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