[Wikipedia-l] stupid anglicization

[Brion VIBBER]

Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on 
> wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia 
> start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty 
> totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others 
> doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen.

Oh, would that that were true! You'd still be banned, and Wikipedia 
would be a much happier place.

> One of the things they 
> don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to 
> maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive 
> to eliminate those mistakes.

So, you think Wikipedia should be a totalitarian dictator of "correct" 
language usage? Interesting.

> Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should 
> always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is 
> america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the 
> country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we 
> are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"

No, my child, it amounts to "write in the language you're writing in, 
and note words in other languages when they are relevant." This is not 
anglo- or americo-centric, but a bit of common sense that applies 
equally well in every language.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)