Re: Wikipedia: Conlang articles in danger

Jan:
> I might as well give you the full list of articles currently under
> attack:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Aingelj%C3%A3>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Breathanach>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brithenig>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/DiLingo>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Fyksland>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Verdurian
> language>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wenedyk>
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.

--And.

Replies