The Cebuano wiki is a similar case, not spoken often, but it was a personal project of an editor that was mad at political articles and started making animal articles in the Cebuano wiki.

The solution is to differentiate and tag inputs and outputs, such that outputs can't be fed as inputs recursively. Funnily enough, wikipedia's sourcing policy does this perfectly, not only are sources the input and page content is just an output, but page content is a tertiary source, and sources by policy should be secondary (and sometimes primary) sources, so the system is even protected against cross tertiary source pollution (say an encyclopedia feeding off wikipedia and viceversa).

It is only when articles posing as secondary sources fail to cite wikipedia that a recursive quality loss can occur, see [[citogenesis]]

The end of the article says they have closed it.

That last part creates a chicken and egg problem. You can argue about it but I will bet it will never get traction if there is no basis to start from.

> they don't deserve to have one

By what unholy pact have you been beknighted as the bestower of wikis, my friend?

> who use AI translator or worst like Google translate

It's the same. Google translate uses trained AI models.

I wish people on HN would stop acting like “magic arbiter” solutions are “not realistic”, when in reality it’s the only way things have every worked. Are federal judges “magic arbiters”? Yes. Do judges make bad calls? Yes. Do we not like when large numbers of judges who are unfriendly to our side get life appointments? Yes. Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.

So to get back to the point: Yes the solution is to appoint someone a magic arbiter, and hope they don’t screw up. The fact that it’s a deeply imperfect way of solving problems doesn’t mean it’s not workable. It just means it will backfire at some point, and someone else will get appointed instead.

> Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all

On what do you base this assertion? I was not able to find up-to-date statistics, but 72% of participants in this survey from 2013 had internet access at home, either via PC or via mobile devices, and another 11% had internet access elsewhere:

https://digitalimik.gl/-/media/datagl/old_filer/strategi_201...

> People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.

If this is true, then the easy solution would be to just have two separate wikipedia editions (assuming there is interest).

After all if we have en, sco, jam and ang, surely there is room for two greenlandics. The limitting factor is user interest.

As someone who isn't a native English speaker, I believe most people who use the Internet would benefit from simply learning English rather than having an unchecked AI translate things to them. Reddit for example has joined millions of terrible Wordpress websites in auto-translating everything for SEO purposes and Google seems to be fine with this for some reason. It's ironic that it has reached the point that if you search for a "multi-language" plugin for Wordpress, most of the results aren't about letting you write an article in multiple languages, they're just about automatically translating a single article to 30 languages with machine translation.

The reason none of this makes sense to me is that it's intellectually crippling Internet users. Computers and the Internet are tools. If you want something machine translated to you, you can use a tool like Google translate to translate it for you. If the webmaster does this, it robs people from the opportunity to learn to use those tools and they become dependent on third parties to do this for them when they would have a lot more freedom if they just did it themselves (or if they learned English).

Teach a man to fish...

This was my take from the article also. These languages are clearly dying and not many people speak them as their primary language so the human suffering is minimal. Which means keeping them around is a past time that some people happen to enjoy (unless there is a Saphir-Whorf hypothesis I'm missing)

But the sentence `well-meaning Wikipedians who think that by creating articles in minority languages they are in some way “helping” those communities` clearly shows the author hasn't really considered the issue.

I see that this comment get downvoted but I think we can agree on the facts that languages, just like species, die while other flourish. And that's fine.

Survival of the fittest, right ? Not enough people speaking Greenlandic, too complicated even for it's own population who would rather speak danish ? The very reason I'm speaking English is because it was forced military during the 19th century by the UK and since the 20th by Hollywood.

Just like a virus, if a language doesn't spread, it die.