If we point it at the horrendously bad scots wiki (some kid in the US decided he'd translate Wikipedia into what he thought was lowland scots/Doric.. it's a disaster) we might get entertainingly bad outcomes.
It's not awful, but I feel it's still pretty meh. I say this as a person raised in Edinburgh in the sixties and seventies. How bad? Well.. in their backend meta pages they link to the DSL (Dictionary of the scots language/dictionars o' Scots Leid [0]) which says this:
Written Scots
In the written mode, Scots spelling remains variable. Attempts to make it more consistent, notably the Scots Style Sheet produced by the Makars’ Club in 1947 or the Recommendations for Writers in Scots published by the Scots Language Society in 1985, have had at best only limited success, competing with other systems that have been developed to represent more closely localized varieties of spoken Scots.
When your reference text says the language isn't yet well captured in a single print, you better believe the wiki page is a hot mess.
Well, it is pretty hard to make something in a language when it is a dialect continuum and not a standardized variety that is forced onto the whole population through the education system and media.
Not really relevant to the topic in question but... Isn't this how most languages begin?
First you have a continuum of language dialects, then one of them dominates for political reasons, then it gets codified, then enforced onto everybody through centralised education. Dialects not under direct unified political control become related but separate languages... And so on.
Yes, but I think the point is that trying to record a standardised version of something that has not yet been codified through that process is going to inevitably be somewhat approximate at best.