[Foundation-l] "Historical" languages and constructed languages

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Jan 24, 2008 11:49 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> If people want to write a wiki in a constructed language like Esperanto or a
> long defunct language like ancient  Egyption language or Latin (Vatican
> doesn't count :P), let them. For example a "Wikisource" edition for ancient
> texts in their original language feels like an excellent idea.

I would consider a wikisource to be an exception to this rule. People
on wikisource aren't creating new content, they are simply uploading
and preserving it. I would venture to suggest that the "language" of a
wikisource project should only represent the language that the members
speak and use for organization, and not necessarily the language in
which the texts need to be. For instance, I think it's perfectly
reasonable to include old latin texts on en.wikisource. A multilingual
wikisource, similar to commons but for source texts, still might be
the far better option then the current implementation.

> A wikipedia edition or wikinews edition for  language hardly anyone speaks
> however feels like a waste of time - though if people really want to spend
> time on such a project, who am I to stand in the way.

This is a great continuation of the above point. Maybe we need to be
considering language strategies on a per-project basis. The language
needs of Wikipedia are different from wikisource, wikinews, and
wikibooks. Wikipedia, as a repository of information, can still be
effective if presented in few languages. However, a project like
Wikibooks or Wikiversity really needs to be presented in a natural
language, because academic performance is dependent on it. Of all the
projects, I think that Wiktionary is probably the one that should be
presented in as many languages as possible (including conlangs).

--Andrew Whitworth