Yet, we offer a great opportunity for them to develop SOMETHING and through that become linked with the larger project and the vast world of knowledge. It is almost a defining characteristic of small tribal groups that they are out of touch with outside perspectives. A Wikipedia project offers an opportunity to both focus on their particular culture and make connections with the larger cultures. For example, the Ute were once part of the larger Colorado community. They are now segregated in small reservations in southwestern Colorado and northwestern Utah and except for tribal leaders and occasional visitors to their rather limited tourist facilities there is almost no day to day contact with the general population. So while gradually losing their own language and culture, they are also out of touch with the surrounding culture too. Whether any group picked at random, as I have here, will rise to the occasion and actually make something of the opportunity of having their own Wikipedia remains to be seen, but I don't think it hurts to keep the door open. Fred

Jiaqing Bao wrote: In that case having a wikipedia in that living language becomes more important. Egyptian relates to a dead language which is probably not in trouble. The writing systems are not an issue. Many of these languages were pre-literate, and the writing that they adopted was based on that of a more dominant language, or was imposed on them by visiting priests and anthropologists. An isolated language like Kutenai with only 222 speakers world-wide would likely benefit from having a Wikipedia. We need to avoid the urge to become cultural imperialists. Minor language Wikipedias should not feel the need to do everything. Developing articles that are of cultural importance to the speakers would be the most important task. An important part of First Nations' claims to aboriginal rights have been based on the unwritten record of their history that has been passed on by word of mouth. Verification is much less important in cases where cultural preservation is at issue. There will be inaccurate information provided, but it is up to the members of that culture to p[olice themselves. I'm not familiar with Nadsat, but I would oppose a Pig Latin Wiki. Artificial or constructed languages are a different issue than minor languages. Quite the contrary. These scanty resouces need to be treasured and preserved. I am a non-believer but I think that the Bible translators did a tremendous service for many of these languages, even if it was for the wrong reasons. All that being said, a wiki in any of these minor languages still needs someone who understands the language to start it, manage it and do the work. Ec

In addition to agreeing with the thrust of Ec's refreshingly nuanced treatment of the subject, I also add the following comments: Jiaqing Bao ti 2004/12/25 ChS 03:37 sia-kong: "Public good", but which public? Be careful that public good does not mean the welfare of the dominant-language population, the State, or your local police department. Quite often speakers of "minority languages" have a complex relationship with the dominant-language speakers, whose dominant status often extends into social, economic and political domains, all of which are interwined with language issues. In this hypothetical scenario, the 1% who are writers control only what they write; the strictly non-literate are not influenced by Wikipedia at all and can't care less if it's all wrong (the language being strongly associated with this particular group, with no possibility of misleading outsiders). It is only the hypothetical readers/non-writers who are at a disadvantage: they may pick out mistakes (or worse, errors) but lack the orthographic means to correct them. On the other hand, such a scenario is hardly representative: the vast majority of lesser-used languages are no more difficult to write than they are to read. Moreover the hypothetical readers/non-writers, having detected the mistakes, errors, or bias in the writers' product, may well be spurred to remedy their status as non-writers, particularly once they find out the writers do not really control the medium of knowledge production (Wikipedia). The depiction of "mainstream language Wikipedia" as "good" is a bit too rosy (not to mention, vague), and the characterisation of "minor [sic.] Wikipedia" as likely to be "inaccurate", "misleading" is unfair. While I agree more eyeballing is better than no eyeballing, I think it's fair to claim that errors and bias have sources that are not all related to number of eyeballs (see [[en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_countering_systemic_bias]] for such a claim). So while your concern regarding similar backgrounds has a point, it is one that is likely applicable to all WPs. However, since all users of this hypothetical community share the same dominant language(s), nothing prevents the reading non-writers from raising the issues with the writers. Or the larger WP community if the writers choose to monopolize discourse. Bad translations, selective translations, mistakes...these are all part of the WP process. For large WPs the process is accelerated; for smaller ones, the cycle may be slower. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Every WP article is based on a source or a set of sources. If the source is correctly informative, it is a good source, regardless of what language it is in. So the idea that a "minor [sic.] Wikipedia" article drawing on a mainstream language source is somehow redundant or "less genuine" reflects more of a condescending attitude toward "minority things" than a reasoned argument. It also reflects a mistaken view that a good translation is a non-creative work and that "information" exists independently of language. Wikipedia may not be a language conservation project, but it is surely a language _amplification_ project. If you allow for the amplification of all European state languages plus a few East Asian languages, it would be reasonable to offer the rest of the world's written, Internet-using languages a chance at doing the same. This would not necessarily be out of any sense of guilt or "we owe you" but a gesture of fairness, good will and even solidarity. This is public good on a global scale, or at least has that potential. As for English WP being trustworthy, no doubt many trust it. But it is only because not enough people trust it that it has continued to improve. The moment all of us trust it entirely would be the time for Wikipedia to shut down. And if the English WP is trustworthy by virtue of the size of its community, does that mean the Japanese WP is less trustworthy? Meta has this honest self-assessment about Ja: "Over 100 users are very active but 40%-50% of edits are done by anonymous users." It'd appear that 100 editors are responsible for quite a big chunk of the 90,000 articles. Do you trust it? As a very minor editor of ja, my inclination is to trust my fellow Wikipedians are editing in good faith without necessarily trusting the correctness of the content. All the more reason to have an on-line, FREE encyclopedia. Sure, it won't be perfect but Wikipedians prefer asymptotic improvement to pseudo-perfection. Small and tiny WPs have a slower cycle but the process is not fundamentally different.