4 ms·

Your friends and family probably wouldn't participate in a debate about how to build an encyclopaedia that is representative of the world, not just the world ac

Your friends and family probably wouldn't participate in a debate about how to build an encyclopaedia that is representative of the world, not just the world according to a bunch of mostly middle class white nerds. If they did have an interest in such a debate, I am sure they would be capable of processing that statement. There's nothing intellectually controversial about Wikipedia's statement, to argue against it on the basis that it's impossible to parse seems anti-intellectual rather than... actually challenging the content of the statement. You may wish to argue that Wikipedia can simultaneously be an encyclopaedia that represents the world AND be an encyclopaedia mostly written by middle class white people, but that's a point that requires much more discussion than a hand-wavey statement about how this discussion isn't relevant to your friends and family.

thepasswordis 5y ago
If the content of the encyclopedia is meant to be a representation of objective facts, then why on earth could it matter what the race of the people writing it is? This sounds like straight up Nazi propaganda. The idea that races are so different that we literally inhabit separate realities is insane levels of bigotry.
- phphphphp 5y ago
  The hyperbole isn’t helpful. As has been highlighted time and time again, Wikipedia is the work of a relatively small amount of people and there is a great deal of bias because humans suffer from bias — regardless of their intentions. “History is written by the victors” is a famous phrase a reason — facts are a representation of the information we are most confident in, not truth.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    "History's written by the victors" seems like a stretch that's only kinda truth-adjacent in some situations, e.g. where one side gets wiped out and there're no third-party observers, etc.. But, it doesn't hold in most cases, e.g. in World War 1 or 2, nor basically any modern war, where most of the losing side survives and tells its stories too. Heck, in the US, some folks complain about how much the loser of the American Civil War got to push its narratives. [From StackExchange's History site](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-always-written-by-the-victors https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-... ). Anyway, critique of that quote aside, how's it relevant to Wikipedia?
    - phphphphp 5y ago
      The quote is relevant because it demonstrates that it is widely understood that history (“facts”) is not an absolute truth, but a collection of ostensibly-true pieces of information disseminated by one party. To say that Wikipedia is not representative of its editors, is to say that history is not representative of the victors. To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today?
      - _Nat_ 5y ago
        > To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today? There's a Chinese Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia However, even the English-Wikipedia's articles on China are likely to be disproportionately influenced by Chinese posters, even if they're a minority of the overall contribution-base. That said, what's the potential relevance here? Is this purely about articles on politics, or..?

thepasswordis 5y ago

If the content of the encyclopedia is meant to be a representation of objective facts, then why on earth could it matter what the race of the people writing it is? This sounds like straight up Nazi propaganda. The idea that races are so different that we literally inhabit separate realities is insane levels of bigotry.

phphphphp 5y ago
The hyperbole isn’t helpful. As has been highlighted time and time again, Wikipedia is the work of a relatively small amount of people and there is a great deal of bias because humans suffer from bias — regardless of their intentions. “History is written by the victors” is a famous phrase a reason — facts are a representation of the information we are most confident in, not truth.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  "History's written by the victors" seems like a stretch that's only kinda truth-adjacent in some situations, e.g. where one side gets wiped out and there're no third-party observers, etc.. But, it doesn't hold in most cases, e.g. in World War 1 or 2, nor basically any modern war, where most of the losing side survives and tells its stories too. Heck, in the US, some folks complain about how much the loser of the American Civil War got to push its narratives. [From StackExchange's History site](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-always-written-by-the-victors https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-... ). Anyway, critique of that quote aside, how's it relevant to Wikipedia?
  - phphphphp 5y ago
    The quote is relevant because it demonstrates that it is widely understood that history (“facts”) is not an absolute truth, but a collection of ostensibly-true pieces of information disseminated by one party. To say that Wikipedia is not representative of its editors, is to say that history is not representative of the victors. To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today?
    - _Nat_ 5y ago
      > To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today? There's a Chinese Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia However, even the English-Wikipedia's articles on China are likely to be disproportionately influenced by Chinese posters, even if they're a minority of the overall contribution-base. That said, what's the potential relevance here? Is this purely about articles on politics, or..?