Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Countering systemic bias and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
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, 24Auto-archiving period: 9 months |
Countering systemic bias NA‑class | |||||||
|
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 |
Discussion of various issues (including alternate designs for the to-do template). |
This page has archives. Sections older than 270 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Bias towards humans in biology - request for template
Hi, I've noticed that many biology articles are currently written from a strongly human POV when they should be about the topic in general. Examples I've come across and can remember are bone marrow, sperm and penis; but there are many more. Could someone make a template similar to {{globalise}} that could be added to such articles to encourage people to add more about other animals rather than just ourselves? Not sure on the name - maybe {{animalise}} or {{dehumanise}}. Smartse (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- lmao these awful human beings and their POVs! The animal world will be rioting i am sure. {{Dehumanise}} is certainly the title to go for if such a template is needed though. BritishWatcher (talk)
- Not really a bias issue. I'm pretty sure all readers of all our articles for the foreseeable future will be humans. --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, really?! Perhaps I didn't expain it well enough - my point is that an article about bone marrow (or whatever) should be about bone marrow in general, not just about human bone marrow. Some articles are written correctly in this respect - we have skin about skin in general and human skin about human skin. This seems exactly the same to me as the problem with an article that only covers a subject from the viewpoint of one country. Can you elaborate on why this isn't a bias in our coverage of these topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
- As I understand it, systemic bias is about people reading the encyclopedia and feeling that it is not really written for them but for the members of a group that they don't belong to. The problem you are describing is not systemic bias but simply the standard problem that many articles are written with a narrower focus than their titles suggest. There is probably a template for that in general, and a template for the specific problem in biology could perhaps make some sense. But in spite of some superficial similarities this is not related to problem of systemic bias as it is usually understood. Hans Adler 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, Smartse, you're totally right, whether or not this project is the one to address it. — ¾-10 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- This fits pretty well with WP:Systemic Bias, and could use a template that looks just like
. So template geeks, go to it. That said, I suspect that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology could be a good place to set guidelines about just how much of the content should be human-specific. Also, I'd prefer not to set a standard where every common name requires human limitations. Hunger in Ireland should not have to indicate that it's hunger on the part of humans.--Carwil (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.- I wasn't really sure where the best place to bring this up was, but as I saw the templates associated with this project it seemed like a reasonable place to start. Obviously whether such a template is appropriate to the article would be decided on a case by case basis. In some ways this is similat to this projects aim anyway, as I hope that a template may encourage new editors, who aren't doctors (they often seem to have written these articles) to join in and edit the articles. I hadn't noticed the template wikiproject before either, I'll see if someone there can help out. Smartse (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- This fits pretty well with WP:Systemic Bias, and could use a template that looks just like
- FWIW, Smartse, you're totally right, whether or not this project is the one to address it. — ¾-10 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, systemic bias is about people reading the encyclopedia and feeling that it is not really written for them but for the members of a group that they don't belong to. The problem you are describing is not systemic bias but simply the standard problem that many articles are written with a narrower focus than their titles suggest. There is probably a template for that in general, and a template for the specific problem in biology could perhaps make some sense. But in spite of some superficial similarities this is not related to problem of systemic bias as it is usually understood. Hans Adler 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, really?! Perhaps I didn't expain it well enough - my point is that an article about bone marrow (or whatever) should be about bone marrow in general, not just about human bone marrow. Some articles are written correctly in this respect - we have skin about skin in general and human skin about human skin. This seems exactly the same to me as the problem with an article that only covers a subject from the viewpoint of one country. Can you elaborate on why this isn't a bias in our coverage of these topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
- Not really a bias issue. I'm pretty sure all readers of all our articles for the foreseeable future will be humans. --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is this a parody? 100% of Wikipedia readers are human. A "bias" towards humans is entirely justified. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's no parody, he just maybe didn't use the right word ("bias") to describe it. All he's saying is that the encyclopedia article on, say, lungs should logically be about lungs in general, across many different animals (including comparative anatomy, taxonomic logic, etc). Then there is a separate article for human lungs. It's not about "bias" in the sense of "social injustice", just in the sense of logical distortion. Another example would be having the article "star" being all about our sun specifically, or the article "planet" being all about Earth. It would be logically warped with reference to reality in general. The comment is not meant to be referring to any "unfairness to the other stars", it's just trying to view reality etically. — ¾-10 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if that's what he means, I absolutely disagree with him. It is completely appropriate for lung to be first and foremost about human lungs. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why? I would expect an article about lungs to discuss all types of lungs. I remember this same topic was raised a few years ago; the discussion then concluded that, while this might be a valid thing to address, it lies outside the scope of this project. Warofdreams talk 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because this project is for humans, and humans are most interested in human lungs. I have now looked at the lung article, and I see that it does discuss all sorts of lungs, but puts more emphasis on mammalian lungs, and within that, human (at least in the illustrations).
- I think that's an appropriate balance. Wikipedia absolutely should be anthropocentric. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- — ¾-10 was using lung as a hypothetical example, my links at the top are examples of where a template such as this would be required. I'm not sure why you think "humans are most interested in human lungs" either, but that's not worth arguing over. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why? I would expect an article about lungs to discuss all types of lungs. I remember this same topic was raised a few years ago; the discussion then concluded that, while this might be a valid thing to address, it lies outside the scope of this project. Warofdreams talk 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if that's what he means, I absolutely disagree with him. It is completely appropriate for lung to be first and foremost about human lungs. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's no parody, he just maybe didn't use the right word ("bias") to describe it. All he's saying is that the encyclopedia article on, say, lungs should logically be about lungs in general, across many different animals (including comparative anatomy, taxonomic logic, etc). Then there is a separate article for human lungs. It's not about "bias" in the sense of "social injustice", just in the sense of logical distortion. Another example would be having the article "star" being all about our sun specifically, or the article "planet" being all about Earth. It would be logically warped with reference to reality in general. The comment is not meant to be referring to any "unfairness to the other stars", it's just trying to view reality etically. — ¾-10 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I think it's clear that this is an issue, but this doesn't seem to be the place to get a template made to suggest changes, and I guess I see now that it isn't really an issue of systematic bias. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Had a look through the archives and found the old dicussion. Smartse (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fascinating how essentially the same discussion was had already by different people. Actually, on second thought, it's probably not fascinating (since it's predictable/inevitable), but it's still interesting, to me, at the moment, for some reason. — ¾-10 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Dealing with POV extravaganza articles about religions, ethnicities, nationalities, groups
I've started a discussion on this topic here and thought that some members of this wikiproject might have thoughts on this issue. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Green Berets being redirected to American special forces
I don't know where else is best to report this to so please pass it on, I found this via the WP:BIAS project link. I thought about the admin board but I am guessing that is for more serious stuff than just disputed articles? But yeah, I came back and this guy just keeps doing it like he expects to sneak it in then hope no one notices it's been changed... --12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.14.248 (talk)
- The best place to bring this up is where it was brought up, and where 87.194.14.248 was directed earlier in one of the reversions' edit summary: Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation), rather than assuming bad faith and beginning a potential canvas campaign (at least, I don't see 87.194.14.248's corresponding alert to a U.S. group to Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Green Berets being redirected to American special forces, where I've posted a similar reply). Other stats:
- --JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the discussion should go in one place, so I'll continue the discussion at Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation), but would like to comment that making an argument while at the same time asking that discussion go elsewhere seems to send a mixed message. --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Current move proposal where systemic bias is at issue
In discussion at Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Requested move, systemic bias is acknowledged by proponents and opponents of the move alike as highly relevant to the discussion. (Unfortunately, this is necessarily a partisan audience on the subject, but I'm not aware of any pro-systemic-bias community on Wikipedia to notify for balance.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's recentism, but hardly systemic bias, IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I guess our understanding of systemic bias must be very different. I don't really know what to ask but, in what way is it not? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Annual CSB Improvement Drive
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Annual_CSB_Improvement_Drive. Rd232 talk 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-American nationality is mentioned, but American is not
An article about a non-American company, product or technology usually starts like this: "X is a Russian/Chinese/German/French company/product/technology..." Here, the nationality is almost always immediately mentioned. However, when the subject is American, it usually is not. Compare, for example Boeing 737 and Tupolev-204
The reason for this I believe is the following: for some reason, being American is regarded by Wikipedia editors as being "normal", and thus does not need to be mentioned, while being non-American is regarded as "exotic" or "special". I think this represents an obvious Anglophone bias (which, of course, is not at all rare in Wikipedia), which should be fixed. The English Wikipedia is global, and should have a global point-of-view, not an American or Anglophone one.
We should solve the problem by replacing the nationality with location or company link. Changing, for example, "Tupolev-204 is a Russian mid-range aircraft" to "Tupolev-204 is a mid-range aircraft designed by Tupolev." Here, the company link will give the reader info about where the plane's designer is located, in the same way as is done in Boeing 737. Offliner (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- In general it probably makes more sense to add info than take it away. The lead of Boeing 737 isn't very good; if it were less plane-spottery, it would certainly find space to mention that it's American-made. Rd232 talk 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- One slight wrinkle on the topic of nationalities of corporations is that they're pretty fuzzy today (as opposed to before the last 40 years). In some cases it almost doesn't make sense to inject the country that they started in, or are headquartered in. For example, Toyota (the brand and the family of corporations) is more or less as American as it is Japanese by some measures (although there's probably an entity with some name like "Toyota America Inc" that is legally distinct from the one with some name like "Toyota Japan Ltd"). Some "American" corporations are headquartered in other (tax haven) countries. Nationality is often merely a flag of convenience for large corporations today. That would be my biggest reason for leaning toward Offliner's version e.g. "Tupolev-204 is a mid-range aircraft designed by Tupolev." Then you don't need to dig into whether Brand X is historically from Country Y but today is HQ'd in Liechtenstein and subs out its mfg to suppliers around the globe who source 73% of the parts or materials from countries B, C, D, E, and F. However, in specific instances, Rd232's point would be well taken ("In general it probably makes more sense to add info than take it away"). I guess maybe it depends on the instance and to what degree the nationality is "real". — ¾-10 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to check here if the results related to the preceding discussions about renaming the Ganges article to Ganga constitute a bias. If so what can be done to rectify the problem?
I've come to a similar conclusion at the FAR/C at British Empire and the ongoing discussion there about the effects on the economy of the colonies of the Empire.
I've begun to form an opinion that discussions on the various talk pages of articles where the West meets the rest of the world may be futile since it may never be possible to achieve consensus. Any suggestions on how to solve this problem, if it is one at all? Zuggernaut (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia acknowleges an Anglo-American bias. I suggest that consensus should be based not on number but on merit. That will make it unbiased. I have been involved in both the examples given above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm mostly uninvolved on this topic (intra-Commonwealth-of-Nations politics and nomenclature) except to say that "where the West meets the rest of the world" is increasingly going to be everywhere, whether anyone likes it or not, so every Wikipedia should continue gradually evolving toward an etic description of things that also succinctly tutors the readers in their own language about how their emic worldview fits into the larger etic reality. This is true not only for English-speakers but also for speakers of French, German, Hindi, Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and any others. Nonetheless, the other side of this same coin is that it can't happen overnight, because if it did, most readers will simply interpret it as an attack on their culture by people with COIs (which is not an unreasonable interpretation, given the human nature that permeates all of our lives—we have to be wary of others' proposed changes). Thus it has to be gradual. So the principle (pointed out above) that the English-language Wikipedia acknowledges an Anglo-American bias will continue to be a necessary fact of life for years to come. However, I hope that 40 years from now, it will have been ameliorated from a raging eye infection that substantially obscures vision to a minor chronic inflammation that no longer impedes our ADLs very much. From here to there is a matter of patient incrementalism. (The two sides of that coin are [1] being patient and gradual but also [2] not merely abandoning the furthering of etic understanding.) — ¾-10 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you saying that we do things the etic way for proper nouns/nomenclature as well? An example pointed out by Yogesh at Ganges, is that it is an exonym and thus inherently etic. Also the doing things by consensus means achieving consensus on anything that is etic is almost impossible when it comes to criticism, a perfect example is the British Empire. I had the same problem at Upanishads where criticism of the Upanishads wasn't allowed in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm mostly uninvolved on this topic (intra-Commonwealth-of-Nations politics and nomenclature) except to say that "where the West meets the rest of the world" is increasingly going to be everywhere, whether anyone likes it or not, so every Wikipedia should continue gradually evolving toward an etic description of things that also succinctly tutors the readers in their own language about how their emic worldview fits into the larger etic reality. This is true not only for English-speakers but also for speakers of French, German, Hindi, Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and any others. Nonetheless, the other side of this same coin is that it can't happen overnight, because if it did, most readers will simply interpret it as an attack on their culture by people with COIs (which is not an unreasonable interpretation, given the human nature that permeates all of our lives—we have to be wary of others' proposed changes). Thus it has to be gradual. So the principle (pointed out above) that the English-language Wikipedia acknowledges an Anglo-American bias will continue to be a necessary fact of life for years to come. However, I hope that 40 years from now, it will have been ameliorated from a raging eye infection that substantially obscures vision to a minor chronic inflammation that no longer impedes our ADLs very much. From here to there is a matter of patient incrementalism. (The two sides of that coin are [1] being patient and gradual but also [2] not merely abandoning the furthering of etic understanding.) — ¾-10 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're completely and entirely correct, which is where the 40-year time horizon comes in on this particular .mpp file that we call "learnin' them humans some wisdom". Here's my contribution to a history of humans written a century from now: "What humans found out shortly after they invented Wikipedia is that it would take a generation or two, at least, to reduce the barriers between emic and etic views from mountains to mole hills, the latter being a state in which they comfortably remain to this day." In the short term, the criticism that you mentioned mostly carries the day. In the long term, ignorance is DOOMED—doomed, I tells ya—unless, of course, the human monkey mind blows up EVERYONE with NBCs before that gets a chance to happen (in which case the species is doomed), or blows up some sizable fraction of everyone with NBCs (in which case non-Mad-Max society is doomed). Interestingly, no matter which path is implemented, something is doomed. — ¾-10 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take the former doom but I would prefer that it happens sooner than later because it's a practical, real-time problem I face on a regular basis on Wikipedia. In addition to the articles mentioned above, I'm seeing it again at Famine in India and the Bengal famine of 1943. Any ideas on how we can fix this in present day? All of my edits are well sourced but when Britons see an Indian name as the source of the author, they call it POV. Even the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen's works are implied to be POV or called OR or SYNTH and the edits undone despite the communities rejection of such allegations. For the rejection of the allegations, take a look at relevant noticeboard such as the NPOV/N. Currently I'm trying to include content based on sources similar to this New York Times source:
(Winston Churchill) ..."I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of thousands died.
- Of course Britons resist such content and scramble for finding a policy to exclude it.Zuggernaut (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is balance Zuggeraut, you simply want to present sources from one perspective and/or include material which is peripheral to the article concerned. When you don't get your own way you make various specific or general accusations and go forum shopping. We have established on both of the articles you mention that British policies were at least in part responsible, and have included specific material related to Churchill. Your statement above that "When Britons see an Indian name as the source of the author, they call it POV" represents an appalling failure to follow WP:AGF and its a calumny that you should withdraw as there is no evidence to support it. Sen's authority is accepted, its your use of his work which creates the problem. If you really think that your statements are accurate then you should raise an RfC on the editors concerned, your own conduct would of course then come under consideration at the same time. If you are not prepared to do that then you should stop making false statements on various forums. --Snowded TALK 06:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with your allegations of forum shopping and of making accusations. This thread has been open for a while and I will continue to update it as I encounter what I see as a pro-British bias on English Wikipedia. These updates have been made and will continue to be made simultaneously as I continue editing articles. The statement should have been "When Britons see an Indian name as the author of a reliable source, they call it POV". That is not a violation of AGF but it's an observation of multiple editors and it is based on evidence that spans several years. See the long history of the talk page of Famine in India. Here are only a few diffs only from one:
- Some of the comments even verge on ad hominems to the effect that Indian authors (and that includes cited professional historians) have an inherently anti-British POV.
- One British patriot-nationalist calls Amartya Sen's work "crap" and if I'm not mistaken, he does so frequently and repetitively.
- The same British patriot calls Amartya Sen's work "biased"
- Amartya Sen's view is called "one man's view even when sources make it clear that he has non-Indian collaborators/co-authors
- " We need to have wider sourcing and commentary in the article" -- Thakur, Baleshwar; Sinha, V.N.P; Prasad, M; Pratap, Rana (2005), Thakur, Baleshwar, ed.
- Also worth noting is the fact that this is not an observation made on Wikipedia alone. I have seen it brought on another WMF platforms with a specific reference to Famine in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you links above illustrate the problem you are in part creating here. The first diff is a balanced set of comments by another editor. I might have some minor differences but overall I and most other editors would agree with him, British or not. You make very generic accusations against British editors, but in practice your only near legitimate complains are against one (your second, third & fourth diffs), British Watcher (Your British patriot) who has not edited the article for months. He calls your editing policy crap, not Sen's work and he is entitled to a view that Sen is biased. His comment also relates to your canvassing and POV edits on the British Empire along with your attempts to bring the Irish famine into play (something opposed by Irish editors at the time). So you are seriously mistaken and/or seriously misrepresenting his position above. I don't agree with him on Sen by the way, but I do agree that the way you select sources and present them is POV in nature; BW makes the very legitimate point that you are were devoting a whole paragraph to Sen's perspective without any balancing material. I have had many a run in with BW over the years in respect of his British nationalist views, but even I think you are being unfair to him. Your attack on James (the fifth diff) was not supported or sustained when you went to ANI and you made another nonsensical attack on this experience editor here. So when it comes down to it you have issues with two editors and you are using those to make generic and insulting statements about a whole class of editors based on their nationality. Ironic to say the least. You are forum shopping, this discussion is taking place in three places at the moment and in no case are you doing what you should, namely raise an RfC or ANI case so that the community as a whole can look at the issue. This is poor behaviour and indicates that you are probably aware that your allegations would not survive a proper review. Put up or shut up, either make a formal complaint with evidence or stop whinging in multiple places and get on with editing the articles in collaboration with other editors. You should apologise for the general attack on British editors above, its yet another AGF violation on your part. --Snowded TALK 07:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer - by Britons, I obviously meant the handful of Britons I have come across while editing the articles mentioned here. I did not mean the whole class of British editors. The problem is that ones that "hang-out" at articles like British Empire (and follow me to Famine in India) are probably the nationalist type and possibly an exception amongst British editors. When you beat the balancing drum what you are asking is that we re-write and balance an unbalanced history. Take your balance arguments to British Empire and Winston Churchill and improve those articles to include Churchill's racist attitudes towards 330 million Indians. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth does Churchill's attitude to Indians have to do with the British Empire?!? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question. Dude was prime minister of the UK. Are you pointing out the limits of the influence of his personal opinions on government policy? Fair enough, but I doubt that the latter was completely unaffected by the former. (BTW, I don't follow the articles discussed above, and I don't have any experience regarding these editors' edit histories; but I watch this page since my prefs currently automatically watch every page I've edited.) — ¾-10 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, I suppose I should clarify. Yes, churchill was an important figure in British history, and presided over Britain and the Empire during WWII, before presiding over the Suez Crisis. Both important events in the British Empires history no doubt. However, the British Empire article can only be so big, and it's a question of WP:DUE. Churchill's attitude towards indians has little in my opinion, to do with the British Empire at all, and the little it has is definitely not anywhere close to being important enough for the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Churchill had some pretty strong views about the Empire. According to author Madhushree Mukherjee (Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II, 2010), he would rather destroy the Empire than let it go. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Churchill had very strong views on the empire, and was an ardent supporter of it. In one of his WWII speeches he mentioned how Britain and the Empire would last a thousand years or something. However, that doesn't mean it should go on the British Empire article at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Churchill had some pretty strong views about the Empire. According to author Madhushree Mukherjee (Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II, 2010), he would rather destroy the Empire than let it go. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Systemic bias - majority world BLPs
Hi, I wonder if anyone from this project would be tempted to help out in the referencing of our backlog of unreferenced BLPs? We've got them conveniently broken down by Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of_Living_Persons/WikiProjects, and though Africa has been active recently there are over a hundred at Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Unreferenced BLPs and quite a few at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fiji/Unreferenced BLPs - in fact just about everywhere has some, and if they aren't easily sourced via google or if they don't seem worth saving to people who might just have a bias too the English speaking world then they are liable to go. So if anyone fancies referencing and thereby rescuing some notable people from a country in the third world, here is your opportunity:) ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I invite you to read my essays
which are germaine to this project: Tilt, how to get bias into a Wikipedia article; and The Politicization of Wikipedia.
- Fascinating, with many insights. Maybe none of them are novel to the universe (there's nothing new under the sun), but certainly you bring them together in elucidating ways. I'm not surprised that articles around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the dirtiest examples (with the dirt flying from both sides of the spectrum, and the extremes seeking to dominate the middle, which is generally the same thing as the incomplete seeking to dominate the complete). In fact, chalk up clandestine attempts to pump stealth bias into Wikipedia as just another variant of modern information warfare / psychological warfare / cyberwarfare / asymmetric warfare / [ * warfare] (clearly, humans tend to get off on warfare). I found your comments on avoiding calling people "left-wing" or "right-wing" (or not avoiding it, or making a point of it) to be interesting, because I recently waded into the controversy on whether it makes sense to pigeon-hole Nazism as "right-wing". It's hard to effectively fight or prevent something if you misunderstand what it even truly is, and I think you can't truly understand Nazism without understanding its aspects that disliked laissez-faire capitalism—the disparagement of which is conventionally labeled leftist. Certainly one thing that resonates with me a lot is your point that "many issues are complicated and have many facets." And your point that bias-peddlers "[keep] this a secret" and "[always] treat issues as though there is only one thing involved, and everything else is irrelevant." Boy, you said it. The annoying thing about humans is how they blend the speciousness that results from mere mental incompetence (which [unintentionally] cannot see the connections between nodes of reality sufficiently clearly or completely) with the speciousness that results from malicious motivations or conflict of interest (which latches onto that same muddy vision just mentioned and [intentionally] smears it around to obscure the truth). And how often one individual human will swim fluidly through a pond full of both mixed together with complete miscibility. That part really bugs me. It always reminds me in a metaphorical way of how ethanol and methanol are distinct alcohols, but if you mix them together, they're so hard to re-differentiate that the mixture "cannot be made nonpoisonous", as the label warnings on industrial alcohols say. Human nature contains some great aspects and some shitty ones, but the mixture cannot be made nonpoisonous. And I feel that the answer to the question "is it complexity or conspiracy?" is that "it's a little of both, in ways that cannot be reliably or consistently differentiated." Oh well, after a long day of pondering such things, all you can do to relieve the stress (given that the treadmill is obviously going to keep running longer than your own lifespan, unless humans manage to bungle things enough to wipe themselves out entirely) is to take a break from it and go eat some pie. My wife baked a nice one today! — ¾-10 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Bias review
I've been thinking of tagging this article for globalization but i think it would be a discussion i cant win, i dont think much editors know or care for bias in the enciclopedia unless its not an English,Christian,white bias. For being an article on "world history" it deals surprisingly little with the world and a lot more with Europe and a eurocentric view of world history. So id like to invite bias concious editors to take a view of the article and comment on its talk page your impressions, thank you.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Is anyone actually trying to stop you from expanding the parts of the article about the history of the world outside Europe? If so, I'll be glad to defend the actual expansion. But, looking at the talk page, I don't see that. Just sticking a tag on doesn't help that much. As for the article itself, looking at the article lede, I see 7 paragraphs: 1 and 3 aren't about any continent of the world specifically, 2 mentions Asia, 4 discusses Asia and North Africa, 5 and 6 are about Europe in detail, and 7 waves a hand at "other parts". So, yes, a bit Europe-heavy, and a woeful exclusion of South Africa, the Americas, and Australia. The rest of the article is slightly better than that: the Middle Ages and Modern History sections are Europe-heavy, but Asia and the Americas are at least mentioned throughout, and the comparative tables are a nice balancing bit. Still, room for improvement. Please, go ahead. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Brazil floods/ITN
At the moment the in the news section on the main page has coverage of the Australian floods but not of the Brazilian ones which have killed an order of magnitude more people. Anyone here interested enough in current events to get the current stub into shape so that it can be used in the ITN section?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia geodata mapped
A very interesting visual illustration of Wikipedia's systematic bias problem: all geotagged articles, mapped. Some of this reflects lower levels of geotagging in particular regions, but most of it is simply a lack of geographical coverage. There are many places with higher population densities than the US which are virtually black on this map. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is this the English Wikipedia or all Wikipedias? - SimonP (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
LGBT
Please see here. I think this is a long standing and blatant case of systemic bias on the wiki. The reason this has gone unchallenged is, I assume, a misguided notion of political correctness. In any case, anyone daring to question the use of US subculture self-designations in Wikipedia's voice all over the place will run a significant risk of being branded a homophobic bigot. At least such moderate proposals I have made on talkpages so far invariably are stomped upon and characterized as ridiculous, absurd, etc. without any recognizable understanding of their motivation.
Let me emphasize that I have nothing against the initialism as long as it is strictly used as a self-designation, reflecting the reality that since about 20 years there is a community that self-designates in this way. But extending this to areas that aren't self-designations, such as LGBT laws, is silly. There isn't a single "LGBT law" in the wide world. These laws are made by legislatives, not by interest groups, and they are either limiting or asserting rights specific to certain groups. If any of these laws has officially been labelled "LGBT" I haven't seen it. Perhaps in the future the United States legislative will come up with laws so termed, but this hasn't happened yet, and once it does, the term will refer to such a law specifically. Until then, the widespread use of the term in Wikipedia's voice is simply another attempt to propagate use of a neologism on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Names in world cultures
Template:Names in world cultures does not include any Anglophone countries. Articles like American name or British name don't seem to even exist, while German name, French name and Tatar name do. This is a very clear example of the anglophone bias that is epidemic in English Wikipedia. Our biased encyclopedia considers American and English names as "normal" - any explanations and articles are unnecessary. German and French names, on the other hand, are "exotic" and therefore need articles explaining them. These names also need to be included in Template:Names in world cultures - it seems that "world culture" here simply means "non-American culture". We should work to fix things like this. Nanobear (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Cities
There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#And now for something completely new... about the bias inherent in all articles describing cities that are centers of conflict or social and political woes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk accurately describes the dynamics of editing such articles: "I think it's inherent in the way wikipedia works that nobody would object to describing the airport that services a certain city, but you'd have a hard time finding consensus for saying 'X is one of the poorest and most dangerous cities in the world'." --Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet one could refer to measures of relative wealth and crime, for example "X is rated as the 2nd poorest/most dangerous world capital according to the (crime survey/wealth survey)" and compare it with alternative surveys. If it's well referenced to a solid source, there can't really be a justifiable reason for removing it - although I imagine people will try! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"Contemporary bias"
Hi. I'm studying several examples of systemic bias in English Wikipedia. Doing some numbers, I have seen that 72% of all the biographies in English Wikipedia are about people who lived in the 20th century, and that 99.66% lived in the 2nd millennium. Further details here User:Emijrp/Systemic bias/Contemporary bias. The notability level for recent centuries is very low compared with older ones. Regards. emijrp (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how many people who lived in the 8th century can you name off the top of your head compared to the 18th? Yeah. I thought so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously. I'm not a historian. Perhaps, "contemporary bias" means "lack of historians bias". emijrp (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a silly idea. Estimates say that around the year 1000, world population was about 200-300 million. At the moment it's about 7,000 million. [1] That's a factor of 30. Even if we had perfect records of things that happened hundreds or thousands years ago, there would still be a lot more notable people who lived after 1900 than before that date. But of course we don't. We can't just make up fake biographies for 9th century mayors or the 9th century equivalents of barely notable 1990s starlets. This is definitely not what systemic bias is about. Hans Adler 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- And on that note, consider the fact that in the past 100 years, it's been MUCH easier for someone to gain notoriety for various reasons, not the least of which is the ability for instant communication. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bias is when there is the possibility of writing articles on a subject, and we don't - it's not about us not writing about subjects that don't exist. For example, the reason there are more articles on British snooker players - Category:Snooker players by nationality - is not the result of any bias in Wikipedia, it is that most snooker players are British. However, the poor coverage of Kabaddi in comparison to snooker, is the result of systemic bias. When looking at lack of, or poor coverage on Wikipedia, it is helpful to look at the reasons, and not assume it is purely due to bias. SilkTork *Tea time 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
US bias
Would someone please take a look at Special education, and let me know where the alleged "US bias" is? More than half the article is under ==National approaches==, which describes practices in twenty-two (22) countries, and the US section is not the largest. It seems silly to me to have a globalize/US tag on an article that is mostly about something other than the US.
I admit that the article is written in American English, and this seems to be the sticking point: the other editor is from the UK, and apparently has decided that any technical term she personally isn't familiar with is a biased Americanism, despite what I thought was ample evidence that the UK uses the same terms. For example, the article cites the same paper from the UK government office Ofqual more than 30 times, but that's somehow proof of more US bias, because the UK government used terms that she has decided are American terms. (Honestly, I don't expect Americans to know what these terms mean: that's why they're defined directly in the article. If anything, it's equal-opportunity confusion.)
We really could use a third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mm, I don't have time to look properly, and it's hard without going into specifics. I chipped in on one thread on the talk page. Rd232 talk 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll look at your comment tomorrow afternoon, but let me say now, that whatever your opinion is, I'm grateful to have it.
- My note above sounds a little harsh on re-reading, so let me say that I'm perfectly convinced of the sincerity of the complaining editor, and I value her past help in improving the article.
- The article has been difficult in part because of very persistent socking from a POV-pushing American student with disabilities, and as a result, dealing with routine editing issues like this is more complicated and stressful than it should be. I'm happy to hear from any established editor, regardless of whether or not s/he happens to agree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There is presently a debate over whether the list article Declaration of independence ought to include a hatnote pointing specifically to the United States Declaration of Independence. Those in favor argue that historical, demographic, and practical factors justify this treatment, while those in opposition argue that no country's document should receive special treatment under any circumstances. Please see here if you are interested in weighing in on the matter. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Where the editors are
Here's some graphics that go part way towards answering who edits the english wikipedia (or at least where they were on May tenth 2011). Cloveapple (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Updating task list
I've been slowly going through the Open Tasks list checking to see what tasks are still current. So I took the note down that said only one person is updating the task list. I also added "Check articles to see if they still need work, and if they've been improved move them to the right section or leave a note" to the list of suggestions for participating. I'm also going to take down the "outdated" template at the top of the Open Tasks page. Cloveapple (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Major area of concern
You guys may wish to take a look at WP:VITAL. There seems to be a very, very strong bias in which articles are considered vital, particularly when it comes to biographies. → ROUX ₪ 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is a disturbing list if it's taken seriously, although I did notice they had a mention of systemic bias in their FAQ. Cloveapple (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Little weight given to Asian role shaping spontaneous order concept, article entirely from Western perspectives
Hello, I'm new to the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject, but can't help grabbing the megaphone to inform fellow anti-Western-culture-bias editors that Spontaneous order gives little to no coverage to the Chinese philosophers who (arguably) birthed the concept of spontaneous order over two millennia ago. Since Confucius and Confucianism played such a huge role in creating spontaneous order (arguably inventing the concept) failure to include this is especially problematic. The Spontaneous order article is more an economics geek thing than a balanced treatment of the subject.
For my full argument for the importance of China (historically and presently) to this topic, please see Talk:Spontaneous_order#Little_weight_given_to_Asian_role_shaping_spontaneous_order_concept.2C_then_and_now
NickDupree (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ago_Oba article needs at least one source
This is an article about Nigerian royalty that's set to be deleted on June 18th if no sources are added. Cloveapple (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, here's a thorny one. Please check your breakfast at the door because this discussion involves some unpleasant matter. The short of it is that in 2003 US Senator Rick Santorum said some things about homosexuality, and amongst other repercussions a Mr. Savage linked the Senator's last name to an unflattering definition. I felt, and wrote, that the tendencies here go against common sense policy for civility. This certainly, to my mind, has some applications for systemic bias. Emphasizing media coverage and then "fleshing it out" with excruciating specifics by Wikipedians leads to a coverage with no balance that respects all the individuals involved - this especially seems to be covered by WP:COATRACK as well. My request for contributions is twofold: Firstly, insights on whether there is systemic bias in the gathering of sources, for or against; secondly, insights on whether my notions about civility in presentation and especially avoidance of presentation issues is itself a bias issue. Thanks! Edwin Herdman (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is also a request for comment at Talk:Santorum Google problem, which basically asks the question what do we do about this? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Survey Invitation: Please Contribute Your Feelings on Systemic Bias
I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community, and am posting to invite you to participate in research exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:
Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page.
This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or at livingst@uoregon.edu. My faculty advisor is [light@uoregon.edu Dr. Ryan Light]. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the [human_subjects@orc.uoregon.edu Office for Protection of Human Subjects].
Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon - UOJComm (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note: The survey will be open through the middle of August, so feel free to take it whenever you get a chance. You can begin the survey at anytime and return later to finish it. If the system gives you a hard time and starts you at the beginning (which it shouldn't), you can relaunch the survey and skip to where you think you left off. Just be sure to enter your username again on the first page; I can then match up your responses. As always, let me know if you have any questions, and I greatly appreciate your participation! UOJComm (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I took the survey and encourage other Wikipedians to do so. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Cambodia's increasing economic prosperity
Hi
CamGSM has neutrality, notability and advertisement issues I'm questioning the validity of.
Neutrality: the sole data potentially perceived as non-neutral is that "CamGSM operates Cambodia’s leading mobile telecommunications network". My dispute's that this is factual information supported by a sourced scientific report on the Telecom, Mobile & Internet elements of Cambodia's economy, and is objective fact not subjective conjecture.
Notability: That the content details what's indisputably the largest commercial contract dealt in Cambodia's history, I think makes the content noteworthy.
Advertisement: I fail to see the advertising, opposed to the historical, nature of the content.
Appreciate any & all feedback,
Thanks
Globalize tag abuse
If someone adds a {{notability}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate, you can resolve it at WP:AFD or WP:Notability/Noticeboard.
If someone adds a {{globalize}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate (oh, maybe he beleives that every "truly balanced" article must mention his home country by name), and normal discussion is not resolving the dispute, is there a central home for resolving this kind of problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
User:UrbanRenewal & Leopard Capital
Hi, I've had User:Urbanrenewal accuse of me of a conflict of interest where none exists, and in doing so he's accused my area of interest (Cambodia's private equity arena) as receiving 'an inordinate amount of focus', which I believe to be evidently untrue. Any support would be welcome: below is a portion of my objection to User:Urbanrenewal, which is specifically relevant to the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias
QUOTE
UR, you claim that "this small [Leopard Capital] group" has "received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia". However in consideration of the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, I object to your claim that LC has received an 'inordinate amount of focus' as potentially invalid. Considering Wikipedia’s list of private equity firms mentions 204 firms, only 53 of which are not headquartered in America, and 0 which are based in Cambodia...if anything, to aid the very serious and increasingly important Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, it follows that LC and its like actually require more focus, not less.
UNQUOTE
Cheers
(Petersgoldpan (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC))