Hoi,
With respect, but "some of the ideas" is a bit ambiguous. When you TEACH a
subject / a language you do not teach it in that language. When you write a
dictionary for a foreign language, ie a translation dictionary you need the
definitions in the language you do understand. Wikiquote do you want the
quotes or the annotations in that language? Really I do not find much that
gives me arguments why we want to consider these things. When you consider a
request like Wikiversity in Limburgian ... I think it a bit much... The only
exception for dead languages that may make sense is Wikisource, dead as in
no modern vocabulary.
When we discussed objective criteria, the only criteria for constructed
languages I heard was"NO".
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
the subcommittee, in base of the opinions
express here, is going to
take a decision?
I don't know which of the subcommittee members are following this
discussion, but it will affect those who are (like myself). The
opinions themselves aren't very important, but the arguments are. In
particular, I'm looking for objective criteria to replace the existing
criteria; I think some of Andrew Whitworth's ideas are a good start.
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l