3 ms·
It’s all a bit silly, any global encyclopedia is almost imperialist by definition. Organizing and categorizing knowledge in a centralized way is at its roots an
by lovecg 3y ago
It’s all a bit silly, any global encyclopedia is almost imperialist by definition. Organizing and categorizing knowledge in a centralized way is at its roots an imperialist project (see the history of science and its development alongside the rise of the British power for example). So might as well pick the best tools for the job (English and well known programming languages). Doing otherwise makes it seem like someone didn’t completely think through their motivations. Non-imperialists don’t build encyclopedias of global knowledge. Let local stay local.
- vrandecic 3y agoNo. A global encyclopaedia might be global, but does not have to be imperialist, if the control over the content and the ability to contribute to the encyclopaedia is not limited to imperial structures. Unless you equate "global" with "imperialist", in which case your statement is true by definition. But then everything that is done on a global scale is necessarily imperialist, and then one of the two terms does not seem useful anymore. Equity can be global. That would require the equation to be wrong.