Re: Conlang journal

In article <1192947436.128372.123100@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
James Landau <savegraduation@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> It is not that some conlangs are "crap". It is rather that some
> conlangs are notable and others are not notable. Wikipedia doesn't
> make good judgment calls in its record of keeping or deleting conlang
> articles, so it's up to the conlang community to use good judgment as
> to which languages to keep or delete.

The whole "the world rotates around Wikipedia" fad is kinda over. Like
any collaborative project it tended to be dominated by the most
aggressively nasty people and those with the worst cases of
obsessive-compulsive disorder. It's a good place to get detailed Star
Trek episode guides but I don't take it seriously as an encyclopedia
anymore. Some people still pray to it 5 times a day but I think its
influence is waning.

Interesting variety of opinions about Wikipedia here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/1346215

But go ahead, create an academic-seeming journal for the purpose of
keeping certain conlangs in Wikipedia! What a noble crusade. Then
Wikipedia will just ratchet up the criteria for inclusion _again_ and
what are you gonna do, create a second journal and a third one? Bribe
Oprah Winfrey and Newsweek re****ters into interviewing conlangers?