"History's written by the victors" seems like a stretch that's only kinda truth-adjacent in some situations, e.g. where one side gets wiped out and there're no third-party observers, etc.. But, it doesn't hold in most cases, e.g. in World War 1 or 2, nor basically any modern war, where most of the losing side survives and tells its stories too. Heck, in the US, some folks complain about how much the loser of the American Civil War got to push its narratives. [From StackExchange's History site](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-... ).

Anyway, critique of that quote aside, how's it relevant to Wikipedia?

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?

There's a Chinese Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia

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..?