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.