[WikiEN-l] Re: A friendly Wired Article

Sun Mar 27 07:18:56 UTC 2005

Rick a écrit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>Quite a good article
>>
>>But also exactly the article which makes the world
>>believe this is an 
>>english project, run by english editors.
>>
>>Not exactly the kind of rumors all of us appreciate.
>>
>>
>>Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: TL at pipeline.com [mailto:TL at pipeline.com] 
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:22 PM
>>>To: Poor, Edmund W
>>>Subject: article of interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html
> 
>>>I'm sure EVERYONE has seen this article but me, by
>>
>>now. I feel like I
>>
>>>just got a big pat on the back for my 3 1/2 years
>>
>>of work! This writer
>>
>>>is very friendly and has captured the essence of
>>
>>Wikipedia much, MUCH
>>
>>>better than anyone else heretofore. I just wish
>>
>>his article was GFDL'd
>>
>>>so I could incorporate all his descriptions.
>>>
>>>Uncle Ed
>>>
>>>P.S. A non-Wikipedian sent me the URL
>>
> 
> You mean the parts that talk about the Wikipedias in
> 75 languages, and how the millionth article was in the
> Hebrew Wikipedia?
> 
> RickK

I mean... you know... a concept called NPOV, which tries to represent 
fairly the facts. In an encyclopedic article, that might have involved 
balancing the amount of text used to describe one part of the reality 
and the amount of text used to describe the other part of the reality.

Such as talking only of the english encyclopedia, during all the 
article, while talking of the other languages in one line. I do not 
think it is balanced. And I do not think people reading this article 
will keep in mind this information. And when people asking us for 
presentation tell me "why on earth would a french person represent and 
make presentation of wikipedia ???", I know that such comments comes 
from articles such as danny's one, which propagate a selected truth.

Articles such as danny one are good, but they have a serious pov stamp 
on them.

So, all I can say is "long live wikipedia which is able to be fair and 
neutral".