[WikiEN-l] Category translation

Sun Jun 11 21:54:46 UTC 2006

Delirium wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Viewed 
>>separately the Wikipedias in different languages are bound to arrive at 
>>different NPOVs that are each strongly rooted in distinct cultural 
>>values.  A language with a small concentrated geographical territory is 
>>more likely to achieve a satisfactory NPOV, without the complicated 
>>arguments  that may be encountered with a widely dispersed language like 
>>English.  This broad range of neutralities helps keep things dynami
>>    
>>
>I'd say the opposite, unless we redefine "neutral" in some relativistic 
>way.  IMO, it is far more likely that the English article, due to having 
>participants from multiple viewpoints, will be neutral on any given 
>topic than that in a language without a very diverse speaker 
>population.  For example, which do you think is more likely to cover the 
>Bosnian war neutrally: the English-language Wikipedia, or the 
>Serbian-language Wikipedia?  The English Wikipedia has Serbs, Bosniaks, 
>Croats, and many neutral people; the Serb Wikipedia does not benefit 
>from nearly the same diverse population.
>
To be sure some degree of relativism is inevitable in NPOV, no matter 
how we define it.  The broader community that participates in the 
English WP is bound to bring in more diverse viewpoints.  The Serbian 
and Croatian WPs are likely to diverge in certain political areas with 
most contributors to either being satisfied to leave the other alone.  
Attempting to enforce some kind of absolute NPOV would involve 
confronting the majority viewpoint.  This creates a situation quite 
different from what would have been if we had insisted on a single 
Serbo-Croation WP.  I'm not arguing that the reality is ideal, just for 
recognizing that neutrality may be more difficult to attain on some WPs 
than on others.

Ec