> my hands of the wikipedia project (in the sense of it receiving my
>> goodwill & wholly passive support), if the structure of the project is
>> such that articles can be vulnerable to the intervention of people like
>> these. One of the joys of the internet is that it is free from the
>> deadening effects of adherence to cultural norms, received wisdoms,
>> orthodoxies and so forth.
>> I had supposed that wikipedia was constructed in a similar spirit, but
>> with the added element of the public volunteering their expertise for
>> the project, so as to ensure that the content of articles is correct,
>> true and fair. But if the project is supposed to also be an arbiter of
>> what is 'important' -- well, I considered that to the job of the
>> wikipedia *user*; I want the decision about what is important to be
>> made by me, when choosing which articles to read, not made by the
>> prejudices of particular wikipedia activists, nor even by the aggregated
>> prejudices of the rest of society.
>>
>> To sum up, the very fact that wikipedia can entertain the sort of crap
>> spouted by the deletionists makes me think that the wikipedia project
>> is bled of much of its value, and hence that battles over the inclusion
>> of this or that conlang are not worth fighting.
>
> I hope you have made/will make these thoughts known to the
> wikipedianists!
I wouldn't know who the wikipedianists are. Certainly I felt there was
nothing to be achieved by posting my rant to the page discussing the
fate of the Brithenig entry. Is there is some sagacious body that
oversees the wikipedia project as a whole, to look after its best
interests? But if there were such a body, surely they ought already
to have articulated clear criteria for what warrants preservation
or deletion?

--And.