On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
these distinctions, and what distinctions were intended. I always thought the English Wikipedia at least was supposed to be neutral with regard to culture. Maybe English is the exception?
What does "neutral with regard to culture" mean?
It means that everyone from every culture has an equal voice in determining the content of every Wikipedia article. We don't tell someone their opinion is to be disregarded because they come from a different culture. [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] means the consensus of everyone, not just the consensus of a certain culture.
Let's look at a scale of cultural-dependency that Wikipedia as a whole could situate itself on:
- Every WP is a certified translation of every other
- Every WP is not a translation of every other, but such a situation
is recognised as being good, and efforts to improve synchronisation are encouraged 3. Small deviations in content are allowed in the form of examples or expressions. Eg, giving examples in English for "Personal pronoun" as I alluded to.
I still think that example is contrived. Some of what you're saying I'd say falls under "translation". But as for actual differences in what constitutes a personal pronoun, as opposed to merely translational differences, I'd say the English Wikipedia should *already* cover the topic in all languages, if necessary disambiguating the article.
In fact, we already do this to some extent. See [[French personal pronouns]]. I don't think [[Personal pronoun]] would be any worse if it talked only about concepts that exist across languages, and linked to [[English personal pronouns]] for the rest. In fact, I think it'd be better.
- Significant deviations in emphasis and coverage are allowed, to
match the interests of the readership. For example, a history of the 20th century for en WP would focus much more on the two world wars than it would for languages of countries that weren't involved in them. All information is still welcome, but may be moved into subarticles as appropriate. 5. WPs can remove or trim information that is judged "irrelevant" to its readership, such as removing 36,000 articles on French communes and leaving only the top 20 French cities. 6. WPs can deliberately suppress information for cultural reasons, such as not mentioning the Tianenmen Square massacre on zh WP or referring to an independent country as merely being a "territory" of another if the relevant government is claiming that it is (in the face of international agreement to the contrary).
I think we probably sit around 4. Further refinements to this scale welcome.
Steve
I think the exercise is rather futile. The ability to effectively communicate among even just the 112 languages of which Wikipedia is considered "somewhat active" is a long way off. That said, I'd say 2, 3, and 4 are all true. And, sadly, the first half of 5 is true too, at least on the English Wikipedia.
My point, however, is that anyone who thinks that such an achievement (the ability to effectively communicate among the 112 languages of which Wikipedia is considered "somewhat active") would not be useful to Wikipedia - they certainly have a completely different idea of the project than I do. I see it as significant that Wikipedia is generally referred to as *an* encyclopedia in multiple languages, not a collection of encyclopedias in multiple languages. I thought it was significant that Jimbo called Wikipedia "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." But now he seems to be implying that it wasn't (I still think maybe he misinterpreted me, though).
Anthony