Anthere:
I personally would not call particularly clueful a journalist exclusively interested in the english speaking part of our project.
It strikes me as ... being a bit "short". But well, I suppose we can disagree on this.
"From Public Radio International, I'm Christopher Lydon. This is Open Source. Wikipedia is the new knowledge phenomenon of the Internet age. It's an encyclopedia written and edited by its readers, a compendium in more than a 150 languages from Albanian to Zulu, of 1.3 million articles .."
Jimbo: "All of the different languages ... It's a very international project .. progress in a lot of the smaller languages .. distributed world-wide to people who don't have Internet access .. available in many, many languages .."
Radio Open Source contacted me, and they asked me for other contacts with the *explicit* comment that they were looking "especially for users outside the US." As Puddl has pointed out, they also went out of their way to contact someone from the Afrikaans Wikipedia on the wiki itself.
Anyone who listened to the whole show and didn't remember the "multilingualism" aspect is, quite frankly, unlikely to be capable of understanding Wikipedia itself.
The majority of the show focused on a relatively language-neutral aspect of the project, namely, the quality of the content and whether you can trust it. Most of the criticisms were eloquently wrong (faulting Wikipedia for the fact that students plagiarize it is pretty funny), and I would have liked them to dig a little deeper into our fact checking processes and future peer review plans.
It's important to note that Wikipedia is a work in progress not just in its content, but also in its processes and technology. It reminds me of all those fancy predictions about blogs and their impact on journalism, none of them realizing that this entire sphere is subject to massive technological and structural changes. I wouldn't call the show biased, I would call it somewhat superficial in that respect.
That they didn't focus more on the aspect of multilingualism was a conscious editiorial decision. Rather than do an "Oh, look how great Wikipedia is" piece, they wanted to try to give a balanced view of the project and its accomplishments. I would say that it's probably the least biased mainstream media presentation I've come across so far coming from outside the community. I hope you don't expect an American radio show to broadcast in French -- they would be taken over by right-wing militia within seconds. ;-)
Erik