It’s all a bit silly, any global encyclopedia is almost imperialist by definition. Organizing and categorizing knowledge in a centralized way is at its roots an imperialist project (see the history of science and its development alongside the rise of the British power for example). So might as well pick the best tools for the job (English and well known programming languages). Doing otherwise makes it seem like someone didn’t completely think through their motivations. Non-imperialists don’t build encyclopedias of global knowledge. Let local stay local.

No. A global encyclopaedia might be global, but does not have to be imperialist, if the control over the content and the ability to contribute to the encyclopaedia is not limited to imperial structures.

Unless you equate "global" with "imperialist", in which case your statement is true by definition. But then everything that is done on a global scale is necessarily imperialist, and then one of the two terms does not seem useful anymore.

Equity can be global.

That would require the equation to be wrong.

> In my opinion this project is about 20 layers too abstract to actually produce working and useful software. But it's not virtue signaling if they're actually trying to do the thing, is it? Virtue signaling is when you act like you're doing something virtuous and then don't.

If one belives avoiding well-known tools and (english-based) programming languages is likely to actually make it easier for contributors using those languages to contribute to Wikipedia in those languages, then it's real. If one believes that this is not actually going to result in more usable tools, and the intention of avoiding tools from English-speaking Westerners is signalling rather than actually getting better results, then it's virtue signalling.

By that account, above discussion of what is and isn't virtue signalling is itself virtue signalling--mere platitudes rather than contributing to actionable outcomes.

I'd think us, or any foundation for that matter, should be able to lay out an agenda before outcomes are achieved, how (un)realistic they may be. A dot on the horizon to aim for, not necessarily achievable but a heading at least.

> By that account, above discussion of what is and isn't virtue signalling is itself virtue signalling--mere platitudes rather than contributing to actionable outcomes.

If you're just saying it for the upvotes, yes. If you're actually trying to get people to shift their efforts towards more effective things (such as translation support libraries that don't insist on avoiding English at every level), then no, it's legitimate effort.

> I'd think us, or any foundation for that matter, should be able to lay out an agenda before outcomes are achieved, how (un)realistic they may be. A dot on the horizon to aim for, not necessarily achievable but a heading at least.

An aim is fine. It's a question of sincerity.

It's more vice-signalling. His complaint is a reaction to try and show others he doesn't care about the thoughtfulness behind the original statement.

But they actually wrote that in English (while being fellows of Google - one of the most imperial corporations in existence - as I understand) and are sure to use a lot of existing - and English-based - tools to implement it. I mean, if they abandoned the whole Western English-based foundation they rest on - including Von Neumann architecture for computers they use, for example - and started building it from physical laws back up (oh wait, physical laws also mostly discovered by Westerners and they probably learned them in English, which already imbued them with the imperialist perspective) then maybe it could be recognized as a honest - if mind-bogglingly misguided - effort to expunge the presumed imperialist bias. Since it is never going to happen, it can not be anything but virtue signalling.