WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING!?
As noted before, if these rules had always existed, most of our
largest Wikipedias would not exist today!!!
Again I will quote Andre's statistics:
Looking at the statistics
(
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansContributors.htm),
I find only 6 Wikipedia languages with 5 contributors in the first
month of their 'real' existence: en, he, fa, ast, be and tokipona. In
the second month this was reached by de, pl, fi, bg, ro, uk, ur. For
all other Wikipedias there was more difference between the time of
their first and their fifth user, although in reality there may be
some more because there might be non-registered users as well.
My own opinion is that a non-dead natural language with an ISO 639
code would in principle be okay for Wikipedia. There can of course be
exceptions, but to me at that moment the burden of proof lies with
those who disagree.
And gain, in case you missed it:
Looking at the statistics
(
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansContributors.htm),
I find only 6 Wikipedia languages with 5 contributors in the first
month of their 'real' existence: en, he, fa, ast, be and tokipona. In
the second month this was reached by de, pl, fi, bg, ro, uk, ur. For
all other Wikipedias there was more difference between the time of
their first and their fifth user, although in reality there may be
some more because there might be non-registered users as well.
My own opinion is that a non-dead natural language with an ISO 639
code would in principle be okay for Wikipedia. There can of course be
exceptions, but to me at that moment the burden of proof lies with
those who disagree.
And again:
Looking at the statistics
(
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansContributors.htm),
I find only 6 Wikipedia languages with 5 contributors in the first
month of their 'real' existence: en, he, fa, ast, be and tokipona. In
the second month this was reached by de, pl, fi, bg, ro, uk, ur. For
all other Wikipedias there was more difference between the time of
their first and their fifth user, although in reality there may be
some more because there might be non-registered users as well.
My own opinion is that a non-dead natural language with an ISO 639
code would in principle be okay for Wikipedia. There can of course be
exceptions, but to me at that moment the burden of proof lies with
those who disagree.
...
That leaves out for example the Spanish Wikipedia, the Chinese
WIkipedia, the Portuguese Wikipedia, and most notably THE JAPANESE
WIKIPEDIA!!!
Doesn't anybody notice that there are ONLY 5 LANGUAGES IN WIKITRAVEL
BECAUSE OF THIS VERY POLICY???
Such a policy is very dangerous, and will extremely limit the creation
of new Wikipedias, and with this there would be precedent to delete
existing Wikipedias with no content, which would make things much
worse!
mark