Also interesting, IMO, is
OrthorhombicÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
's
Support vote for the closure of the Simple English Wiktionary (posted while logged out, apparently):
QUOTE
- Wikipedia should not be seen as merely utilitarian. It contains much knowledge for knowledge's sake.
- Simple English is not a language: it is a deterministic construct written primarily by native speakers who are not pedagogues or linguists on behalf of an ill-defined constituency that has not been scientifically defined. (Unlike, say, speakers of Basque.)
- There is, I suspect, the potential for vanity on behalf of many Simple English Wikipedians, who are able to add another language to their tally on the basis of no additional effort or learned ability.
- Simple English Wikipedia institutionally entrenches an erroneous view of the process of language acquisition. The lexical marginality of any particular term is not what hinders comprehension, rather the lack of sufficient intervening explicative steps. Lexically, 'mule' is pretty marginal. But if you explain that a mule is part-horse, part-donkey, then the language learner should have little difficulty in understanding the concept.
- Simple English Wikipedia places English on a pedestal: it is a form of cultural imperialism. Why should only English have a 'Subpedia' (excuse the neologism!)? It takes for granted that the existence of an international lingua franca is positive. Is it perhaps not hastening the demise of precious endangered languages by making English ever more accessible?
- If supererogative turgescency of this ilk is to be tolerated, then Simple English Wikipedia epitomises Wikipedia's inutile, unmanageable future. Why shouldn't all languages have separate Wikipedias for their various grades? Why not a Wikipedia for ultra-technical English? Why not a Wikipedia for syntactic or stylistic preferences? Why not Wikipedias for dialects, or ecolects, or individual idiolects? Why not a Wikipedia in Legalese? Or Journalese?
- Wikipedia is not primarily a tool for learning languages! (However...
- ...via hyperlinks on a standard English article and the sidebar links to their vernacular, or Wiktionary, the speaker of another language can easily track unknown terms.)
- It is a waste of Wikipedia Foundation's finite financial resources.
Some of these reasons are clearly specious, particularly the last, and also #5 and #6, which is sort of a straw-man argument which ignores the fact that English is considered a highly complex and inclusive language (more than most anyway), not to mention the
lingua franca of the internet, if not the world. But others are spot-on, IMO, particularly #2 and #3.