[WikiEN-l] Cultural distinctions are accidental? Consensus among cultures is bad?

[Steve Bennett]

On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> these distinctions, and what distinctions were intended.  I always
> thought the English Wikipedia at least was supposed to be neutral with
> regard to culture.  Maybe English is the exception?

What does "neutral with regard to culture" mean? Let's look at a scale
of cultural-dependency that Wikipedia as a whole could situate itself
on:

1. Every WP is a certified translation of every other
2. Every WP is not a translation of every other, but such a situation
is recognised as being good, and efforts to improve synchronisation
are encouraged
3. Small deviations in content are allowed in the form of examples or
expressions. Eg, giving examples in English for "Personal pronoun" as
I alluded to.
4. Significant deviations in emphasis and coverage are allowed, to
match the interests of the readership. For example, a history of the
20th century for en WP would focus much more on the two world wars
than it would for languages of countries that weren't involved in
them. All information is still welcome, but may be moved into
subarticles as appropriate.
5. WPs can remove or trim information that is judged "irrelevant" to
its readership, such as removing 36,000 articles on French communes
and leaving only the top 20 French cities.
6. WPs can deliberately suppress information for cultural reasons,
such as not mentioning the Tianenmen Square massacre on zh WP or
referring to an independent country as merely being a "territory" of
another if the relevant government is claiming that it is (in the face
of international agreement to the contrary).

I think we probably sit around 4. Further refinements to this scale welcome.

Steve