On 3/7/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote
Yeah, it's great to attack BE spelling on the BBC (it sounded to me like
he
was about to say "British spelling" before he changed it).
Interesting argument that the majority of readers are American, so that American spelling should be used. What numbers do we have on that? ComScore has something; our total readership is in the region of 150m?
Charles
Of course, where do the figures come from? In addition, how does he come to the conclusion that Wikipedia editors are 7x more liberal than the average American? And does he mean American editors, or all editors? And how much more "liberal" is the rest of the world than the average American?
I don't doubt that our editors are more "liberal" than the average American - we're also probably better educated than the average American, more computer literate than the average American, better informed than the average American, and more likely to be non-American than the average American. But how does claiming that "dinosaur" is a Latin-root word, discussing the amount of space on the ark http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
and including pix of Jesus riding a dinosaur (gone now, but oh so amusing) http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&oldid=17255
somehow balance the "liberal bias"? Since when do conservatives believe that the opposite of liberal is nut?