On Jan 24, 2008 11:49 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to write a wiki in a constructed language like Esperanto or a long defunct language like ancient Egyption language or Latin (Vatican doesn't count :P), let them. For example a "Wikisource" edition for ancient texts in their original language feels like an excellent idea.
I would consider a wikisource to be an exception to this rule. People on wikisource aren't creating new content, they are simply uploading and preserving it. I would venture to suggest that the "language" of a wikisource project should only represent the language that the members speak and use for organization, and not necessarily the language in which the texts need to be. For instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include old latin texts on en.wikisource. A multilingual wikisource, similar to commons but for source texts, still might be the far better option then the current implementation.
A wikipedia edition or wikinews edition for language hardly anyone speaks however feels like a waste of time - though if people really want to spend time on such a project, who am I to stand in the way.
This is a great continuation of the above point. Maybe we need to be considering language strategies on a per-project basis. The language needs of Wikipedia are different from wikisource, wikinews, and wikibooks. Wikipedia, as a repository of information, can still be effective if presented in few languages. However, a project like Wikibooks or Wikiversity really needs to be presented in a natural language, because academic performance is dependent on it. Of all the projects, I think that Wiktionary is probably the one that should be presented in as many languages as possible (including conlangs).
--Andrew Whitworth