I fully agree with Chad. Speaking out against more wikipedias in fictional languages shouldn't be confused with speaking out against those languages in general. I mean, many of them certainly are products of great creativity and therefore have a value of their own.
But, a the end of the day, what is (or should be) an encyclopedia all about? My definition is: a _comprehensive_ source of information. Now I'm afraid neither Klingon nor Quenyan nor any other fictional language wikipedia will ever achieve that status. Matter of fact, I think even most International auxiliary language wikipedias which have been set up so far won't get there.
So after all, those fantasy language wikipedias would all end up being creative playgrounds for small circles of people. Which surely woundn't be a bad thing. But would that really fit into the concept of this great project? Or wouldn't it rather harm Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable, comprehensive source of information (i. e. not fiction)?
Boris
Chad Perrin wrote:
Good points.
I think the most important criterion, though, should probably be this: Will there be people interested in researching in the language?
I strongly suspect this is why the Klingon Wikipedia is a marginal failure. As a concept, it sounds great, and it's true that there are some fluent and literate speakers of Klingon, but when the chips are down even the Klingon speakers will be doing their research in English, or French, or German, or whatever other language they use in their day-to-day lives to get by in the world.
Interest and fluency aren't really enough for a successful reference work. You also need it to be useful, or it won't sustain and increase its pool of interest.
Personally, I'd rather see the various Elvish languages of Middle-Earth in Wikipedia than Klingon, and I'd be more likely to use it than Ossetian, but frankly I think Ossetian might have a place in Wikipedia at the present time, and Quenya really doesn't (in my estimation).
Then again, maybe that's just me.
-- Chad
______________________________________________________________ Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
Hello Boris,
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:26:20 +0100, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
So after all, those fantasy language wikipedias would all end up being creative playgrounds for small circles of people. Which surely woundn't be a bad thing. But would that really fit into the concept of this great project? Or wouldn't it rather harm Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable, comprehensive source of information (i. e. not fiction)?
Boris
For me, I'd rather think that there can be a little difference in principles for fantasy languages. First of all, if the writers write in these languages with serious attitude and effort, through aspects and viewpoints which might reflect the cultures of the fantasy worlds, then such information should be treated as comprehensive and resourceful for those who understand them.
Or in English or other "real" language versions, people could still create articles introducing everthing in these worlds, as long as we are clear that "these facts are ficted (but still useful)", can't we?
Best regards,
[[zh:User:MilchFlasche]]
Kaixo!
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:26:20AM +0100, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
But, a the end of the day, what is (or should be) an encyclopedia all about? My definition is: a _comprehensive_ source of information. Now I'm afraid neither Klingon nor Quenyan nor any other fictional language wikipedia will ever achieve that status. Matter of fact, I think even most International auxiliary language wikipedias which have been set up so far won't get there.
I fully agree. (note that for "most international auxiliary languages", their wikipedias are not very healthy because the language itself isn't; Esperanto is the most successful auxiliary language, used by a lot of people and I have actually seen Esperanto in use in various places; and eo: Wikipedia does quite well).
So after all, those fantasy language wikipedias would all end up being creative playgrounds for small circles of people. Which surely woundn't be a bad thing. But would that really fit into the concept of this great project?
That is the problem; what the proposers of those languages want is not a Wikipedia! They want a playgroung, feature the wonderfull mediawiki software (which has evolved to be the best wiki software out there). Imho such demands should be redirected to wikibooks or a similar thing (maybe not hosted by wikipedia foundation); it will be even better for them, as there won't be the need to write NPOV encyclopedic articles.
As for people doing research, I can perfectly imagine people doing research in Klingon about Klingon language topics (or about supposed Klingon fictional universe); but indeed I don't imagine them doing research in Klingon about chemistry, medieval European history or Russian litterature... So, a mediawiki site for those fictional language makes sense and is legitimate, but it should definitively not be a wikipedia; it doesn't has the same goels, and it should have the same constraints either.
(I feel the same about some dead non-fictional languages, like classical Latin or Anglo-saxon)
Pablo Saratxaga (pablo@mandrakesoft.com) [050211 00:20]:
That is the problem; what the proposers of those languages want is not a Wikipedia! They want a playgroung, feature the wonderfull mediawiki software (which has evolved to be the best wiki software out there). Imho such demands should be redirected to wikibooks or a similar thing (maybe not hosted by wikipedia foundation); it will be even better for them, as there won't be the need to write NPOV encyclopedic articles. As for people doing research, I can perfectly imagine people doing research in Klingon about Klingon language topics (or about supposed Klingon fictional universe); but indeed I don't imagine them doing research in Klingon about chemistry, medieval European history or Russian litterature... So, a mediawiki site for those fictional language makes sense and is legitimate, but it should definitively not be a wikipedia; it doesn't has the same goels, and it should have the same constraints either.
I think you've got it precisely correct.
They would probably be good candidates for Wikicities or something if they don't have the technical abilities/resources to set up Mediawiki themselves.
(I feel the same about some dead non-fictional languages, like classical Latin or Anglo-saxon)
That's an interesting point, given the precedent of their existence ... though Latin still has life in it as an international auxiliary language. What do the Anglo-Saxon volunteers think of this argument?
- d.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:33:35 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Pablo Saratxaga (pablo@mandrakesoft.com) [050211 00:20]:
(I feel the same about some dead non-fictional languages, like classical Latin or Anglo-saxon)
That's an interesting point, given the precedent of their existence ... though Latin still has life in it as an international auxiliary language. What do the Anglo-Saxon volunteers think of this argument?
As a contributor to the Anglo-Saxon wikipedia, I appreciate the point that ang: is to some extent a playground for enthusiasts. There are no native speakers of Old English left, so nobody would go to ang: simply for information, unless it be information about the language. This is particularly true since a fair bit (but certainly not all) of ang: is translated from other wikipedias.
Yet to Pablo Saratxaga's point that there must be a real will to write an encyclopedia: I have never witnessed any desire on ang: to limit it to writing about Anglo-Saxon culture or people. We have nontrivial articles on scuba diving, number theory, and the Three Kingdoms of Korea. (We haven't quite gotten to chemistry or Russian literature yet.) As for POV, I haven't seen any notable POV issues yet, probably because the user base isn't large and the effort is more on growing the encylopedia.
Probably we do give slightly more weight to Anglo-Saxon topics than most wikipedias with 267 articles: it's easier, as the relevant terminology already exists and doesn't need to be coined. But I have never seen any systematic preference for such topics, or any idea that we ought to pretend it is 1066 and we are addressing Anglo-Saxons.
For obvious reasons we contributors to ang: are somewhat dependent on the goodwill of the greater Wikipedia community in having an encyclopedia at all. Whether its utility justifies the resources spent on its existence is a matter for the community to determine, but I can attest to the fact that there is will on ang: to create a real encyclopedia.
Steve
David Gerard wrote:
They would probably be good candidates for Wikicities or something if they don't have the technical abilities/resources to set up Mediawiki themselves.
Yes, and as with Toki Pona, I would gladly offer to host them with no advertising, since they come from Wikimedia roots. And if the community ever wants them back, that's fine too.
The only reason Klingon hasn't been closed and/or moved yet is just that I've been waiting to see that the technical/social issues with moving Toki Pona worked out o.k.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org