On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Martin
(Pathoschild)
<pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As long as there is
a notable -contemporary- literature, vocabulary problems will be
minimal.
What is "notable"?
Notable enough to have a Featured Article about [[Modern Latin
literature]] or [[Modern Coptic literature]] on English Wikipedia or
another major-language Wikipedia.
I think this proposed criteria is too subjective and naive. Specially
regarding to the fact English Wikipedia is not always good at
humanities, in particular non European literatures. Having a FA may
too be occasionally I'm afraid.
But I like the idea of "notable authors". They are notable since they
have a decent size of readership. It means their writings are read and
surrounded by the reader community which the language in question is
actively, at least, read and have a possibility to be written again.
And even if we still use Wikipedia again, "having an article of that
author" is a less opportunity driven criteria, I think.
Of course it would be a powerful incentive to develop some of those
non-European literature articles. And one that could probably be met
by a dedicated person or small group with a medium effort.
But actually having an FA wouldn't be so important as demonstrating
that such an FA is possible. Really, it's an idea of making an outlet
where the notableness of the subject would be absolutely demonstrable.
"Notable authors" is another idea that could certainly work, though
this might be complicated a bit by some authors being notable for work
in more than one language, and that some borderline languages might
have notable contemporary literatures, without many notable individual
authors. Still, it's a concept that could help a lot.
Thanks,
Pharos