Stan Shebs a écrit:
I think you're working a bit too hard to find bias here. The Huygens probe had 1/2 of the original article created 2.5 years ago, and sizewise would have been fine to split even then, but somehow not one of 600+ million Europeans could be bothered to make the split, or to propose it on the talk page.
No, I am not working too hard. I am trying to report a reality, that you may perceive as "too hard to find bias"
However, what *really* is a measurement is the perception of our readers.
Right ?
Okay, this was reported to me by some french scientists. They know Wikipedia, and are often impressed by it. They were VERY impressed by the articles themselves. As I said, this was the most informative place aside from the couple of scientific reporting place. So, WE were a hit.
They were amused however, of that situation. They are in no way anti-american, but they laughed at our non bias policy in this case.
They know about the neutrality policy and are aware of how hard it is. The neutrality in this case, the so-called neutral report make them laugh their head of.
You may perceive this as "hard work", now, what I say is that these guys are our readers. If we want to be perceived reasonably neutral, we just have to pay attention to this type of details.
That's all what I would like to say. Consider it crap if you wish.
The "bias" is that we work on what interests us. I've been digging figures of European history out of 1911EB lately, and half the time it's the first information about these in any language WP. We're just perennially short of people to do all the things we would like to get done.
Stan