Again, this is not about extinct languages. We aren't really talking about closing the Gothic or Anglo-Saxon Wikipedias, at least not in this thread (although GerardM has claimed that the Gothic Wikipedia is written in the Latin alphabet, this is incorrect; the majority of material is written in Wulfilas' alphabet).
Under Gerard's criteria, the only languages (as far as I know) that are likely to qualify are living, written languages, as even the Pali Wikipedia has over 2000 articles. If I am incorrect, I am sure there are only a couple of exceptions maximum, and would be happy to discuss them.
Mark
On 11/04/2008, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I agree.
To have a Wikipedia project you need to have a "writing people" (not speaking people).
If they are not probably *new* articles cannot be produced.
IMHO for extinct languages probably are better other types of project like Wikisource.
IMHO Wikipedia has got a popular purpose and this project must widespread content, if there are not a live community this purpose is not reached. Different is the purpose of Wikisource which must collect and archive documents.
Ilario
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Like you I want to see a thousand flowers bloom. However, I am not a stamp collector. I want living projects representing living languages (here I mean languages that are actually used by people). I want to make sure that a project is understandable to its readers and this is why localisation is essential. I want to make sure that a new project has a good start and this is why new projects have a kernel of a community and a kernel of content. I insist that there must be something to read; it cannot only be a picture with a caption.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l