One of the first things on the Main Page: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project".
I'm becoming a bit concerned about arguments in a few areas that cut across this - to the effect that the English version should stick to received usages, so as not to conflict with a supposed 'Anglo' culture. For example, Adam Carr, on order in Japanese names, says 'this' (presumably his horizon is the English language version) is _not_ a multilingual project. I've just come across another such issue, namely whether games of the chess family should be called 'chess variants'.
Because the lowest common denominator of English-speaking users is to know nothing about other cultures, this argument in effect can always be used to lower standards of cultural sensitivity. The worry is that we then get a tabloid version, not something compatible with scholarly practice.
Therefore I say this is an intrusion of journalistic thinking, into an encyclopedia; where it is inappropriate.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Because the lowest common denominator of English-speaking users is to know nothing about other cultures, this argument in effect can always be used to lower standards of cultural sensitivity. The worry is that we then get a tabloid version, not something compatible with scholarly practice.
Therefore I say this is an intrusion of journalistic thinking, into an encyclopedia; where it is inappropriate.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this view. An encyclopedia _should_, I think, have something in common with journalistic practice, and not be entirely a scholarly work. If someone wants a scholarly work on a particular subject, there are already plenty available; the only value an encyclopedia adds is having a convenient summary of various things in a manner understandable by the majority of people (including those who are not experts in the field being discussed). Part of this is simply using language as it is used by people, not using jargon specific to a scholarly field that is not in widespread usage. To take your example, "chess" is a well-understood term by the vast majority of English speakers, used to refer to the game known as, well, "chess". A "chess variant", again in standard usage, would be anything other than standard chess (Fischer random chess, for example). Using other terminology would be rather confusing.
This is fairly standard encyclopedia practice: when you open Britannica, for example, you find things for the most part described in plain English, using words with their commonly accepted meanings. I'm not sure how this gets us a "tabloid version", and think that grossly underestimates the quality of many of our articles. At the very least, we're "as bad as" the New York Times, not the National Enquirer.
-Mark
"Delirium" wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
Because the lowest common denominator of English-speaking users is to
know
nothing about other cultures, this argument in effect can always be used
to
lower standards of cultural sensitivity. The worry is that we then get a tabloid version, not something compatible with scholarly practice.
Therefore I say this is an intrusion of journalistic thinking, into an encyclopedia; where it is inappropriate.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this view. An encyclopedia _should_, I think, have something in common with journalistic practice, and not be entirely a scholarly work.
Something: it should be well written. Something else: when there is plenty of time to check facts, fact-checking should apply.
If someone wants a scholarly work on a particular subject, there are already plenty available; the only value an encyclopedia adds is having a convenient summary of various things in a manner understandable by the majority of people (including those who are not experts in the field being discussed).
Synthesis adds hugely to value.
Part of this is simply using language as it is used by people, not using jargon specific to a scholarly field that is not in widespread usage. To take your example, "chess" is a well-understood term by the vast majority of English speakers, used to refer to the game known as, well, "chess". A "chess variant", again in standard usage, would be anything other than standard chess (Fischer random chess, for example). Using other terminology would be rather confusing.
It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess) is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when it predates chess and can't be a variant of it. So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
This is fairly standard encyclopedia practice: when you open Britannica, for example, you find things for the most part described in plain English, using words with their commonly accepted meanings. I'm not sure how this gets us a "tabloid version", and think that grossly underestimates the quality of many of our articles. At the very least, we're "as bad as" the New York Times, not the National Enquirer.
Tabloid journalism isn't bad journalism, necessarily, and is a stricter discipline on the writer. That's not the issue, here.
It's the argument here that readers shouldn't mind soccer, rugby, Australian Rules and so on being called 'gridiron variant', in the teeth of history and cultural senstivities, because it is easier to talk to a mass readership in those terms.
It troubles me, because it shouldn't be a case simply of counting heads in the readership. In particular it goes against internationalism in the project.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess) is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when it predates chess and can't be a variant of it. So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
Hmm. In that case, can't we call it "similar to chess" or something of that sort, that allows us to both orient the reader who may be familiar with chess and unfamiliar with xiangqi, without making claims about what is a variant of what (especially wrong claims)?
-Mark
Delirium wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess) is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when it predates chess and can't be a variant of it. So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
Hmm. In that case, can't we call it "similar to chess" or something of that sort, that allows us to both orient the reader who may be familiar with chess and unfamiliar with xiangqi, without making claims about what is a variant of what (especially wrong claims)?
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant isn't a page that specially bothers me; which is why I think it's an example to look at for some principles. The talk page debate airs the issues. It was the final comment
"For better or worse, it is now set in the English language- the prevalent language of the internet. There is nothing left to debate."
that got me. The page is not good on xiangqi (the game of the Chinese diaspora, by the way) and shogi, and doesn't even mention the Korean and Thai versions. Well, it's insensitive to make 'chess variant' include all of those.
I hope it's clear why I find the progression
English language > majority vote > minority voices don't count > brusque approach to cultural factors > dismissive tone to other cultures
objectionable. Especially when the assumption (Internet is Anglo) is spelled out.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Delirium wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
It is being argued that xiangqi (Chinese chess) is appropriately labelled 'chess variant', when it predates chess and can't be a variant of it. So it's like saying soccer is a 'gridiron variant'.
Hmm. In that case, can't we call it "similar to chess" or something of that sort, that allows us to both orient the reader who may be familiar with chess and unfamiliar with xiangqi, without making claims about what is a variant of what (especially wrong claims)?
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant isn't a page that specially bothers me; which is why I think it's an example to look at for some principles. The talk page debate airs the issues. It was the final comment
"For better or worse, it is now set in the English language- the prevalent language of the internet. There is nothing left to debate."
that got me.
Although I agree with what is included in the broad category of chess variants,. (I was active in the debate in April 2002.) I do not endorse the kind of "shut-up" statement that you find objectionable. Nevertheless, it is only a talk page comment, and the latitude for what people say on the talk pages is much wider than in the articles themselves. I also note the absence of any proposals from you to solve the problem on that page. This is a clear case of a discussion that should be happening on that talk page.
The page is not good on xiangqi (the game of the Chinese diaspora, by the way) and shogi, and doesn't even mention the Korean and Thai versions. Well, it's insensitive to make 'chess variant' include all of those.
Nobody's stopping you from adding the Korean and Thai versions, and I doubt that they will meet with any serious objections. The argument that you raise is about accepting these as variants at all, and not about what belongs in the list of "variants" of this class. As to whether the page is "good on xiangqi", there is no need for wide elaboration on the page. As long as there is a link to the proper page, it suffices to identify it as a game which had parallel development in China.
I tend to take a broad interpretation of the word "variant". For me it is not limited to derivatives of FIDE chess, but includes games with a parallel development in other parts of the world. They may very well be polyphyletic, rather than descended from some single "proto-chess"
I hope it's clear why I find the progression
English language > majority vote > minority voices don't count > brusque approach to cultural factors > dismissive tone to other cultures
objectionable. Especially when the assumption (Internet is Anglo) is spelled out.
I believe your approach is hyper-sensitive. You are objecting to one person's opinion away from that talk page, before anyone has responded to it there. Perhaps no-one will, which in turn may indicate that the comment isn't worth a response.
So, when speaking of cultural insensitivities, my impression is that a large segment of Wikipedians do make a serious effort to speak in a culturally sensitive manner. Some don't. That which you complain about on the [[Chess variants]] page is very mild in comparison to other things that I have read. In other places calling certain behaviour "culturally insensitive" would be the epitome of euphemism.
Ec
"Ray Saintonge"
That which you complain about on the [[Chess variants]] page is very mild in comparison to other things that I have read. In other places calling certain behaviour "culturally insensitive" would be the epitome of euphemism.
Yes, I realise that. I didn't post about this because it was the worst example I could find - quite the opposite, really. I wanted to go over the arguments. Thanks to everyone who has responded.
Charles
This comment is offensive. Wikipedia, as a whole, is a multilingual project, but the *English* Wikipedia is NOT, and it isn't acceptable to attempt to force non-English common usage on English speakers.
RickK
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: Because the lowest common denominator of English-speaking users is to know nothing about other cultures, this argument in effect can always be used to lower standards of cultural sensitivity. The worry is that we then get a tabloid version, not something compatible with scholarly practice.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Wikipedia, as a whole, is a multilingual project, but the *English*
Wikipedia is NOT, and it isn't acceptable to attempt to force non-English common usage on English speakers.
RickK
Misses the point. I get down the Concise Oxford Dictionary from my shelf: it says chess is a game with 32 pieces and so on. Not the general type of king-hunt game. That usage, which is therefore _not_ the common one, is being suggested by people with a specialist point of view.
To clarify: mancala _is_ an English term for a class of many games (probably over 100). The question is whether omweso, the Ugandan game of this family, should be called 'Ugandan mancala' instead. Neither term , 'omweso' or 'Ugandan mancala', is common usage. The former term is more accurate (there is apparently an omweso variant played in Entebbe). If you go down this line you'd end up calling Bao 'Tanzanian mancala' and so on. To avoid introducing terms from another language; but in a context where you can't say there is much common English usage, outside East Africa.
Charles