[Foundation-l] Fwd: Tokipona

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You fail to realise that the existing policy explicitly makes an exception
to constructed languages. Consequently the question you pose has already
been answered. You do not give any arguments why your assertions are true.
You only give *your *point of view. From my position any method that can
provide the same information in a different way is positive because you
never know what it takes to drive the message home. And getting information
out is what the WMF is about.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 22, 2008 12:44 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2008 6:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It is for all these reasons that I argue that we can look really sharp
> > before we approve another conlang. We can discriminate against them by
> > having extra rigid demands. But denying them is not in our interest it
> makes
> > us look like exclusionists while in actual fact we want to bring
> information
> > to all people. And bringing information in a conlang is information that
> is
> > of interest and importance to a sizable group of people.
>
> What you fail to mention here is whether conlangs actually serve as a
> vehicle for bringing information to people. Given the option of
> providing information in a person's natural language, or the current
> conlang de jure, I choose the natural language every time. Conlangs
> are only valuable in this respect if they actually facilitate
> collaboration and dissemination of content, and I posit that they do
> not. We can make the case, on an individual basis, that some conlangs
> do actually serve in this respect, but the general case is that
> conlangs hinder the spread of information and do not help it.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>