|
 |
Wikipedia article on Polyliteracy | ||
Tags: Polyliteracy | Wikipedia | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Alphathon Groupie Scotland Joined 4179 days ago 60 posts - 104 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: German, Scottish Gaelic | Message 17 of 19 26 April 2015 at 1:49am | IP Logged | |||||
The way I read that is that there needs to be some reason to consider the person an expert, not that what is being cited also has to have appeared in a pier-reviewed journal. If it did then there would never be any reason to cite a blog or video because there would by necessity also be a paper, which would be a preferable source. I’m pretty sure the “subject matter” in this case would merely be “linguistics”, and I’m fairly confident he’s been published on that. In some cases you might be right but in this case what he’s suggesting, as far as I can tell anyway, is merely that a particular field of study should exist (as a subset of linguistics). He isn’t proposing any models to describe languages or their acquisition or anything like that. If he were then he certainly would have to have specific expertise in those particular areas (which he may well have, I don’t know, but that’s largely irrelevant). He isn’t doing that though. Basically it’s a question of whether we should take his opinions and statements on the subject seriously. That of course only covers whether blogs etc can be used as sources. It has no bearing on whether its inclusion would be giving it undue weight (which seems probable). Given that, if it were to go anywhere it would probably be on the Prof’s page rather than the polyglotism one. At the end of the day though this kind of discussion is almost certainly better done on Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia advocates that people be bold in their edits and additions, so one course of action may be to just go ahead and add it and see what happens. If it turns out that its inclusion is inappropriate then it will simply be removed and there will be no harm done. Alternatively one could ask for some other opinions at the linguistics WikiProject (a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving linguistics-based articles). 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| luke Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 7204 days ago 3133 posts - 4351 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Esperanto, French | Message 18 of 19 26 April 2015 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | |||||
I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion!
I don't know think his vision is "merely" a subset of linguistics though. He's looking for a rebirth and renewal of Comparative Philology with both a broader focus and domain. As I understand it, linguistics has become extremely specialized. Professor Arguelles seems to be more in a humanistic, scholastic vein. Linguistics seems to be becoming more and more scientific. Edited by luke on 26 April 2015 at 3:06pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| schoenewaelder Diglot Senior Member Germany Joined 5559 days ago 759 posts - 1197 votes Speaks: English*, French Studies: German, Spanish, Dutch | Message 19 of 19 26 April 2015 at 3:59pm | IP Logged | |||||
They also say, if a wiki doesn't already exist, there's probably a reason. Look at the Prof's wiki. Much as we love him, he is not a giant in the world of linguistics. He has published a handful of minor dictionaries, and appears to have published no academic papers whatsoever (I know that seems bizarre, I welcome being corrected) To write a wiki article, you need a referenced source for every statement you make. I personally have never seen a reference to anything other than published materials. I probably have only looked at a few dozen, so again, I welcome counter examples. I expect online refrences would be useful in a fast developing field, where an expert updated information that was relevant to an already published work. I know the Lîngq people tried to get a wiki started a couple of times, and they just got deleted. I fear you would be wasting your effort. But you could begin by adding a few sentences, and see if they survive, before comitting yourself to an opus. ps. You write and argue your case very nicely though. [edit: that wasn't meant to sound condescending or imply that I thought I had won the argument despite your better style] Edited by schoenewaelder on 26 April 2015 at 5:24pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
