[Foundation-l] more classical languages wikipedias approved by langcom and board of trustees.

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> It might be worth noting that this obviously creates a double-standard,
> and why we have (nearly) monthly back-and-forths about the merits
> of dead/dying/extinct/zombie languages. If said projects weren't allowed
> from the start, then there'd be less of an argument for inclusion.
>
> As it stands, we hear "But those got projects, why not us?" To which the
> common reply has become "That was then, this is now."

I took a quick look at the few projects mentioned here, and it's worth
noting that none of them are dormant, but their activity levels are
all relatively low (and much of the activity I saw appeared to be
bot-driven). Plus, none of them had a complete interface translation,
even on the quick tour that I took.

I understand that people all want theirs, everybody wants their pet
project to be given life. However, we have to ask ourselves what is
the benefit of a project that is (a) mostly bot-generated and (b)
incompletely translated. If a project is generated mostly through bot
translations of larger projects, we lose the argument that different
languages may present information in a different way and hence helps
improve our diversity of perspective. We end up with a situation where
information we already have is encoded into a form that few people can
read, with an interface that's written partly in english (so some
english background is required of participants anyway).

--Andrew Whitworth