Anthere wrote:
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).
Of course not - that is why I said "within the bounds of NPOV".
Some here may be here to write for the most obvious audience : americans. But not all of us.
What?! Why the hell does this always come down to American bashing? I was talking about the /entire/ English speaking world *NOT JUST AMERICANS!!!*.
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.
No, it means we primarily write for the first and secondarily write for the second. They are /both/ part of our audience and are both important.
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.
OK, that has got to be the most bizarre thing I've read in a while. I write for *all* English speaking people. Sorry but how can I write for a French audience when I don't speak French?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
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.
OK, that has got to be the most bizarre thing I've read in a while. I write for *all* English speaking people. Sorry but how can I write for a French audience when I don't speak French?
I am a representant of your french audience. You could write for me.
I guess we will have both to see that we are not writing for the same audience. As long as you accept that some do not recognise these notions of *primary* and *secondary* as valid, while others do, that is fine.
Can I have clarifications on:
1. If native English speakers is "primary" audience while the non native speakers is "secondary", does that mean for you that an article on the next USA elections is OK, while an article on the next elections of Egypt (put here any other country) are irrelevant and of no interest to English Wikipedia's audience?
2. Or that a terrorist attack in USA should be more important than a terrorist attack in Nepal, if both attacks have the same number of killed or injured people?
Thank you, --Optim
--- Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer a �crit:
Anthere wrote:
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.
OK, that has got to be the most bizarre thing I've
read in a while.
I write for *all* English speaking people. Sorry but how
can I write for a French
audience when I don't speak French?
I am a representant of your french audience. You could write for me.
I guess we will have both to see that we are not writing for the same audience. As long as you accept that some do not recognise these notions of *primary* and *secondary* as valid, while others do, that is fine.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
I don't think the notion of 'native English speaker' is a particularly coherent one, when framed as the audience. Much less so than 'users of international scientific English', or francophones, for example. It makes sense to me to say that articles should be written in standard literary English, and to international scholarly standards.
Charles
At 04:23 AM 1/13/04 -0800, Optim wrote:
Can I have clarifications on:
- If native English speakers is "primary" audience
while the non native speakers is "secondary", does that mean for you that an article on the next USA elections is OK, while an article on the next elections of Egypt (put here any other country) are irrelevant and of no interest to English Wikipedia's audience?
No. It does mean that more background might be needed for an article on elections in a non-English-speaking country, since the readers would almost certainly be foreign to that country.
- Or that a terrorist attack in USA should be more
important than a terrorist attack in Nepal, if both attacks have the same number of killed or injured people?
Of course not.