Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Viewed separately the Wikipedias in different languages are bound to arrive at different NPOVs that are each strongly rooted in distinct cultural values. A language with a small concentrated geographical territory is more likely to achieve a satisfactory NPOV, without the complicated arguments that may be encountered with a widely dispersed language like English. This broad range of neutralities helps keep things dynami
I'd say the opposite, unless we redefine "neutral" in some relativistic way. IMO, it is far more likely that the English article, due to having participants from multiple viewpoints, will be neutral on any given topic than that in a language without a very diverse speaker population. For example, which do you think is more likely to cover the Bosnian war neutrally: the English-language Wikipedia, or the Serbian-language Wikipedia? The English Wikipedia has Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, and many neutral people; the Serb Wikipedia does not benefit from nearly the same diverse population.
To be sure some degree of relativism is inevitable in NPOV, no matter how we define it. The broader community that participates in the English WP is bound to bring in more diverse viewpoints. The Serbian and Croatian WPs are likely to diverge in certain political areas with most contributors to either being satisfied to leave the other alone. Attempting to enforce some kind of absolute NPOV would involve confronting the majority viewpoint. This creates a situation quite different from what would have been if we had insisted on a single Serbo-Croation WP. I'm not arguing that the reality is ideal, just for recognizing that neutrality may be more difficult to attain on some WPs than on others.
Ec