Brianna Laugher wrote:
== Vision Statement ==
'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.'''
Comment:
One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by teaching another language like English and then giving access to learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination in our vision statement.
The principle of multilinguality is what really gives Wikimedia *global* participation and therefore WMF a global voice and global influence. That is something amazing that I am not really aware of anyone else... anywhere... doing on the same scale. It deserves proper recognition -- I think the "in their own language" should be re-appended.
As much as agreeing with the retreat cabal may be contrary to this curmudgeon's world view, I think that leaving "in their own language" out is best. Nevertheless, I find Erik's rationale somewhat condescending and misleading. The vision statement is not about the role or importance of English, or any other language. The statement will presumably be translated (both linguistically and culturally) into as many languages as required, where it strikes me as normal that every person will imagine in the context of a world vision unique his own language and culture. We want a Yaqui person to imagine within the context of a world not too dissimilar to that described by Castañeda. Vision may not even be about language, so why restrict vision by mentioning it.
In fact I would be inclined to shorten the statement even furtherr to
'''Imagine a world in which every person can freely share all knowledge.'''
"Single", even if it's purpose is to be emphatic, is not necessary. Some people could even draw the conclusion that marriage is the point in life when we stop imagining. ;-)
"Person" strikes me as less coldly technical than "human being".
"The sum of" is a pointless redundancy and cliché.
Ec