The quote is relevant because it demonstrates that it is widely understood that history (“facts”) is not an absolute truth, but a collection of ostensibly-true pieces of information disseminated by one party.
To say that Wikipedia is not representative of its editors, is to say that history is not representative of the victors.
To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today?
> To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today?
However, even the English-Wikipedia's articles on China are likely to be disproportionately influenced by Chinese posters, even if they're a minority of the overall contribution-base.
That said, what's the potential relevance here? Is this purely about articles on politics, or..?
To say that Wikipedia is not representative of its editors, is to say that history is not representative of the victors.
To pick an example of a group that is somewhat insular: if the majority of Wikipedia editors were Chinese, would Wikipedia look as it does today? Would Wikipedia be an equally-as-accurate reflection on the west as Wikipedia is today?