On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/1 bobolozo <bobolozo(a)yahoo.com>om>:
A small fishing village in Cambodia, or a
community of
100 people in Kenya, may well have no internet access
at all, and if they have it, they would not likely be
visiting the English wikipedia as they wouldn't likely
speak English.
That doesn't really serve as a justification for express systematic
bias (rather than the default systemic bias).
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, there is a line between "systemic bias" and "source bias". If
secondary, reliable sources don't consider X important enough to write
much about, we follow their lead, and do not write much. If they don't
think X is important enough to write about at all, we follow their
lead, and do not write anything at all. That's not our decision, and
introducing anything beyond what sources do is introducing -our own-
bias, regardless of how noble of motives such bias may be founded
upon.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.