Well I can tell you for a fact that the articles about kosovo are not neutral at all, mike
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > In a discussion elsewhere [1], the question of how WIkipedia compares > for neutrality with other encyclopedias came up. > > We've been compared with other encyclopedias for accuracy before. Has > anyone ever tried to compare us on neutrality? Or whatever > roughly-synonymous measure doesn't automatically bias the test towards > Wikipedia, which has it as a fundamental content policy. > > Compare Britannica. They've never touted themselves as neutral - > they've touted themselves as *authoritative*.[2] The Wikipedia article > on EB notes that EB has been increasingly lauded as less culturally > biased with time, though it occurs to me that's just the sort of > aspect a Wikipedia writer would note. > > And how good a proxy for what readers actually want is neutrality? I > think it's excellent, but I could be wrong. Do readers actually just > want to be told? > > How would you compare the neutrality of Wikipedia with that of > something else, in a meaningful and useful manner, such that the > framing of the question doesn't necessarily pick the winner before > you've started? > > > - d. > > [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ho/seq_rerun_politics_is_the_mindkiller/422w > [2] Modulo the EB content disclaimer, which makes ours look mild. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
