This user went to Andover

This user attends or attended Stanford University.

This user attends or attended the
University of California, Berkeley.

A, B, and C

This user prefers the serial comma.

This user contributes using Firefox.

This user supports the United Nations.

This user supports the ACLU.

This user is interested in environmentalism.

This user reads The New York Times.

Wikipedia:Babel

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

zh-2

該用戶能以一般的中文進行交流。
该用户能以一般的中文进行交流。

th-2

ผู้ใช้คนนี้สามารถใช้ภาษาไทย ได้ในระดับปานกลาง.

lo-2

ຜູ້ໃຊ້ຄົນນີ້ສາມາດໃຊ້ພາສາລາວໃດ້ໃນລະດັບກາງ.

es-1

Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

Politics

Wikipedia is not a democracy, as has been stated elsewhere. But it definitely suffers from the tyranny of the majority. Indeed, on topics where a particular demographic is over-represented, it is difficult to find neutral, comprehensive, or accurate presentations of opposing viewpoints. Unless Wikipedia is willing to dedicate significant resources to "balance out" armies of POV editors slowly damaging the neutrality of multitudes of articles, well... I think all political or controversial topics should be scrapped. We should all discuss nitrogen, or photosynthesis, or Mars; and we should stop dedicating so much time to the back-and-forth of political debate, where even the simple creation of a sentence results in day-long strife.

To continue the relentless Partheon shots in just about every political topic risks great damage. The media will highlight how, for example, Politic XYZ is not represeted fairly, etc. And proponents of Politic XYZ will say, see, Wikipedia is crap... let's go and check out extreme-Politic-XYZ on some other Web site. Indeed: it is to the benefit of EVERYONE to present facts fairly, accurately, and without opinion. To do otherwise is a Pyrhhic victory.

And, remember, fair and neutral presentation of information requires more than just the basic facts. It requires careful analysis of sentence design, words used, appearance on the page, photographs used, quotations used, and so on.

As an example, in a recent article, it said "many countries are interested in this topic, including the United States and Iran." This sets-up a false comparison: it leads readers to believe that that topic has a good (US) and a bad (Iran) side. Better editing would include other neutral countries interested, or remove these specifics entirely.

And (add comment here if you like), what will happen when the POV pushers, particularly groups or agencies or divisions, HIRE their own little coterie of editors to do their will?

Travel

I have explored: (organized by flag type)

Cross Type:

Stripe Type:

Corner-Left Type:

Center Type:

Three Stripe Type:

Three Column Type:

Quadrant Type: