Gerard Meijssen ti 2005/3/10 EP 05:22 sia-kong:
What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the language and reflects a culture.
I'd like to interpret the part about "reflecting a culture" along a specific line: "reflecting the encyclopedia needs of the particular readership." For example, the English article on "area" would surely mention the SI units but also Imperial units now outdated in many places. The equivalent Southern Min article would also deal at length with the SI units but be less interested in Imperial units. It might note, for example, the decline of their use in most Anglo-influenced countries and ex-colonies -- but without presenting a lengthy and largely irrelevant table on interconversions. It would also mention which empire we are talking about when we say "the Imperial units" (the Mongolians?). More to the point it would also mention other types of units used in Southern Min-speaking regions, notably the "kah" (used in Taiwan) and the "pheng" (Taiwan and some other places). Both of these would be unlikely to be mentioned at all in the English article (whose editors are not likely to be familiar with such local units). (Of course now that I have mentioned them, someone might well add them in English, but maybe not.) In short we always emphasize certain facets of knowledge and de-emphasize others, and cultural considerations are among the criteria used to decide which way to go. More radically, one might even argue that cultural factors limit the range of what we know we can emphasize or de-emphasize.
One reason why the idea of "One English Encyclopedia to Rule Them All" (a la Tokien) is deeply flawed.