On Friday 03 January 2003 05:42 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am reviewing the controversial [[New Imperialism]] article.
One side note is that Tarquin changed 9,000,000 square miles to 23,000,000 square kilometers. This move was apparently uncontroversial.
With good reason. Kilometers are a worldwide standard, miles are a measurement that is now largely unique to the United States.
Is that right? As an American, I frankly confess that the metric system is a curiosity to me. 9,000,000 square miles, I can grasp, because I know how long a mile is intuitively. The kilometer, on the other hand, is non-intuitive, just an arbitrary length from a textbook.
As an American, I'd much rather have everything in metric, with no American measurements in sight, increasing my incentive to get used to the metric system, and allowing for easier communication with the /majority/ of the world. Note also that the scientific community uses metric measurements.
Shouldn't we give both, then?
Why? If the reader really needs non-metric measurements, they can consult [[conversion of units]] (which, actually, may need a bit of expanding for ease of use as a conversion table... I might look into that in a bit). That said, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style currently reads, in part, "For now, if using American or Imperial, give metric as a courtesy. If using metric, remember that many readers will not know what you mean and will be aided by the equivalent.", so yes, provide both, I'm afraid.
Personally, I'd rather have it say, "Use metrics. Use only metrics. Any use of American or Imperial units is punishable by death.", but I doubt I could convince Wikipedians at large of the merits of it :).