Michael Snow wrote:
To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no meaningful difference in order of magnitude there.
I at least agree that it warrants a new thread.
We have significant distortions in the makeup of our community that affect our culture. There are quite a few groups that are seriously underrepresented, in part because our culture comes across as unfriendly to them at best. I talked about African-Americans because it's what was applicable in that particular situation and I happen to have some familiarity with the issues. It could just as well have been Australian Aborigines or another cultural group that has issues with our community. I'm not as prepared to explain those concerns, but I would welcome people who can educate us about such problems. It's legitimate to be wary of things that promote American cultural hegemony, which is another distortion, but that's not really warranted when the concern relates to a minority culture in the US.
I would agree that the use of the word "lynch" was unfortunate because of the suggestion that anyone should be hanged. Cultural sensitivity allowed for me to grasp that the use was metaphorical, and not literal. Using that choice of words by a person who is not from the United States as an excuse to play the American race card can only exacerbate the problem. I would expect that the language is strong enough to withstand attacks by the connotational flavour of the month. Have you forgotten that in its origin Lynch's Law was applied more to those Virginia residents whose loyalty to the Revolution left something to be desired. Slavery and race relations had nothing to do with it.
Caution in avoiding offence with one's words must be coupled with a willingness to avoid seeing offence in the words of others. One needs to begin from the assumption that a word is being used in its most ordinary sense. Just like "gay" is not restricted by modern homosexual connotations, so too "lynch" must not be narrowly interpreted in the context of the African-American experience. There is no need to impose modern American connotations on one's words.
Some people seem to have gotten hung up on the issue of intent. I didn't say there was any intent, by the community or individuals, to exclude certain groups or to create a hostile environment for them. I actually tried to be as careful as possible not to say that. The point is that even in the absence of intent, it's possible for our culture to appear hostile to such groups. We didn't have any intent to be hostile toward living people, either, yet we've had a long struggle to cope with the consequences of that impression created by our culture.
I am willing to accept the premise that African-Americans are underrepresented among Wikipedia, but I am not willing to jump to the speculative conclusion that this is almost entirely attributed to our choice of words. The pusillanimity of political correctness will not resolve disproportionate representation.
Consider the principle of not "biting" newcomers, which relates to a similar problem. It's not about the intent of the person doing the "biting", it's about the impact on those who encounter it. We need to be more welcoming to people, and striving for more cultural awareness is part of that.
It will take more than platitudes to solve that problem. Sometimes we need to apply a little dinkum oil to a problem, at other times we need to value a person's single contribution.