In a discussion elsewhere [1], the question of how WIkipedia compares for neutrality with other encyclopedias came up. We've been compared with other encyclopedias for accuracy before. Has anyone ever tried to compare us on neutrality? Or whatever roughly-synonymous measure doesn't automatically bias the test towards Wikipedia, which has it as a fundamental content policy. Compare Britannica. They've never touted themselves as neutral - they've touted themselves as *authoritative*.[2] The Wikipedia article on EB notes that EB has been increasingly lauded as less culturally biased with time, though it occurs to me that's just the sort of aspect a Wikipedia writer would note. And how good a proxy for what readers actually want is neutrality? I think it's excellent, but I could be wrong. Do readers actually just want to be told? How would you compare the neutrality of Wikipedia with that of something else, in a meaningful and useful manner, such that the framing of the question doesn't necessarily pick the winner before you've started? - d. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ho/seq_rerun_politics_is_the_mindkiller/422w [2] Modulo the EB content disclaimer, which makes ours look mild. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l