Daniel Mayer a écrit:

Optim wrote:

...

Who decided which is the "primary" and the "secondary audience" of the English Wikipedia and when this decision took place?

<snip>

All English speakers are the audience of the English Wikipedia, but native readers - especially monolingual ones - will expect and need to have information organized in a way that is most useful and familiar to them. Replace "English" with any other language and the same applies there as well.

Just for the record Mav, I use the words "international" wikipedias as opposed to "english" wikipedia as this is the terminology most used among wikipedians. It is a facility, by lack of other descriptive terms. I agree that english is one of the most international language among all those we cover.

We are raising an important point I think : we are wondering who our audience is. Or rather, we are apparently not agreeing who our audience is after 3 years :-)

We are 1) writers making 2) articles for 3) readers.

We know who we are We know what we are doing But it seems who we are writing for, is not the same for everyone.

You say the primary audience is native english speaking people, and the secondary audience is non native. Roughly, for you, the primary audience is Americans, Canadians, Australian, British, Irish (roughly, I do not want to hurt any one feelings). The secondary audience is ... others. Then you imply that articles should be carved in such way as to preferably suit the native english audience. To the point of misrepresenting a worldwide situation, to fit it better to what you perceive our audience is and would like to read.

In my opinion, this separation of 1) primary audience : native english speakers and 2) secondary audience : non native is not a good idea if it comes to overinflate an issue (such as circumsision) or underunflate (hum) another (such as excision). It is important that we mention that both circumsision types exist, but if the argument justifying the overinflation of one, is just that we perceive that it is the one which will interest the audience, then we should agree on what the audience is.

Some here may be here to write for the most obvious audience : americans. But not all of us. My opinion is that it would be a trap to think so and to act so. That would be a huge restriction of audience, and that would be a blow in the face of non english people here.

I do not like the concept of "first" and "second" audience because that would be officially stating that we should primarily write for the first, to the detriment of the second.

* First because as you stated it, english (along with spanish possibly) is international language. It is the most international of all languages. Potentially, it can reach many many more people than just native english speakers. Whether you want it or not, english is not entirely your language anymore. It is our common language. The one we can share. The one that can be a babel tower so we can understand all together.

That mean, not only do WE, non native, speak to you, and write for you, to communicate with you. But that also mean that you, native, should speak to us, and write for us, to communicate with us.

Something that is far less likely to happen in french, or in most languages.

So, when I come to en.wikipedia, I like to write on things like the reasons why our people, your and mine, disagree upon GMO matters, islamic matters (even if I know so little of the topic that it is laughable) or iraq matters (same :-)). Because if I can explain even a tiny bit to some americans why we think differently, so they can agree that arguments exists on all sides, if I can do that, it is information sharing and it is beneficial to mutual understanding.

And I would like people such as you, or as RK, or whoever, to write things, not only to explain to some americans what other americans think about this american topic, but rather to explain to ME, to MY people, what some americans think. Because if you can explain even a tiny bit to some french people why we think different, so they can agree that arguments exists on all sides, if you can do that, it is information sharing and it is beneficial to mutual understanding.

If english people write only or mostly for english people, if french people write only or mostly for french people, if arab people write only or mostly for arab people, then we fail. Wikipedia fails.

* Second because - most english natives are much more wealthy than most people in the world. They can purchase an encyclopedia with less pain than other people, who need their money to buy food and clothes. - most english natives have more freedom of access to information than most people in the world. They can buy a newspaper, see television. They can surf on the net. Many people do not have that freedom. Some must risk a lot to access information that is not propaganda. But they will look for information nonetheless.

Free encyclopedia

--------

Who are you writing for ?