Dear Kieran,
I'm on digest mode for WikimediaZA (just switched it off), so I'm sorry
I can't reply within the thread.
I'm not hugely fond of the word 'Eurocentric' myself, mainly because it
tends to be overused. In the realm of printed knowledge, particularly,
the printed word is a 500-year-old tradition in Europe and most
countries elsewhere neither have that history of engagement with
printing, nor the kind of publishing momentum that the Anglo-European
world acquired in the last two centuries.
What I do find interesting, however, is that:
a) the printed word has such authority; that it dominates other forms of
knowledge
b) the authority of the printed word is a central tenet of Wikipedia
c) given the authority of the printed word, in and outside Wikipedia,
the history of the world according to Wikipedia is - largely - the
history of Europe, with North America tagged on at the end.
I think this is a pertinent and relevant conversation to have. For
instance, while I can't personally reverse 500 years of unequal
distribution of printing and publishing :) I do think that there are
incredible opportunities for equal participation in writing the
*present* of the world through the internet, audio-visual media, and
particularly, Wikipedia. So, I don't see the first 10 years of Wikipedia
as 'Eurocentric' - I see it as an incredible exercise of responsibility
on the part of the volunteers who made it. There is nothing stopping
others - from other parts of the world - to exercise this responsibility
further, and I think that as people everywhere take advantage of the
opportunities Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) present, we will have a more
interesting world to read.
So while I'm not sure that we can do anything to change history of the
world according to Wikipedia from 500 BC to 2011 AD, I think it's
entirely possible that we will see bright lights flashing everywhere
when telling the history of the present according to Wikipedia from
2011-2021. (Or, at least, that's a goal worth fighting for!)
Cheers,
Achal