Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:BIAS|WT:CSB}}
For an archive of some of the discussion that led to this project, see [[Wikipedia:CROSSBOW]]. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 20:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|
----
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias}}
[[Image:Crossbow_diagram.png|right|thumb|current state of image]]
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-02-19/WikiProject report|writer=[[User: Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]||day=19|month=February|year=2014}}
{{tmbox |image=[[File:Question book-new.svg|50x40px]]|text=Please read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|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.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 24
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== [[:Enhanced interrogation techniques]] listed at Requested moves==
[[:Image:Crossbow_diagram.png]]: I don't really care about the outdated ''name'' of this, but the image itself needs to be altered to remove the word "CROSSBOW" (in "Area targetted by CROSSBOW": should just be "Area targetted"). Can someone take this on? I'd really like to see this already dealt with before we publicly announce this as a WikiProject. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 23:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]A [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|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 [[Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques#Requested move 26 September 2024|here]].<!-- Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques#Requested move 26 September 2024 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 07:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
<br clear="all">
:<small>To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] for this WikiProject.</small>


== [[Traditional ecological knowledge]] and [[traditional knowledge]] discussion at [[WP:FTN]] ==
:I hope this isn't a controversial idea, but can we just abandon the image -- I just don't like the whole idea of a "weapon" "targetting" certain deficient areas as a metaphor for improving Wikipedia. Thanks, [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] 00:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Traditional_ecological_knowledge|a thread]] at the [[WP:FTN|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. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 00:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree though could there be another image somewhere to break the text up? That's perhaps a more controversial idea than getting rid of this one... -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham &#9786;]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 00:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:WOW people are being so awful. Sad that this is even up for discussion. [[User:PersusjCP|PersusjCP]] ([[User talk:PersusjCP|talk]]) 03:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, feel free to do whatever. The same Venn diagram minus the military metaphor would be fine by me, but so would all sorts of things. And if someone can identify some ''appropriate'' existing images to add, please go for it. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 00:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


== [[Talk:Head of state]] ==
New image:
[[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)
[[Image:Systemic_bias_venn.jpg|center|frame|Venn diagram describing area of interest.]]


== Wikipedia institutional bias and Covid-19 ==
== "would normally be longer" ==


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.
I've taken the liberty of deleting from the list of the concerns of this project the phrase "Subjects which would normally be longer in other encyclopaedias." It's awfully vague, and I don't think it's useful. I've added one remark, reminding people that there already is a [[Wikipedia:Requests for expansion]]. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 00:02, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


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.
== Comments eagerly solicited ==


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.
I've done about what I can to set this up as a project. My inclination is to give about 48 hours for comments and revisions by the other people who have been actively involved in this, then announce it on the Village Pump, link it into the list of WikiProjects, maybe even add it to the template on maintenance tasks (what do people think of this last possibility)?


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.
Anyway, I've put most of today into putting this together. It's time for someone else to weigh in. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 00:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


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.
== "Third World" ==


Scientific opinions that diverge from the official viewpoint are often perceived as politically motivated, which further reduce their acceptance in the mainstream.
Can I just point out that the term "Third World" is very US/Euro-centric and is frowned upon by globalist organisations/academics. Alternatives include "The South", "Majority World" and "Developing World"; can we agree on standard alternative to use, please? -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham &#9786;]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 00:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


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.
:"Developing world" is a good alternative. [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]])]] 03:03, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


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.
: Fine by me. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 05:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


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.
== When is a to-do article done enough? ==


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)
Thrilled to see this as an official project. Kudos to the organizers!!


== Systemic bias in Wikipedia discussions, in light of prejudice ==
I'm working, bit by bit, to improve [[Smith College]]. It is by no means done, but I'm pleased to report it is no longer a stub with an unannotated list of alumnae. :) What I'm wondering is, how will we decide when it's good enough to come off of our to-do list here? And how should I indicate that when/if we do?


Hi, I only recently came across this project - interestingly, it didn't come up in the research I did for a [[User:Oolong/injustice|very relevant essay]]. I guess Wikipedia is such a huge place that it's hard not to miss a lot (and WikiMedia is even bigger)!
I will probably dig into [[Spelman College]] next if nobody beats me to it. &mdash;[[User:Bsktcase|Bsktcase]] 02:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Something I've been wondering about is whether Wikipedia has any functioning mechanism to counter the tendency for editors to get burned out on editing particular pages ''due to the behaviour of other editors.'' For example, bullying, [[chauvinism]] or outright bigotry have a well-established tendency to push out people belonging to relatively marginalised groups - something I have observed on Wikipedia's autism-related pages over a number of years. I imagine this also helps explain the perennial male-dominance of this site!
:I think we need some way to monitor what we are doing, e.g. stub to article, stub created, featured article status. :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 04:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Of course, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that consensus should be reached among the editors who show up to a page, and that, for example, "[[Wikipedia:Canvassing|notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way]]" is considered inappropriate. But faced with prejudice, stonewalling and so on, editors from more marginalised groups tend to just stop showing up over time. Do we have a way of countering that, besides the laborious dispute resolution mechanisms and obviously the slow influx of new editors over time? [[User:Oolong|Oolong]] ([[User talk:Oolong|talk]]) 18:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm hoping the comments area next to each article on the project page will help with this. We'll probably want to "rotate" what gets put on the shorter to-do list. If someone wants to suggest some "canonical" statuses for the comments section (as I did for [[Wikipedia:translation]]) that would be great. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 05:55, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

== Structures ==
What about creating a template like the COTW template, but that specifically tags an article as being under active development by this wikiproject? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude]] 07:06, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

: I think that is a great idea as it also would serve to bring contributors to the project. In fact something similiar got created in response to this this [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#.22Important_stub.22_template|village pump discussion]]. Currently [[Template:Importantstub]] is up for deletion. So I think we ought to save it from deletion and amend so it refers to this wikiproject. Its not quite what you are talking about, but perhaps we need a stub template and work in progress template :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 07:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Location of the to-do list ==
I feel it is important the todo list is the first thing someone sees when browsing the project page; so that potential contributors are can see at one glance that it is an active project and well worth involving themselves with. Usability research on the internet shows very clearly that most people do not scroll down a page, unless their first view of a page grabs their attention. I think the to-do list should be treated as an advertisment as well as active tool. The current location of the to-do list (below the table of contents) means it is out of sight and so out of mind. [[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 07:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I suggest placing the to-do list ala the regional noticeboards, with the to-do list at the top of the main page (i.e. [[Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board]], with all the discussions going under that. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 08:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::I'd agree. In fact, I think a lot of the project pages could be based on the regional noticeboards. For instance, each project could have a COTW subpage. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 09:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Current direction of page ==

I had to return to comment about the astonishing direction the page in taking. The page as it stands is completely contrary to what I envisaged when I started the project. It has been watered down to the point of irrelevance. The idea was to concentrate on subjects which fall OUTSIDE the systemic bias zone. The current page seems mainly about filling some missing pieces INSIDE the zone. The bias noted was primarily towards American, European and Developed Countries. Look at the list of names on the page and you find 95% of them are from these countries! It's a joke. The page should be renamed 'Encouraging Systemic Bias'. Completely contrary to the original idea.

It's as if a botanist, instead of searching far and wide for new plants, has just taken a few steps to the other side of his garden - and then congratulated himself for his adventurousness. Writing about US, Euro and Developed countries and people adds to the bias.

Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has said he plans to create a printed version of the Wikipedia to distribute for free in the Developing World. What will people in these countries think when there's more articles on Middle Earth than their own countries? And what will they say if we claim to have tried to address this problem by writing about.... Joan Jett..?

The [[Guinea-Bissau Civil War]] doesn't even have it's own article, and has only two or three sentences in the whole of Wikipedia. [[PJ Harvey]] has a reasonably large article - and yet we are asked by this page to concentrate on PJ Harvey - it's insane! (and I say that as someone who went to Harveys early gigs)

The idea for the page at the moment seems to be that topics are be chosen on individual basis. Logic dictates that more popular topics will be chosen. Instead of a popularity contest, there needs to be a systematic mechanism for choosing subjects. I have outlined such a mechanism below. A popularity contest just chooses popular subjects - and if you're writing 'against' systemic bias, then who cares about those subjects. --[[User:Xed|Xed]] 12:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Xed: I was willing to stay out of the way of what you envisioned if you were willing to follow it through. I still am. I'm ''not'' willing to engage repeatedly in debate with someone who wants to sit on the sidelines and tell other people that they are not doing the right work. I literally know nothing about the [[Guinea-Bissau Civil War]]. I can't suggest topics I don't know about. I will, of course, add this to the list of suggested articles &mdash; it's obviously appropriate &mdash; but why didn't you do this yourself?

:At the time I made up a to-do list, there were exactly two Africa-related topics that ''anyone'' had actually suggested in the course of this discussion. The article we singled out for collaboration ([[Congo Civil War]]) is one that you and I presumably both agree is a priority. The other was [[Tuareg]]), which I also put on the to-do list. If you want to suggest ten, twenty, thirty worthwhile Africa-related topics, great, and I am sure they will get rather high priority. If you want to sit on the sidelines and criticize others for not knowing the terrain well enough to suggest such topics, then you are nothing but a useless scold. And if you want to assert that topics related to women and African-Americans are, in general, adequately covered in Wikipedia, most of my likely responses would violate the code about ''ad hominem'' remarks, so I will restrain myself.

:Again, if you want to actively contribute in areas related to the developing world, great! If you want to suggest topics in that realm fine. If you want to sit on the sidelines and heckle... once again, I'll restrain myself, but read between the lines. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 23:57, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

== Suggested direction ==


This is a rough idea of how I see the project working. Ethan Zuckerman ([http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethan weblog]) has supplied us with a list of companies that he has calculated receive least attention, using his [http://h2odev.law.harvard.edu/ezuckerman Global Attention Profile] resource:

#Benin
#Burkina Faso
#Burundi
#Cameroon
#Central African Republic
#Chad
#Comoros
#Congo Dem. Rep.
#Congo Rep.
#Cote d'Ivoire
#Ethiopia
#Gambia
#Georgia
#Guinea
#Guinea Bissau
#Kyrgyzstan
#Madagascar
#Malawi
#Mali
#Mozambique
#Myanmar
#Niger
#Papua New Guinea
#Suriname
#Tajikistan
#Tanzania
#Togo
#Turkmenistan
#Western Sahara

[[Image:Bias_map_small.jpg|center|frame|The missing pieces of the jigsaw.]]

I suggest the systemic bias section should be a small box be made up of 6 columns, with 5 items in each column. This would be a box on the 'Community portal page'. (A link would go to main page, which would also have this box, as well as more detailed information)

Three of the columns should have as the first item one of the countries above. The remaining items in these columns should relate to this country, with items 2 and 3 being the History and Politics of that country. The next column would have the name of a popular language (other than english) used by Wikipedia (German, Spanish, Japanese etc), and below it 4 subjects which have more detailed entries in that language than in English. The next colum female oriented. The sixth column would be.... I don't know.

So it would look roughly like (design is evolving):
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|+
|-
! colspan="3" style="background:#e66521;" | [[Image:Mini_systemic_orange.gif|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <font color=white>Countries</font>
! colspan="1" style="background:#6521e6;" | [[Image:Mini_systemic_purple.gif|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font color=white>Language-German</font>
! colspan="1" style="background:#92bc4d;" | [[Image:Mini_systemic_lime.gif|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font color=white>-oriented</font>
! colspan="1" style="background:#0066ff;" | <font color=white>Other</font>
|-
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Benin]]
!style="background:#f6ece6;" | [[Burkina Faso]]
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Burundi]]
!style="background:#d6cce6;" | ?
!style="background:#ddeac9;" | ?
!style="background:#ddebff;" | ?

|-
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Politics of Benin|Politics]]
!style="background:#f6ece6;" | [[Politics of Burkina Faso|Politics]]
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Politics of Burundi|Politics]]
!style="background:#d6cce6;" | ?
!style="background:#ddeac9;" | ?
!style="background:#ddebff;" | ?
|-
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[History of Benin|History]]
!style="background:#f6ece6;" | [[History of Burkina Faso|History]]
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[History of Burundi|History]]
!style="background:#d6cce6;" | ?
!style="background:#ddeac9;" | ?
!style="background:#ddebff;" | ?
|-
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Mathieu Kérékou]]
!style="background:#f6ece6;" | [[Music_of_Burkina_Faso | Music]]
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Esther Kamatari]]
!style="background:#d6cce6;" | ?
!style="background:#ddeac9;" | ?
!style="background:#ddebff;" | ?
|-
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Dahomey]]
!style="background:#f6ece6;" | [[Mossi]]
!style="background:#f6dccc;" | [[Kirundi_language | Kirundi]]
!style="background:#d6cce6;" | ?
!style="background:#ddeac9;" | ?
!style="background:#ddebff;" | ?
|}


[[Image:Anti-systemic_flag_orange.jpg|right|90px|Logo for '''Countries''' section of '''Countering systemic bias''']]
[[Image:Anti-systemic_flag_purple.png|right|90px|Logo for '''Language''' section of '''Countering systemic bias''']]
[[Image:Anti-systemic_flag_lime.png|right|90px|Logo for '''Female-oriented''' section of '''Countering systemic bias''']]

The countries would rotate every week, so that the next group of countries would be Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad. As would the 4th column language. The main page would have more in-depth details, including a list of the above countries, main languages of wikipedia etc--[[User:Xed|Xed]] 12:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I think this is an excellent setup. How about putting this in some sort of table, so it can be put up the top of the page? [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 12:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::While I think Xed's emphasis on the poorest and least represented countries is a valid part of the systemic bias within Wikipedia, it is just one aspect, there are other aspects of systemic bias which are equally important. As I see it this project is a broad church of people interested enough in the problem of systemic bias to do something about it. To my mind Xed's suggestion would make a superb child wikiproject from this one; when we get enough critical mass that we can so to speak procreate; but for the moment lets spend so more time defining the problem space, before we jump to a definitive solution. I rather suspect what we focus on in three months time will be quite different to what we are focusing on now, as we begin to identify the major holes in Wikipedia. :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 14:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::I agree. If you look at the project page, it would appear that women's studies is at least as big an area as countries. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 14:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::From the list, all I conclude is that it is a lot easier to come up with Women and Ethnic Minority subjects that have been underdeveloped, than ones from Africa and Asia. Personally, I am most keen to work on articles on major events in the African and Asian countries mentioned above. Its just I don't know many of them (I guess you'd call it my systematic bias!). Even to produce a list of major areas need knowledge [[User:Cgfoz|ChrisF]] 23:25, 5 Oct 2004 (GMT)

:::::As far as I can see, Xed's table gives room for both women's and ethnic minority subjects, as well as pursuing the countries that need the most help. One thing which we may want to do here is dig through the histories of the respective national articles, and try and find some of the editors that specialise in that area. They may then be able to help us pinpoint articles that need targeting. I can certainly help with Central Asia in this respect, but we'll need people with the appropriate knowledge to point us in the right direction (like with the Guinea-Bissau civil war) on certain others. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:53, 28 December 2024


Enhanced interrogation techniques listed at Requested moves

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

Information icon 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

[edit]

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]

Systemic bias in Wikipedia discussions, in light of prejudice

[edit]

Hi, I only recently came across this project - interestingly, it didn't come up in the research I did for a very relevant essay. I guess Wikipedia is such a huge place that it's hard not to miss a lot (and WikiMedia is even bigger)!

Something I've been wondering about is whether Wikipedia has any functioning mechanism to counter the tendency for editors to get burned out on editing particular pages due to the behaviour of other editors. For example, bullying, chauvinism or outright bigotry have a well-established tendency to push out people belonging to relatively marginalised groups - something I have observed on Wikipedia's autism-related pages over a number of years. I imagine this also helps explain the perennial male-dominance of this site!

Of course, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that consensus should be reached among the editors who show up to a page, and that, for example, "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" is considered inappropriate. But faced with prejudice, stonewalling and so on, editors from more marginalised groups tend to just stop showing up over time. Do we have a way of countering that, besides the laborious dispute resolution mechanisms and obviously the slow influx of new editors over time? Oolong (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias&oldid=1265802054"