stevertigo wrote:
Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to add to this that I think the
worst part of this idea
is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
en.wp.
The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.'
Suppose for a minute that your proposal were implemented, and all the
machine translation problems were overcome. Would English NPOV be so
good that community members in the target language would be incapable of
making substantive improvements? And if they did make substantive
change, how would you reconcile the divergence when both versions were
subsequently edited?
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote
Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority
languages is respect for the
cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World
Point of View. What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English
Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers. Those who
do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality. We have
not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single neutrality
from all projects.
I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because
its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis
reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation
of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such
countries must be considered "NPOV.
I'm disinclined to accept your universalist conjecture. It sounds too
much like intelligent design for linguistics. When I visit the
bookstores in another country I am struck by the difference in emphasis
that they put on different topics. This alone is bound to lead to
different neutralities.
Ray