Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:58, 3 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Countering systemic bias and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 30 days

WikiProject Countering systemic bias was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 February 2014.

Please read the associated WikiProject page before posting here. If you notify the project, please be prepared to show how any potential bias could be resulting in a lack of balanced coverage, or some other omission, as described on the WikiProject page.

Enhanced interrogation techniques listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Enhanced interrogation techniques to be moved to Use of torture under George W. Bush. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge discussion at WP:FTN

There is a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard about the articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Please consider joining the discussion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOW people are being so awful. Sad that this is even up for discussion. PersusjCP (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Head of state

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Head of state regarding representation of countries in the lead photograph of the article. The thread is NPOV. Thank you. GeebaKhap (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia institutional bias and Covid-19

There is a conflict of interest when the scientific establishment itself is the subject of an article. Many topics about COVID-19, for example, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and COVID-19_lockdowns#Protests, challenge the biomedical and public health authorities themselves, which creates the possibility of a conflict of interest in the sources that are saying these hypotheses are lacking evidence.

OK, so there is no evidence in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. But those are the same institutions that benefit from the prevailing narrative due to their reliance on governments and drug companies who fund their research and refuse to allow certain investigations to be conducted.

Furthermore, there is a social pressure within the scientific community to not question the public health authority's recommendations due to the perception of an emergency that requires uniform compliance in order to save lives.

The politicalization of public health measures, including mask mandates and lockdowns, led to skepticism of dissenting voices, which were sometimes perceived as politically motivated or conspiratorial.

Publication bias occurs when research that aligns with the prevailing consensus is more likely to be published, while studies that challenge the mainstream narrative may be overlooked or rejected. Even well-credentialed scientists who challenge the mainstream view may struggle to have their work disseminated and may be dismissed by the public as dissenters or even conspiracists.

Scientific opinions that diverge from the official viewpoint are often perceived as politically motivated, which further reduce their acceptance in the mainstream.

The dominance of institutional bias, media influence, and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic created an environment where alternative perspectives were less likely to be incorporated into the mainstream narrative.

Key health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), shaped the public discourse, often marginalizing dissenting views. This institutional authority, coupled with the widespread media reliance on these organizations for guidance, led to the amplification of the prevailing narrative while sidelining other perspectives.

Furthermore, the media’s framing of certain issues, including vaccine efficacy and the severity of the pandemic, often reinforced the consensus view and downplayed criticism or alternative theories.

As a result, despite valid concerns raised by biomedical professionals, these factors collectively limited the visibility and influence of alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 |leading_zeros=0
 |indexhere=yes}}
-== [[Tyrannicide]] ==
-Some editors seem intent on removing material that has greater relevance to non-English-speaking, non-Christian, esoteric readers as [[WP:UNDUE]]; it's about a document that, according to sources, influence an underlying attitude in neopagan and New Age circles. I think the roots of this removal fall under systemic bias, so alerting this project. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
 == [[:Enhanced interrogation techniques]] listed at Requested moves==
@@ Line 37: / Line 33: @@
 [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Talk:Head of state]] regarding representation of countries in the lead photograph of the article.&nbsp;The thread is [[Talk:Head of state#NPOV|NPOV]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--> [[User:GeebaKhap|GeebaKhap]] ([[User talk:GeebaKhap|talk]]) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
-== Bias in Wikipedia Coverage of COVID-19 ==
+== Wikipedia institutional bias and Covid-19 ==
+There is a conflict of interest when the scientific establishment itself is the subject of an article. Many topics about COVID-19, for example, the [[COVID-19 lab leak theory]] and [[COVID-19 lockdowns#Protests|COVID-19_lockdowns#Protests]], challenge the biomedical and public health authorities themselves, which creates the possibility of a conflict of interest in the sources that are saying these hypotheses are lacking evidence.
+OK, so there is no evidence in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.  But those are the same institutions that benefit from the prevailing narrative due to their reliance on governments and drug companies who fund their research and refuse to allow certain investigations to be conducted.
+Furthermore, there is a social pressure within the scientific community to not question the public health authority's recommendations due to the perception of an emergency that requires uniform compliance in order to save lives.
+The politicalization of public health measures, including mask mandates and lockdowns, led to skepticism of dissenting voices, which were sometimes perceived as politically motivated or conspiratorial.
+Publication bias occurs when research that aligns with the prevailing consensus is more likely to be published, while studies that challenge the mainstream narrative may be overlooked or rejected.  Even well-credentialed scientists who challenge the mainstream view may struggle to have their work disseminated and may be dismissed by the public as dissenters or even conspiracists.
-'''Institutional bias''' refers to patterns of prejudice or discrimination that are embedded within the policies, practices, and decision-making processes of organizations. These biases are often unintentional and can be the result of longstanding cultural norms, structural inequalities, or systemic practices that favor certain groups over others. Over time, institutional bias can perpetuate inequality by favoring particular demographics, ideas, or approaches. Examples of institutional bias can be seen in many sectors, including education, law enforcement, healthcare, and government. Addressing institutional bias requires conscious efforts to implement more equitable practices, such as diversifying decision-making bodies, revising policies to remove implicit biases, and ensuring transparency in organizational processes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=CSR Initiatives to Address Bias in Peer Review |url=https://public.csr.nih.gov/publications/reportbias |access-date=2024-12-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Ethics, Bias, and Transparency for People and Machines |url=https://datascience.nih.gov/ethics-bias-transparency |access-date=2024-12-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Understanding and Addressing Systemic Bias in Academic Research |url=https://example.uc.edu/bias-research |access-date=2024-12-03}}</ref>
+Scientific opinions that diverge from the official viewpoint are often perceived as politically motivated, which further reduce their acceptance in the mainstream.
-'''Source dependence''' occurs when an institution or organization relies predominantly on a small set of authoritative or established sources for information, decision-making, and validation. While these sources may provide valuable insights, excessive reliance on them can limit the diversity of ideas considered and skew decision-making. This is particularly problematic when those sources reflect specific institutional, cultural, or industry biases, as it can reinforce narrow perspectives and overlook alternative solutions or viewpoints. In media, for instance, traditional news outlets have often relied on government or scientific authorities to shape their coverage, sometimes leading to incomplete or biased narratives. Newer media, including independent blogs and social media, have helped mitigate this bias by offering a wider range of voices and perspectives.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Friedman |first=Sharon M. |title=Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=67 |issue=5 |year=2011 |pages=55-65 |doi=10.1177/0096340211421587}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=CSR Initiatives to Address Bias in Peer Review |url=https://public.csr.nih.gov/publications/reportbias |access-date=2024-12-03}}</ref>
+The dominance of institutional bias, media influence, and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic created an environment where alternative perspectives were less likely to be incorporated into the mainstream narrative.
-''' Institutional Bias and Source Dependence in Wikipedia Coverage of COVID-19 '''
+Key health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), shaped the public discourse, often marginalizing dissenting views. This institutional authority, coupled with the widespread media reliance on these organizations for guidance, led to the amplification of the prevailing narrative while sidelining other perspectives.
-Wikipedia, as one of the most widely used sources of information, is not immune to the influences of institutional bias and source dependence, especially during major global events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The platform's reliance on secondary sources often means that articles are shaped by the perspectives of authoritative institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO), government health agencies, and large scientific organizations. These institutions, with their own set of priorities, policies, and guidelines, can influence how information is framed and represented on Wikipedia. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the coverage of topics such as virus transmission, preventive measures, and vaccine development was heavily influenced by recommendations from WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and similar bodies. This reliance on official sources can lead to institutional bias, as articles tend to reflect the consensus view of these organizations, while potentially sidelining alternative viewpoints or emerging research.
+Furthermore, the media’s framing of certain issues, including vaccine efficacy and the severity of the pandemic, often reinforced the consensus view and downplayed criticism or alternative theories.
-The emphasis on "trusted" and "reliable" sources means that Wikipedia often depends on a narrow range of publications and entities, including mainstream media outlets and established scientific institutions, to validate the information presented. This source dependence can limit the diversity of perspectives in articles, especially when dissenting voices or unorthodox viewpoints are either underrepresented or excluded. During the COVID-19 crisis, for instance, while Wikipedia articles largely reflected the dominant narrative promoted by the scientific community, certain alternative explanations, emerging criticisms of public health strategies, and even new theories were sometimes under-discussed or omitted, reflecting the platform’s reliance on a select group of sources.
+As a result, despite valid concerns raised by biomedical professionals, these factors collectively limited the visibility and influence of alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. [[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]] ([[User talk:Lardlegwarmers|talk]]) 10:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-Additionally, the heavy involvement of organizations like WHO and CDC in curating and providing information for Wikipedia articles during the pandemic may have helped ensure accuracy and trustworthiness in the presentation of data. However, it also led to the entrenchment of particular interpretations of events and policies. While the aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view, its dependence on sources that dominate public discourse can lead to biased portrayals of critical issues, especially when those sources themselves may have inherent biases due to their institutional affiliations . [[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]] ([[User talk:Lardlegwarmers|talk]]) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)