Reduce Content Gaps and Improve Global Coverage

There are broad content holes in both quality terms and global coverage of knowledge.

I disagree. We have getting on for 3 million articles in en:Wikipedia. Pretty much every major topic you can think of is covered. If our coverage of minor topics is uneven then this reflects our readership and editors. It is not a defect.

If neighbourhoods in London which have historic records going back a thousand years have longer articles than cities in the USA which were founded less than a hundred years ago that is not a defect. I'm going to try and edit now. Peas have a look and see what you make of my effort.

Can't put my finger on what needs to be said just now. I just know the current version isn't it.

This should say something about improving coverage of basic topics in all major languages rather than worrying that the article on Baptists is longer than that on Buddism (or vice versa). Can anyone come up with better wording?

Going to sleep on it and try again later.

You have to consider that the demographic biases run deeper than you might think. There's a ton of stuff on popular culture, current events, technology. But even if you ignore imbalances on topics of regional interest (e.g.: regional histories, politics, arts), I've found the articles about business (accounting, finance, management) to be sorely lacking. People may have created the articles, but the content on them is barely better than a dictionary definition.

I've done a major rewrite of some of these sections. Can you look see if you can edit it to make it better?

I've taken out "Diverse viewpoints" as IMHO we want only want a neutral viewpoint. We do however need contributors with a more diverse set of experience and knowledge.

OK?

Not all of our projects have a requirement for a neutral point of view. :)

Yes but I still think my rewrite is better. Wikipedia is our flagship project and I don;t want to give the trolls any coer for their attacks on it.

I'm actually rather fond of the idea behind diverse viewpoints, but maybe it's not expressed well.

What we're looking for is this: we have gaps in our understanding of issues because of the fact that our editing base is largely not diverse - predominately educated young men from the global north. We're missing a diversity of ideas and thoughts on talk pages, for instance, that help us coalesce around a better understanding of topics. Perhaps "point of view" is the wrong verbiage, but I feel pretty strongly that the idea is correct. Can you help me phrase it better?

See my rewrite. I think it covers what you said - increase the participation of under represented groups to improve coverage of areas that are ot well covered at the mment.

"Not all of our projects have a requirement for a neutral point of view." Are you sure? Which projects don't?

Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikicommons

See en:q:WQ:NPOV and en:s:WS:WIW#NPOV. Commons and Wikispecies don't have NPOV policies because it's irrelevant to their scope.

While we may have articles, this illustration demonstrates that the quality of those articles isn't even... that can result in content holes.... if something is poorly explained, that's a content hole. The mere existence of an article does not a high-quality article make.

Saying that it is reflective of our base is not good enough: we're trying to be encyclopedic, not just the encyclopedia of the stuff we know about easily.