Reduce Content Gaps and Improve Global Coverage

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?

Filceolaire21:17, 31 May 2010

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

~Philippe (WMF)03:12, 1 June 2010

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.

Filceolaire06:47, 1 June 2010

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?

~Philippe (WMF)18:49, 1 June 2010

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.

Filceolaire19:25, 1 June 2010
 
 

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

Random ranting person07:42, 7 July 2010

Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikicommons

Filceolaire12:45, 7 July 2010

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.

Random ranting person18:18, 20 July 2010