The problem is, what do you do with reconstructed languages. How do you qualify a project from both a linguistic and from a language standards point of view that aims to write an encyclopaedia in Ancient Greek or one in Ottoman Turkish?
From my point of view, you reconstruct such a language when you want to discuss modern concepts. The concepts of existing words has to be morphed into something new in order for the words to fit. New words have to be borrowed from other languages or invented in order to express things like computer, satellite or television.
When you have people writing new texts in historic, extinct or ancient languages they should not qualify as being in this language. Then again, if you take Latin, a language qualified as ancient, you have a language that has been continuously used in the Roman Catholic church, a language that is the national language of the Vatican with a dictionary of modern words to help understand where classical knowledge does not suffice.
The question is how do you deal with modern texts in historic, extinct or ancient languages. How should they be tagged. It is clear that these modern variations are quite distinct from the original language. When you consider "Church Latin", according to Wikipedia it is the same language as the classical language. But given the continuous usage it should not be labeled as ancient.
In the Wikimedia Foundation the answer to these questions is what the decision to approve or deny a new language for most of the project types. The one exception is Wikisource, a library of source texts with translations and other supporting material.
- Should Latin be marked as an ancient language
- How do you label efforts in reviving a language