> > really? It's a) not > particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to > >> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in >> > nature. >
Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and use the exact copy of en:wp in all other language wikipedias. And they have the support of Google for that. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]>wrote: > "The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and > written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any > such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' - really? It's a) not > particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to > English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in > nature. > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea > > > is the assumption that other languages should take articles from > > > en.wp. > > > > The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and > > written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any > > such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' > > > > Mark Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nobody's arguing here that language and culture have no relationship. > > > What I'm saying is that language does not equal culture. Many people > > > speak French who are not part of the culture of France, for example > > > the cities of Libreville and Abidjan in Africa. > > > > Africa is an unusual case given that it was so linguistically diverse > > to begin with, and that its even moreso in the post-colonial era, when > > Arabic, French, English, and Dutch remain prominent marks of > > imperialistic influence. > > > > Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is well suited for the dustbin of terrible ideas. It ranks right > > > up there with the notion that the European colonization of Africa was > > > for the sole purpose of civilizing the savages. > > > > This is the 'encyclopedic imperialism' counterargument. I thought I'd > > throw it out there. As Bendt noted above, Google has already been > > working on it for two years and has had both success and failure. It > > bears mentioning that their tools have been improving quite steadily. > > A simple test such as /English -> Arabic -> English/ will show that. > > > > Note that colonialism isnt the issue. It still remains for example a > > high priority to teach English in Africa, for the simple reason that > > language is almost entirely a tool for communication, and English is > > quite good for that purpose. Its notable that the smaller colonial > > powers such as the French were never going to be successful at > > linguistic imperialism in Africa, for the simple reason that French > > has not actually been the lingua franca for a long time now. > > > > > Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority languages is respect for > the > > > cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World > > > Point of View. What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English > > > Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers. Those > who > > > do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality. We > have > > > not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single > neutrality > > > from all projects. > > > > I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because > > its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis > > reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation > > of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such > > countries must be considered "NPOV." > > > > Casey Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a > > > student of languages. I think you might want to read an > > > article from today's Wall Street Journal, about how language > > > influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles). > > > > I had just a few days ago read Boroditsky's piece in Edge, and it > > covers a lot of interesting little bits of evidence. As Mark was > > saying, linguistic relativity (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been > > around for most of a century, and its wider conjectures were strongly > > contradicted by Chomsky et al. Yes there is compelling evidence that > > language does "channel" certain kinds of thought, but this should not > > be overstated. Like in other sciences, linguistics can sometimes make > > the mistake of making *qualitative judgments based on a field of > > *quantitative evidence. This was essentially important back in the > > 40s and 50s when people were still putting down certain > > quasi-scientific conjectures from the late 1800s. > > > > Still there are cultures which claim their languages to be superior in > > certain ways simply because they are more sonorous or emotive, or > > otherwise expressive, and that's the essential paradigm that some > > linguists are working in. > > > > -SC > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
