[WikiEN-l] Re: minor issue, but still a npov warning

[Anthere]

Stan Shebs a écrit:

> I think you're working a bit too hard to find bias here. The
> Huygens probe had 1/2 of the original article created 2.5 years
> ago, and sizewise would have been fine to split even then, but
> somehow not one of 600+ million Europeans could be bothered
> to make the split, or to propose it on the talk page.

No, I am not working too hard.
I am trying to report a reality, that you may perceive as "too hard to 
find bias"

However, what *really* is a measurement is the perception of our readers.

Right ?

Okay, this was reported to me by some french scientists.
They know Wikipedia, and are often impressed by it.
They were VERY impressed by the articles themselves. As I said, this was 
the most informative place aside from the couple of scientific reporting 
place. So, WE were a hit.

They were amused however, of that situation.
They are in no way anti-american, but they laughed at our non bias 
policy in this case.

They know about the neutrality policy and are aware of how hard it is.
The neutrality in this case, the so-called neutral report make them 
laugh their head of.

You may perceive this as "hard work", now, what I say is that these guys 
are our readers.
If we want to be perceived reasonably neutral, we just have to pay 
attention to this type of details.

That's all what I would like to say.
Consider it crap if you wish.


> The "bias" is that we work on what interests us. I've been
> digging figures of European history out of 1911EB lately,
> and half the time it's the first information about these
> in any language WP. We're just perennially short of people
> to do all the things we would like to get done.
> 
> Stan