Stan Shebs a écrit:
And you corrected them on this, right? This is absolutely nothing to do with NPOV,
Then we just do not have the same perception of what is neutral, this is all. For me, naming things (like a polish city) may have to do with neutrality of report.
and it's unfair to hardworking editors to say that they're biased and not doing anything about it.
This is an unfair comment, as I mentionned that the articles were great. What I report rather tends to fit in systemic bias of Wikipedia.
There is a bias of the en wikipedia to have anglo success appears bigger than they may appear to african people for example, just as there is definitly a bias on the french wikipedia which makes France appear more important that other french speaking countries.
We are all biaised, and little can be done about this.
What you
report fits exactly into the worst stereotypes of the French; sneering at other people's work, but not taking any responsibility for having let this perceived problem go unmentioned for years.
Hu ? Well, I let you responsability for saying this.
In any cases, since it seems it is bad to let it unmentionned for years, I will take responsability for having this problem be mentionned.
You said these scientists "know Wikipedia"; did you ask them why they didn't do anything about it themselves?
Some already ponctually corrected a couple of things. But generally, they do not believe in Wikipedia neutrality though they see the efforts to try to be neutral. You may not expect french people who really write a bad english to go correct all what is biaised in the english wikipedia.
This is a good question : why did not they fix it ?
It took me three months to dare edit the english wikipedia after I met it. I feared criticism of my english like hell; And still fear it very much, as there are regularly unpleasant comments made about it. Recently, I had to block 2 times an editor who was being extremely rude with non english people on meta. A place where international people ARE welcome. When editors rudely handle non english in a place such as meta, you might guess how nice these editors can be on the english wikipedia itself.
Amongst french people, I am generally considered quite good in english. Still, editing in good english is difficult for me and takes a lot of time. Arguments which start on talk page and last dozens and dozens of screens put me off. It takes too much time to read it all and try to understand it all.
Many french scientists read english, because nearly all science is in english, so of course, it is their main source of information. But most french scientists do not manage english well enough to become editors.
It needs courage you may not realise. It needs efforts, and it needs to overcome the comment of some people who do not think we belong there.
So, they look at the article, they may correct a typo, but do not go any further.
I also note for instance that (as of several hours ago) the French wikipedia had a single article with Huygens as the second half. Are we supposed to take that to mean the Europeans are biased against themselves?
No, mostly there were no french editors motivated to edit this page. At least, these pages are poorly referenced by google.
Now, what upset me deeply in this comment you made, is that when I comment on a point of the english wikipedia, you THROW ME IN THE FACE how bad the french people are themselves and how bad the french article is.
Has it cross your mind that I really care about the english wikipedia because it is the best one, and yesterday it was a major source for ANYONE looking on the net for that topic, because it was one of the four sources coming up ?
Has it cross your mind that I could care about a part of the whole project which I am supposed to represent right now, and would not wish to be just lowered only to my nationality and language project ?
There are enough real problems making WP unbiased and neutral; by taking a trivial point of organization never before discussed anywhere,
It is not because something has never been discussed before that it does not exist.
and holding it up as something that matters, you're
undercutting all the editors who put in real research and real discussion time on the issues that are genuinely important. Why should I bother spending two hours in the library to research a substantive question, when you're telling the world that WP is biased because some frontpage article doesn't cater enough to nationalistic pride?
This is a good question. I do not think I told the whole world, this is just our personal ml. I do not think that I ever said such a thing in any of the public presentation of Wikipedia I made in the past 6 months.
But yes, why would I even neglect my whole family and personal job as well as personal health by lack of sleep to try to take care of a project, and try to make it the best possible and the least biased possible, when you are telling me that my opinion has no importance whatsoever, is fantasm and only nationalistic pride ?
The whole attitude really troubles me. I've put in a lot of WP time over the past two years, and now it feels like it doesn't matter.
Sta n
You own attitude really troubles me as well. I have probably put as much work on wikipedia as you did for now three years, and it now feels like it does not matter either.
I understand you guys can be upset because I report a little bias to you, which is likely to appear shocking to some of the world population. However, I did not criticized the job done, on the contrary I mentionned it was a very good article, I only pointed out to a problem.
I can understand that some of you just do not see where the problem is and think I am just nut. That is okay, you can consider I am nut and that there is no bias here. I can accept that.
This is exactly where the problems stand when we come to lack of neutrality. One editor considers one point of view and another will not necessarily see the same point of view at all. And this is exactly why we have edit wars, because the second will just not recognise the validity of the first one view and will just refuse that the other one could have a piece of truth in his hands.
That is fine.
What is not fine is to resort to personal comments on those having a perception that you do not share, and try to lower the possible validity of what they say by resorting of calling her "French".
I feel quite upset by your comment. If you wish to close your eyes to internal comments, or to attack those of us who try to point out to what is not perfect, do not be suprised when there is criticism from public audience.
I apologize to those who participated to the article if they feel I criticized their work. I did not.