Delirium wrote:
Ulf Lunde wrote:
I also wanted to say that I agree that gerard Meijssen's point is very important: The wikipedias are indeed culture-bearers for their respective populations, and not just for humanity as a whole!
I disagree that this should be the case, and to the extent that it is, feel it should be corrected. Languages are not culture, although they have connections with it.
Languages are not culture ?? Encyclopedias most certainly are !! Please consider what words are used in a culture. The English used reflects the culture the person speaking or writing comes from. The idea that you can divorse culture from language is odd. When comparing articles on the same topic the diffferences are sometimes huge.
If we wanted languages to be identified with culture, then we should split some up, and have a "United States" wikipedia as a culture-bearer for the U.S., a "French Canadian" Wikipedia as a culture-bearer for French-Canadians, and so on. But we don't, and to the extent possible keep these together. In essence, the only reason we have separate Wikipedias at all is because of language barriers---when languages are similar enough to keep together (as with the French spoken in Canada vs. France vs. Algeria), we do so.
Or do people actually seriously think we *should* have separate Wikipedias catering to different cultures?
When we have an encyclopedia with articles that are acceptable to all people who speak a language, we aim to achieve a neutral point of view and provide more extended information. We want to maintain one wikipedia bridging the divide between the cultures that use a language. Given the virtually limitless amount of harddrive capacity we have articles on cricket and honkbal. We are happy to host any topic that is of intrest. What this discussion is about, is not about en: or fr: It is about Hopi. By having a Hopi or a Dutch or a Frisian wikipedia, you allow many topics to be narrated with a Hopi, Dutch or Frisian point of view. Not a non-neutral but with a Hopi, Dutch or Frisian point of view. This is good because certain things that are true from an English perspective are plain different and non-neutral from another culture point of view. To put it bluntly, the words mean different things, they have different conotations denying people a resource like that is like denying that languages differ and that languages reflect a culture.
The UN has a mother language day. This day is to celebrate the diversity of the cultures of the world. All languages have a need for good information, that is what wikimedia aims to provide. The argument that the Dutch can read and write English and do not their own wikipedia is great. It only reminds me of a recent tiff I was in, where I was accused of not being able to express myself in English... So please allow me to read and write in Nederlands and, I will not be asking for a wikipedia in Westfries. :) And I do apologize for my poor English (or was it apologise ...)
I would almost accept your point if you agree to only read French or Chinese in future. You will find how much it will divorce you from the culture that you live in.
Thanks, GerardM