" 
 ::Zuggernaut poses a good point, but also cuts to a very critical issue: how do we go about integrating new editors into our culture when the very nature of what constitutes evidence, neutrality, and civil discourse are radically different than our own? As an example of what I mean, if you take a look at many high quality, mainstream Indian newspapers, you'll see much more editorializing within regular ""factual"" stories.  Is there anything wrong with that?  Certainly notit was even common practice in US and European newspapers until fairly recently.  And what about the willingness to rely on mytho-religious or oral ""evidence"" as ""truth""?  Again, I'm not being disparaging hereI actually wish there were a way for Wikipedia to incorporate oral tradition and other non ""RS"" knowledge, but I know that we can't (or we devolve into endless, unsolvable arguments) and that most current users wouldn't want to, but the very different cultural mindset is making the issue challenging.  Now, this is obviously outside of the scope of Dougweller's talk page, but I actually ask these questions in seriousness.  This is not me saying ""this is an impossible goal"".  This is me saying ""This is a difficult goal, more difficult than I think we/the Foundation first thought.  How do we accomplish it""?  I've raised similar issues regarding copyvios and editors from some East Asian cultures (where copying isn't just allowed, it is often venerated as an act of great respect).  I think that many times we (i.e., those from the science, capitalist dominated West) tend to assume that our views evidence, intellectual property, and analysis are universal, when they are not; if we fail to account for differences, we inevitably drive away good faith contributors (which may, ultimately, be what we want to do, if we decide our core principles matter more).   "