On 9/28/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
This surely sounds sensible. A decision not to allow constructed languages anymore could certainly be regarded as a strategic decision. Since the board seems to be unanimous on this matter and the issue keeps on coming up again and again - causing unproductive strife each time - wouldn't it make sense if the board turned this attitude into an official policy?
Most conlangs should not even be considered. But, certainly there are conlangs that are as notable as Esperanto, which we don't have wikipedias for? And, we know wikipedia is going to be around forever in one form or another, what if the international auxiliary language i'm starting now is as useful and notable as Esperanto in 100 years? I think that no formal rules should be written that will ban all conlangs from becoming wikis. I think we should mention somewhere in the policies that almost all conlangs will pretty much be rejected instantly, unless there is a significant reason to make the wiki.
Other then Klingon, I don't see how any of these wikis hurt our image. I've even heard arguments like this about simple:. And speaking of simple:, what about other supposed conlangs that are based on natural languages? Modern Hebrew is technically a conlang, in that Hebrew was dead for many years, and a group of people revived it into a modern version, based on ancient Hebrew, coined new terms for modern things like computers, etc.
Almost all Jews are *supposed* to speak Hebrew. They have to make a speech for their barmitzfa to prove it, don't they? I think it's the official language of Israel.
Now, I don't know if we have a Hebrew wikipedia yet, so if we do, don't laugh at me. I have to assume we do. But, this is really about any other similar conlang that could pop up.