3 ms·
If more language editions relied on Abstract Wikipedia as the central source of truth, then this dominant point of view could replace alternative perspectives.
by ceilingcorner 5y ago
If more language editions relied on Abstract Wikipedia as the central source of truth, then this dominant point of view could replace alternative perspectives. But Vrandečić countered that each volunteer community could decide for itself whether Abstract Wikipedia should be used as a baseline.
That sounds about as likely as “every country can decide whether to be affected by English-language media.”
This drive toward constant universalization is scary and it’s only going to make Wikipedia even more of a Western worldview project. We need to be heading in the opposite direction. You can be certain that China or India or whomever else will block Wikipedia rather than let western NGOs continue to define the narratives in their respective countries.
- thinkingemote 5y agoIt also leaves open the later mandate of removing opt-in. One can easily imagine a large international crisis where truth is relative depending on where you are but where writing about something might be deemed as dangerous and harmful misinformation which has to be erased. Imagine Wikipedia during WW2 for example for conflict. It's an inverse tower of babel situation - a kind of hubris where the aim of reducing differences leads to a greater evil. The hubris is that clever westerners think its possible to fit everyone into the same way of mind and if that happens then they will touch heaven.
- Isinlor 5y agoChina already blocks Wikipedia since 2015 and has it's own communist world view project. I don't see how Wikipedia can accommodate Chinese world view were facts are denied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia#Blocking_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia#Blocking_of_... Wikipedia should absolutely remain Western world view project.