> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald J.
HARLOW

> Je 06.30 atm 2007.05.22, Dana NUTTER skribis
> 
> >The question
> >should be just how useful are these articles in smaller
> >languages.  There may be several thousand articles in
Volapük,
> >but does anyone ever actually read them?   It could even be
> >aruged that there's not much purpose to having an Esperanto
Wiki
> >because users could just look up articles in their native
> >language, unless by chance the E-o version is somehow better
in
> >quality, but that would depend upon who wrote the article
rather
> >than what language was used.
> 
> As I pointed out to Kjell in another posting, the 
> choice of topics may be considerably diffeerent 
> in one language than they are in another; it's 
> not simply a question of whether an article about 
> A is better in Esperanto (or perhaps Volapük) 
> than in English, but whether it appears in 
> English (or any other language) at all.

I say "better" meaning articles that have more content, or maybe
are just presented better which is a reflection of the author
rather than the language used.

I'm wondering if some IALists aren't just using Wikipedia as a
place to practice their writing skills in the IAL of their
choice rather than creating articles for their own sake.


> >I do find it interesting that Wikimedia allows these
> >conauxlangs, but likes to delete articles about some conlangs
> >(Vorlin seems to be the latest target), while keeping others.
> >There just seems to be a lot of inconsistency to their
policies
> >on conlangs.  The Ceqli articles seem to remain unchallenged,
> >though it too is still an incompleted project.
> 
> Actually, the original Ceqli article was deleted, 
> too; there was something of a flap about it at the time.

It's back then, in several languages.