Editing Encyclopedia:Measurements Debate (section)

==The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform==
:The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to make Americans do what Europeans think they ought to do.  The metric system is very simple and well worked out and easier to use, but for the US to adopt it requires us to change every board, piece of steel, bottle, can, screw, bolt, nut, and measuring device in a highly developed economy.  The US armed services have converted for the most part, some parts of the auto industry and others, including the US Bureau of Standards, that defines all US measurements in metric terms, but the incentive to change has to match the effort to change, and in the meantime, it will help immensely, and hurt not at all, if our articles remind people that a pound is about half a kilo and a meter is just over a yard.  And I still say your degrees are just too big for ordinary daily use.   All the world should be required to switch to Fahrenheit immediately.  [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]]
::''"The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the 9mm bullet."'' -- [[Dave Barry]]
:::I see the failure of the U. S. to adopt the metric system is more an issue of congressional foot-dragging than anything else.  A large part of industry would be very happy with such a change; it would be a very big saving for them not to have to maintain two separate sets of inventory for domestic and export use.  The soft drink industry has been ahead of the pack on this one - putting Coke in a 2-litre bottle hasn't poisoned.  There's also a trade protectionist aspect to the debate.  Industry in other countries is often not at all keen on the idea of a separate inventory to please the U.S.; that can be more of a bother than foregoing exports to the United States.  Thus in a protectionist minded government a failure to adopt metric saves American jobs.

:::Even if Congress were to take the necessary measures today, it would still take at least two full generations for metric to be fully operational. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 11:48 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)  

::::Out of interest - when did Britain start going metric? I was at school from 1987-2000 and I sure think in metric. Haven't got a clue what a pound weighs, gimme kilograms, and what are these "inch" things? =) [[user:AdamWill|AW]]

:::::The UK currency went metric in 1970 or so, as far as I'm aware the US currency has been metric for a long time. As far as weights and meassures, its been fairly recent that its officially metric but the metric system has been the only one taught for quite some time I think. I have to say the US system makes no sense at all, why divide things up into arbitrary amounts? Glad to hear there is at least some effort on their behalf to go metric, even if its not successful yet! [[User:EAi|EAi]] 05:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::The inch is the only part that makes sense.  It's subdivided by halves, so you get fractions of inverse powers of two--very handy usually.  The UK banned Imperial units in 1995.  They began metrication before WW1.  But then, so did the US.  —[[User:Daelin|Daelin]] @ <tt>2006–01–08 17:06Z</tt>


::"The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to make Americans do what Europeans think they ought to do". Likewise, it is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to make the rest of the world do what Americans think they ought to do. [[User:Ooooooooo|Ooooooooo]]