[WikiEN-l] How does Wikipedia compare for neutrality?

[Mike Dupont]

Well I can tell you for a fact that the articles about kosovo are not
neutral at all,
mike

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a discussion elsewhere [1], the question of how WIkipedia compares
> for neutrality with other encyclopedias came up.
>
> We've been compared with other encyclopedias for accuracy before. Has
> anyone ever tried to compare us on neutrality? Or whatever
> roughly-synonymous measure doesn't automatically bias the test towards
> Wikipedia, which has it as a fundamental content policy.
>
> Compare Britannica. They've never touted themselves as neutral -
> they've touted themselves as *authoritative*.[2] The Wikipedia article
> on EB notes that EB has been increasingly lauded as less culturally
> biased with time, though it occurs to me that's just the sort of
> aspect a Wikipedia writer would note.
>
> And how good a proxy for what readers actually want is neutrality? I
> think it's excellent, but I could be wrong. Do readers actually just
> want to be told?
>
> How would you compare the neutrality of Wikipedia with that of
> something else, in a meaningful and useful manner, such that the
> framing of the question doesn't necessarily pick the winner before
> you've started?
>
>
> - d.
>
> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ho/seq_rerun_politics_is_the_mindkiller/422w
> [2] Modulo the EB content disclaimer, which makes ours look mild.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.org flossal.org