World Wonders & World Heritage

Seems I'm not the only one to grumble about the final vote in the New 7 Wonders of the World campaign. Agreeing with my anger about Angkor, one reader wrote, "I thought that was the clear winner, but was afraid that it wouldn’t get enough votes because either people haven’t been there or no one in Cambodia has Internet access (let alone media coverage to even know there is a vote taking place).

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is mad, too. In the media blitz surrounding the World Wonders campaign, a lot of people confused the World Wonders list with UNESCO'S World Heritage List. So, to avoid any "damaging confusion," UNESCO issued a press statement describing the different approaches and goals of the two programs.

The tempest boils down to this: The New 7 Wonders campaign was the private undertaking of film producer Bernard Weber. The list reflects only the opinions of people with access to the Internet.

In contrast, UNESCO works to help countries identify, protect, and preserve World Heritage sites. The World Heritage List names 851 cultural and natural sites selected by a committee of country representatives. When invited to participate in the New 7 Wonders campaign, UNESCO refused. For UNESCO, historic preservation is not a popularity contest.

What do you think?