4 ms·
It's kind of sad of anglo-centric their pages are for some countries and historical events. I'm European, and even I can see some bias in there.
by spookie 4y ago
It's kind of sad of anglo-centric their pages are for some countries and historical events. I'm European, and even I can see some bias in there.
- throwaway2037 4y agoI could believe it. Next you see it, can you share a link here? It might be nice for discussion.
- Blikkentrekker 4y agoIndeed, that's a common issue too with historical events. But even scientific things. I can't read Mandarin, but I've been told many times that many subjects on many linguistic concepts on the Chinese Wikipedia look very different and that seemingly English-language linguistics and Chinese-language linguistics can come to very different conclusions from the same data. That of course is troubling in and of itself, but it should be featured proportionally. From what I understand, among English-language communication, the Altaic language hypothesis has essentially completely bee discredited, but many linguists in Asia apparently still consider it plausible. — I don't have the expertise to judge who is wrong and who is right here, but English-language Wikipedia should either give those voices a proportional weight, or, at least note that it is discredited among English-language linguists, as right now it arouses the impression that it's globally discredited.