Editing Talk:Anglicism (section)

== Built in bias? ==

The detail within sections that discuss different languages' absorption of Anglicisms is often wildly disproportionate to the relative importance of the languages themselves; e.g. German Anglicisms are discussed in three lines, French in thirty-four. Meanwhile, other major languages, such as Spanish and Russian, are not represented at all. This may be one of those articles where Wiki's 'all may contribute' principle runs counter to its rules on neutral POV, since a native speaker, being best informed about his language's nuances, and likely most interested in it, is thus far more likely to contribute regarding it. Short of a committee of polyglot linguists even-handedly and comprehensively redesigning the whole article, I see no way to oust its inevitable lack of balance.
[[User:Humboles|Humboles]] ([[User talk:Humboles|talk]]) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

: {{re|Humboles}}, what looks to you like bias, is actually more about the fact Wikipedia is a volunteer project; that is, people work on what they feel like working on. You can't complain to their "boss", either, because there is no boss. If you perceive a bias, then [[WP:SOFIXIT]] as the essay says. That is, just step up as a volunteer, and [[WP:BOLD|make the improvements to the article that you would like to see]], while of course paying attention to [[WP:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]].  Also, there is [[WP:NODEADLINE]], and there is never a moment when the article is "done", as it can always be worked on by other editors. 
: That said, I don't disagree with you about the effects of native speakers, but rather than trying to make the article perfect by a committee of polyglot linguists, one of the principles of crowdsourcing and collaboration is just to make incremental improvements bit by bit. You can be part of that incremental improvement, if you're willing.  Even a wholesale redesign of the article is possible; although since other editors have worked on it for a period of fifteen years, it would be a courtesy to discuss a wholesale redesign here on the Talk page first, before engaging in it. If you have good ideas about how to improve it and a knack for persuasion, I don't see why your ideas wouldn't carry the day. 
: But in order to persuade others, you have to come up with a plan and propose it here first. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's easy to point out the problems one sees in an article, but proposing a framework for improvement requires a bit of work. Are you willing to take that step? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

:: Thank you, Mathglot. I have long been, earlier under different aliases, an experienced Wiki editor, detail-amending and contributing, yet occasionally drastically overhauling — in particular, over-lengthy film summaries. A detailed response to your points would break Wiki guidelines by making this more a forum discussion than a Talk entry, but briefly: the Wiki method makes it impossible to retain balance in a page such as 'Anglicism', partly for the reasons of serendipitous taste that you mentioned, but also because no one contributor can, root-and-branch, overhaul such a broad-spectrum article. Could any individual, personally, possess the comprehensive knowledge needed regarding the current, subtle and ever-changing idioms in all the major languages? I ''ironically'' theorized that such a task would take the co-ordinated efforts of a specialist panel of native speakers, who could agree which languages got what editorial space, then regularly review the whole. ''But, yes, I know this simply is not the Wiki way — and, no, I do not propose it should be.'' The consequence is that we must accept a chronic lack of balance is endemic in Wikipedia articles such as this. We live with that — but new users must appreciate this is inevitable since (to reinforce your own point) there is no over-arching Britannica-style editorial structure. An example pitfall would be to equate, for example, the length of a contribution for any language — or its total omission! — with its relative Anglicism content, or as a measure of its comparitive importance as a language. [[User:Humboles|Humboles]] ([[User talk:Humboles|talk]]) 12:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)