"Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Sometimes it is, but there is something much bigger:
There are many
1. are alive in speech (and possibly in writing)
2. are not in danger of extinction
3. have a large number of monolingual speakers (let's say 100,000+)
If there is no substantial Wikipedia in such a
language, these people can't
read Wikipedia in *any language* because they are monolingual. Most likely
they cannot read any any encyclopedia in any language. They need a
Wikipedia not in order to preserve the language, but to have access to
*any* encyclopedic knowledge.
I speak a revitalized language, and I'm very well
aware of its history.
Language preservation and revitalization are lovely things. But it's not
the main point of what Wikimedia does.
"Need a Wikipedia" sounds like a great idea when you are
selling Wikipedias, but for progress, betterment of humani-
ty, sustainable development, etc. I think teaching those
monolingual speakers a second language (for example English)
is far preferable as it not only enables them to access to a
few hundred or thousand articles someone paid to have trans-
lated, but all articles of the English Wikipedia, plus every
English article, every English book, every English blog, ev-
ery English video on the InterNet.
It also grows them not only intellectually, but also removes
economical barriers for trading with other groups.