Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's pretty simple.

If there were more Norweigan editors then I'd expect to see more content about things that are "notable" within Norweigan history and culture.

Replace Norweigan with African American, female, etc. and you'll see how having more diverse editors would lead to more diverse content.



> If there were more Norweigan editors then I'd expect to see more content about things that are "notable" within Norweigan history and culture.

Like what though? Here's [1] the Portal on Norway, there are hundreds of articles on Norway and Norwegian culture. From what I can see, the Norwegian Wikipedia does not cover Norway that much more, even though you can reasonably expect that it's primarily authored by Norwegians.

There are fewer but still hundreds of pages about e.g. Zimbabwe, its history, culture, politics, demographics etc.

I fail to see what's being not presented there. I understand the concern that it may be too USA-centered, and to a small degree it probably is, but I don't believe it's anywhere near the proportions it's made out to be, and I don't believe that it would significantly shift, because it's absolutely not a special interest community that covers only their ideas. And given that the US is the lone super power right now, militarily, culturally and economically, it is to be expected that it is very well covered, even in other language versions. It's somewhat important to everyone on earth how the US works. It's less important how Liechtenstein or Lesotho are organized, and either has their own history, but their history isn't strongly intertwined with recent world history.

The super vast majority are articles that are global (in any and all meanings) in nature, explaining scientific concepts and history. You may argue that, since Wikipedia's goal is to represent the common consensus of scientists that these topics would be different if e.g. Zimbabwe had been the world's super power for the last 70 years, and I partially agree, but far from completely. We'd see a lot more information about Zimbabwean wild life, nature and environment, but we'd still see articles on lasers, genetics, space travel, the history of Arabic numerals, because there's really no reason to believe that Zimbabwean scientists wouldn't have looked into these things etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Norway


> Like what though?

Like more articles about people/events/places/traditions that many Norwegians consider to be notable.

I don't know if you're intentionally being difficult, but the post you originally replied to had links to an article and some previous discussion about pages on female scientists coming under more scrutiny than pages about male scientists.

I just used Norwegians as an example of a cultural group. Replace it with female, African American, latinx, trans, etc. and you can see how if more people from those groups are a part of the site, then there will be more articles about people/events/places/traditions that are notable to those cultural groups. Because those editors will more likely recognize such articles as being notable to a non-trivial amount of people, whilst your average white guy might think it's something trivial just because they've never heard of it and "don't see what the big deal is".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: