Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 661:
Line 661: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:41, January 25, 2008
, 02:41, January 25, 2008#46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise
And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)
And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)
== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==
I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).
For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.
WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.
I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)