ilooy wrote:
I'd like to suggest that taking into consideration ISO codes or SIL codes may be one solution. This would mean that an outside group which is well established and has looked into the matter has deemed a certain language important enough to be assigned a separate code.
I guess there are some who think this is perhaps a little bit too lax of a policy in some regards. There are ISO codes for completely fictional languages like Klingon or Tolkein Elvish, and there is some opposition to the current Klingon language Wikipedia as a result, even though it was created using this argument you are making.
In general, even with the group that assigns these ISO codes you are talking about, there is even opposition to constructed languages like these, so that does give more support to your argument. There are new ISO codes that are being added as well, and if you speak a dialect like Cornish or some other very little-know language you would do both your culture and the international community in general a good service by trying to get a new ISO code established for your language, going beyond just the Wikimedia Foundation. It is far easier to add an ISO code for a German dialect from Bavaria than to add one for a constructed language like Pig Latin.
The only real issue at that point is if you can get a reasonably large group of people to support something like Wikipedia. There are many very ambitious people who have started a Wikipedia for their language, only to have it become the target of spammers and vandals after it wasn't updated for several months with any new content. This is the dilemma really.