Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:BIAS
WT:CSB
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Discussion of various issues (including alternate designs for the to-do template).
Village Pump discussion - 2004.
Wikipedia:CROSSBOW - Old project. 2004.
3 - Template discussions.
4 - General discussions.
5 - Misc discussions, including reform of CSB.
6 - to June 2005.
7 - to mid-Feb 2006.
8 - to mid-June 2006.
9 - the rest of June 2006.
10 - July 2006.
11 - to late September 2007.


Contents

[edit] White privelege (sociology)...

has been listed for deletion absurdly enough. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology) Murderbike 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarian violence/civil war in Iraq

There is a discussion over whether English sources carry more weight than foreign language ones in deciding what the name of the article should be. Any thought? Please reply on the talk page. Thank you.--victor falk 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at commons

Please check out Commons:Deletion requests/Kolkata Red Light photos, and comment. --Soman 09:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] liberal fanatics ridicule conservative ideology in editing articles

it happens all the time and they always get away with it, gunning down their opponents like bats out of hell. now, why is liberal ideology such a large force to be reckoned with, in an npov project? how come tendentious editing and userboxes are mostly tailored according to liberal ideologies, while conservatives are actively shunned by liberals gaming the system in collaborative edit wars, with the conservatives outnumbered? wikipedia's not supposed to survive on mob rule and democratic principles. how come undue weight is given to credibility for liberal ideologies and their proponents? this is the internet's conservative talk radio. liberal rush limbaughs and michael savages run wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblastfromthewikipast (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar things are said about conservative, ultra-nationalist, and other ideologies overrunning parts of wikipedia. Wikipedia is about neutrality (WP:NPOV). If more editors fully understood it, there would be less problems. If more people allowed all significant viewpoints to be shown (from reliable sources), then there would be less complaints, because people could not say that their POVs were not being expressed.
People who insist that ONLY their particular POV be expressed will not be happy, and should leave or be banned from wikipedia, if they try to impose their POV exclusively in any article. It is against a core wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). WikiProject "Countering systemic bias" is about expanding wikipedia's expression of all significant viewpoints. Especially, those viewpoints suppressed by institutionalized bias, racism, bigotry, ignorance, culture, etc..--Timeshifter 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the real problem in politically charged articles is with consistency. There are good editors who rightly and rigourously challenge unencyclopedic material in subjects they're sympathetic to but then do nothing when it's a subject they might not agree with in a similar situation. MrMurph101 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That is true if good editors say nothing at all on a page section they happen to be editing. I don't waste time fighting other people's battles in page sections I am not editing. There are so many sections of articles with unbalanced POVs that I am interested in balancing. I don't have time to work on sections I am not interested in. But I try to say something against all unbalanced POVs (even ones I agree with) when it is brought up concerning parts of articles I have worked on. I try to be intellectually honest and fair. I don't just do this out of charity. I want my edits to be treated the same way by others. When I point out some unbalanced POV that an editor has inserted, I want them to be intellectually honest too. Fair is fair. It is common-sense fair play.--Timeshifter 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a kernel of truth in what Wikiblastfromthewikipast says, but his statement about "liberal fanatics" seems to suggest he's a POV-pusher who believes Wikipedia is a part of the Liberal media. That's not systemic bias. That's preventing vandalism per WP:FRINGE.

However, I am a "Liberal fanatic" and I will say that there is systemic bias against "American Conservatism" on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is international. The only people who like American Conservatives are American Conservatives. Both European Liberals and European Conservatives alike have a very low opinion of Americans, particularly Conservative Americans like George W. Bush. See the article on anti-Americanism. Whether this is warranted or not -- whether it's motivated by American Conservatives being religious extremists or the Iraq war as some American Liberals suggest, or whether "Europeans are just envious, America-haters" as American Conservatives suggest -- it remains a widely accepted social trend that can be substantiated by opinion polls and statements by certain political leaders (such as Jacques Chirac and Ahmadinejad, both Conservatives but viciously anti-American) and is likely to lead to systemic bias, although I can't think of any specific examples. Zenwhat (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Countering Systemic Bias Barnstar.

I have proposed a Countering Systemic Bias barnstar, to be awarded to Wikipedians who go the extra mile to fight systemic bias. Your input is most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I ahve already posted a comment there but I think it's also a good idea to write about it it here, in the CSB project. Please go ahead: make a nice design (challenging) and make that barnstar a reality. Excellent idea. --Sugaar (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias due to patterns of media ownership and control

Could the source requirements of the closely-intertwined WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V contribute to systemic bias? The media are increasingly being owned and controlled by a small number of corporations. In the U.S., for instance, newspaper ownership is being increasingly concentrated as local papers are bought out by large companies. The effect of this could be counteracted by the growth of blogs (which negates the effect of that old problem, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one") but our policies discourage using blogs as sources. So the situation now is that if the media fail to cover a particular topic (e.g. due to that topic making the advertisers who comprise much of their revenue base look bad), then an article on that subject could wind up being deleted. I cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Ranger as a possible example. What do you think? Stayman Apple (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... a complex case. I'd agree in principle with your concern about the increasing concentration of the major media in few hands and so on. But the article itself mentions a magazine and books of his authorship that could be used as sources and aren't.
Also I don't think it's appropiate at all to project the internal debate of Wikipedia (or an opinion on it) in the article itself. It should be in the talk page or the RFD. (Im undoing your last edit because it's abusive and in breach of policy).
This is a encyclopedia and, well, we are not expected to write about our neighbour's love stories, if you know what I mean (it's an extreme example). But, on the other hand, notability requirements are problematic sometimes (I have already found myself in such situation).
I'd suggest you to ponder seriously if that person is really notable and why. Personally I don't have that very clear: I would think about the local hygienist association rather than in this Health Ranger would I be asked about this issue.
Personally, I have just had the idea of googling for "Health Ranger" and it gives 51,900 hits ("Health Ranger" "Mike Adams" gives 43,800 hits), so probably it's the fault of the people interested in this article not to have been able to shown independent sources, as it's obvious that many of these hits must be something more than blogs and obscure sites (though I haven't been able to find any yet, that's your job). --Sugaar (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] women / minorities in occupations

In part as a result of the discussion on a recent WP:CFD for Category:Female models, I have begun a project to write articles on women in various professions. The first such article to discuss the topic generally and link to the sub-articles is Occupations, gender roles, and women's history - I drafted this much-needed article and it was promptly tagged original research (6 minutes after posting the item, tagged stub). I've been adding some of the numerous cites available on the topic. Please feel free to help out.

The larger context is that although these are all well-studied topics, some editors in wikipedia feel that categorizing female professionals (or ethnic professionals) as such is overcategorization. Consequently there have been numerous deletion discussions on Category:Female models, Women in science, Category:Women writers, and so on. Some categories (Category:African American scientists) have been deleted; others have survived. WP:CATGRS is the general guideline on the topic and it states that an intersectional category is appropriate where an article can be written about that topic. As I suspect most people involved in this project know, the history of women in various occupations (and the history of gendering of occupations generally) is a significant topic in women's history, gender studies, and women's studies. Help on this project would be greatly appreciated.

One problem that we face is that editors with little experience in or knowledge of the field tend to see this interdisciplinary topic as original research, and tend to police it rather heavily (I'm feeling uncharitable at the moment so I'm going to allude to the differences in levels of policing of fictional topics and academic topics especially those pertaining to gender and ethnicity.) So basically any stub has to have (1) a topic sentence that explains it; and (2) an extensive list of references from the start to justify and explain to people that this is a well-studied topic. Anything more, or less, is likely to get slapped with tags, AFDs, and so on.

I would also like to make a high priority to write an article on African Americans in the sciences, so that we can revisit the category deletion for Category:African American scientists. We had, as I recall, hundreds of articles appropriately categorized, and the deletion of that category was a travesty. I take blame, because I didn't at the time challenge it at deletion review; I had personal issues going on and couldn't take responsibility for it. So it will be a recuperation process.

--Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Defenders of slavery

This category is very US-centric. Slavery existed in other places. 72.83.236.152 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC) and still does. It was the European money and the African organisation that made "US" slavery possible. Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banners

I 100% support this project but wish that you could resist putting your banners at the start of an article. Wikipedia is primarily for reading I hope. You are quickly evaluating an article and seeing that it is all about the UK or the USA etc.... thats a useful thing to do. However we can all do it... might be nice to be reminded after we've read it that it may not be a world-view... but does it have to be in the readers/my face and more prominent than the title. And I know ... lots of well meaning projects do this. Still not a great idea. Thank you for listening Victuallers (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic Bias on disputing canons - Ethiopian vs. Roman Catholic, etc.

I urgently need help with another editor, User:Leadwind, who has been pushing a Roman Catholic POV, particularly with regard to what texts are to be considered canonical. I have pointed out many times that Wikipedia cannot assume the role of the Council of Nicea and simply declare a certain disputed text to be either canonical or uncanonical or "pseudepigrapha" (false writing), but only state neutrally which groups consider it so. But he remains impervious to the NPOV policy requiring him to attribute disputed POVs, and insists on writing that the Book of Jubilees (the canonical, Holy Book of the Ethiopian Church) simply "is Pseudepigrapha written from a Pharisee perspective", because his cited scholar says so - instead of admitting that there are other points of views, and that it is only considered so by European churches and European Bible scholars. The most bizarre thing is, he has chosen as his platform to edit war this point, the article Tower of Babel, which merely contains a quote from Jubilees - making a whole discussion about its canonicity in that article rather off-topic anyway.

I have pointed out that this is equivalent to writing a note in the section that quotes the Book of Mormon, to the effect that it is "a forgery written by Joseph Smith" - no matter how many might consider it so, it would not be neutral to take sides like that, and hardly germane to the article anyway. But he refuses to listen. Please come to Talk:Tower of Babel and help me restore NPOV. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects to this page

WP:BIAS is coming up as a redlink. Is that supposed to be happening? Chubbles (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I (re?)created the redirects, I don't know what happened before.--Cúchullain t/c 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

The average wikipedian is Asian according to quantcast.com. This reflects in the bias you see. The pages related Asians are always pro Asian and sources that are pro Asian are used regardless of whether they are racist against whites, blacks, ir hispanics. I think this worth mention.YVNP (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what Quantcast says at all. According to its statistics, the average user of Wikipedia within the U.S. is slightly more likely to be Asian that the internet average. Warofdreams talk 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Figures also support that Asian US families are more likely to have a computer with internet access. This expains the slightly higher frequency for wikipedians. (Whenever you investigate a conspiracy you find its not the big clever plot you thought it was!) Victuallers (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A minor point, but if Quantcast's figures are as they say, then the comparison shown is against the average user of the internet from the U.S., so if Asian U.S. families are more likely to have a computer with internet access, it should have no effect on the statistics. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It says whites 94, blacks 112, hispanics 114, and asians 136 for the english wikipedia. That is definitely indicative of a mainly asian user base.YVNP (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That conclusion is incorrect. Please read what we have written above. You may also need to read our articles on statistics. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, it says wikipedia is mostly white and Asians are the smallest demographic. I apologize.YVNP (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

might I point out that the term "Asian" is itself an example of the sort of bias this project is supposed to be countering? In America it means "East Asian", ie Chinese, Japanese etc. In Britain it means "South Asian", ie Indian, Pakistani etc. Peter jackson (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA helps fight systemic bias

Some of you may be aware of the constant bickering between FA regulars and GA regulars. FA regulars believe that the GA process is broken and lacks accountability. Any attempts by GA regulars to help the GA process gain more official recognition, such as placing the green plus sign at the top-right corner of GAs (similar to the FA star), are vehemently opposed by FA regulars.

Members of this WikiProject should support the GA process, as GA helps fight systemic bias. Several aspects of the FA and GA criteria lead to systemic bias in the selection of FAs and GAs, but in those aspects, the GA criteria is far lower than the corresponding FA criteria, making it easier for articles on typically under-represented topics (such as Singaporean topics) to achieve GA status. Using Singaporean topics as an example:

  • FA demands that "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". GA demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". As most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, it would be nearly impossible for them to write FA-standard prose. However, with a little help, some of them (like myself) can write GA-standard pros.e.
  • FA requires that an article be "comprehensive", GA requires that an article be "broad in its coverage". FA standards of referencing are also higher than GA standards of referencing. Referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce, making it nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to meet FA standards of referencing and be comprehensive. Broadness is easier to achieve, and with lower standards of referencing, GA standards are a more reasonable goal for most Singapore-related articles.
  • FAs require images; GAs do not. Finding images for articles on Singaporean topics is difficult. To compound the problem, semi-free images (such as "for educational use only" or "for non-commercial use only") images are prohibited, and the policies governing the use of fair use images are far too restrictive. For many Singapore-related articles, there are simply no appropriate images to illustrate the topic. This would disqualify those articles from FA status, but they can still achieve GA status.

I must stress that there is nothing wrong with the FA criteria being systemically biased. Articles that represent the best of Wikipedia should have prose that is of a professional standard, be comprehensive and well-referenced, and contain images. However, it is simply unrealistic to expect certain articles to meet the FA criteria.

Therefore, we (and the GA regulars) should encourage more Wikipedians to become prolific writers of GAs on typically under-represented topics. Perhaps we could have monthly collaborations, aiming to push at least one article on a typically under-represented topic to GA status per month. We could also post "write a Singapore-related (or any typically under-represented topic) GA" assignments at the Award Center.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have had such a positive experience with GAs. In my experience, the main problem with the GA review procedure is that having just one reviewer who typically has no specialist knowledge of the topic of the article often leads to demands for changes which are simply not possible to implement, or would require an enormous amount of work more in line with what might be expected for an FA. The FA review procedure encourages discussion; specialists can explore how the article utilises the sources available in the field, while non-specialists can examine whether it is accessible to the typical Wikipedia user. If one user raises objections which are impossible to implement, they can be reasoned with through discussion.
Finally, I'm doubtful about your last two points on FA requirements. FA reviewers should expect the article to utilise the sources which are available; if there are few sources, these should be fully utilised. Provided, of course, that an article of reasonable length can be written, there being few sources in existence should never be an objection. FAs do not require images, but if images are available, they should be used. If it is genuinely impossible to find an image which can be used, then that is not a reasonable objection in a FA candidacy. If Wikipedians can produce more GAs on typically under-represented topics, that's great, but I would hate anyone to be put off working towards an FA. Warofdreams talk 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many experienced GA reviews (The Rambling Man, LaraLove and Dihydrogen Monoxide, to name a few) who give excellent reviews. However, some GA reviewers are inexperienced or not very familiar with the GA criteria; they tend to do a bad job. I share your concern that luck determines who reviews a nomination and hence the quality of the review.
Nobody wants to discourage FA writing. Although prolific writers of FAs (on typically over-represented topics) worsen systemic bias, they are our most valuable editors and should be encouraged to keep up the good work. To counter systemic bias, we need prolific writers of GAs on typically under-represented topics. With 5 GAs to his name, Aldwinteo has greatly improved Wikipedia's coverage of Singaporean historical sites. Similarly, Jacklee helps fight systemic bias by writing Singapore-related GAs.
We should also support attempts by GA regulars to help the GA process get more official recognition, as it would encourage GA writing and countering of systemic bias. After saving Xiaxue from deletion, I contacted the subject of the article through e-mail, hoping that she would send me several newspaper articles about her (remember, referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce). In my e-mail, I mentioned that an article I wrote had won a "Wikipedia award" (remember, she knows hardly anything about Wikipedia). A green plus at the top-right corner of the article (similar to the FA star) would lend authenticity to my claim. If GAs appeared on the Main Page, it would be less USA-centric. Readers of Wikipedia would probably find a Singaporean movie that prompted the government to reform the country's education system fascinating.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible bias at work in AfDs

The biography article Naresh Sonee and the associated article about his book have both been nominated for deletion. They undoubtedly need major cleanup and rewriting. However, a lack of notability is the basis for the AfDs. The author of these articles has posted a number of translations of reviews and articles from Hindi, establishing, I think, notability. I think it may be an example of systemic bias that that it continues to look as if they will be deleted. Would some editors from this project take a look, and post your opinions, whatever they may be? Aleta (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been raised several times in the past, mostly by me, a young Singaporean who hates to see articles on notable Singaporean celebrities, buildings, etc. nominated for deletion (or even speedy deleted). It was at my suggestion that "Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations." was added to "Why it matters and what to do" section. More Wikipedians, especially deletionists, should be made aware of this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO {{afd}} is so deeply broken it should be abandoned, and replaced with a better mechanism for clearing cruft. Currently violations of the wikipedia's policies on civility, assume good faith policy, no personal attack policy, and don't bite the newbies are so routine in the deletion fora they pass without notice.
IMO the reliance on "notability" has been a failed experiment, which should be abandoned. It seems to me that for controversial topics notability really devolves to either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems to me that {{afd}} nominators routinely discount the "so-called" notability of articles based on credible they personally find some aspect of the topic.
For example, in the work I have done on articles related to war on terror, it has been my experience that the more willing wikipedians are to accept the spin of Bush Presidency spin doctors at face value, the more likely they are to want to suppress material a reader who wants to reach their own informated conclusion would need. Notability is a common argument they try to use.
Anyone else fed up with these claims of notability?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


I am not against notability per se, I just believe that it is currently being determined incorrectly (and am not sure if a reliable metre for it can ever be designed). Take a look at Category:Wikipedians against notability, it seems that you're not the only one who feels that way. There are of course userboxes to express this, User:DanielZimmerman/Template AntiNotable, and User:Chris is me/Notability hurts. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting My Feet Wet

Howdy. New user here with a strong interest in this project and the issue of bias in historiography. Thus far I've done approximately nothing but intend to contribute a lot at some point in the undefined future. Anyway. I just stumbled across the Crimean_Tatar_diaspora article. It needs help. I just added the sourcing template but am really not sure where to go from here or even if that was the right thing to do. My main concern is to see that a historically repressed minority group is able to have it's history told on wikipedia. Due to the lack of sourcing and blatant POV in an article that ties in to a contemporary political situation, it would be really easy for someone acting in bad faith to wikilawyer the article out of existence. My thinking is that it's best for sympathetic parties to raise the issue now rather than wait for someone to start a politically motivated edit war on down the line. While this isn't systemic bias on wikipedia in the strictest sense, it's closely related enough that I figured this to be the best place to raise the issue.--Vlvtelvis (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Political Bias at Wikipedia

The article on the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union was recently deleted based on the claim it wasn't notable. I'm an organizer with the union, and since I've given literally dozens of interviews, had live, hour-long debates with representatives of business interests on the air, and people produced numerous citations in the media, this is a ridiculous claim. Furthermore, those people who voted in favour of deletion mostly used the argument "I've never heard of it," but when people who were familiar with anti-poverty activism were asked to show up and voice their opinion, those who had worked on the article were accused of sockpuppetry.

To make matters worse, we have (or rather, *had* -- the article and logs are of course now deleted) proof that Ottawa City Hall had been vandalizing the article, and that one of the people involved in the discussion was engaged in a false flag campaign, pretending to be one of the members of the union while claiming he had voted numerous times. The personal details given by the member (his arrest record, his hepatitis status) could only have been known by someone with access to his personal records (ie/ the police). When one of the main contributors to the article tried to find someone who would listen to what had been done to us, he was permanently banned from Wikipedia.

This might sound paranoid, but since the Panhandlers' Union started a copwatch program six months ago, I personally have been the target of harassment ranging from having my Internet account hacked by someone who stole my identity to having posters put up around the city which featured me with a gun in my mouth and the legend "panhandlers follow your leader."

Since the deletion of this article actually interferes with our ability to organize (media usually show up to interviews with a copy of the Wikipedia article in hand), we have to take some sort of action. Unless anyone here can recommend a better course of action, we're going to have to see if we can find some activists in Florida willing to help us put a picket line in front of the Wikimedia Foundation offices. SmashTheState (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. delldot talk 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does "international" mean every country except the USA and Canada?

Talk:2007 in film#"International" box office totals. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t17:44z

[edit] bias related to the basic notion of providing knowledge

Isn't Wikipedia itself necessarily biased against e.g. certain methods of information suppression as employed by e.g. religions/cults or governments? Not necessarily talking U.S. homeland security issues, but e.g. Straussian neoconservatism with its idea of noble lies (think Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq) or anything Scientology (and the Abrahamic religions as far as e.g. evolution is concerned). Wikipedia's basic idea of providing knowledge necessarily includes the notion of promoting intellectual self-direction of individuals, which is directly and inevitable opposed to methods of keeping people underinformed as continually employed by many governments and religions/cults. Personally, I think that's the exact reason why so many intellectual people contribute to WP in the first place, and I wouldn't want to see this bias being countered. I dorfbaer I talk I 17:00, December 31, 2007


[edit] Inequality in S E Asia coverage

I just managed to sort out locator maps for the cities in Cambodia and in checking the articles on the cities -they are even worse than I thought. Provincial capitals like Pursat etc which have tens even hundreds of thousands of inhabitants as yet don't even have basic facts and are still one liners, yet places on provincial capitals in the UK and America etc would have hundreds , even thousands of articles on that place alone and an oversized article to boot. What you see on the Pursat article is the product of nearly two years work. Few people have even attempted to actively try to develop some of the major cities and towns in places like cambodia, vietnam, Laos etc let alone the smaller settlements. At best there are only three or four people working on articles on countries like this and even then this isn't particularly consistent . I can't attempt to sort out places like this alone!!! Basically if you compare it to a developed country such as the UK - with Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Laos etc only places like London, Birmingham and Manchester are covered and have half decent articles -the rest of the country - 99% isn't even really covered except a few minor stubs here and there. It is a huge problem gaining access to a decent and reliable amount of information. Could somebody please make a note that countries like those cited above have very poor geography related articles. I need a hand. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

Template:Recentism has just been nominated for deletion - see discussion - 52 Pickup (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "secret cabal"

Have anybody attempted to address this yet? Zenwhat (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian ethnicity in lead sections

Discussion at Talk:Alan Hovhaness has indicated that the ethnicity of Armenian and Armenian-Americans is being added or deleted from the lead sections of the subjects articles against MOSBIO policy. Ethnicity has been added to lead sections without demonstration of relevance, indicating either a pro-Armenian agenda or an unfamiliarity with policy and pracice. Worse yet, ethnicity has been removed from articles entirely, not simply moved from the lead to the body of the article, indicating an anti-Armenian agenda. Either way the quality of articles covering topics related to Armenia need improvement. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia#Armenian ethnicity in lead sections. Hyacinth (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of most common surnames

I wanted to point out that my recent reorganization of List of most common surnames exposes an unsurprising but glaring example of systematic bias ... no African country and few countries of Oceania are represented. It would be useful to have some people with experience in familial naming in those regions of the world join Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy to help to fill these gaping holes. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

Can I ask for some advice, or possibly even help? This article (& probably most other articles on Buddhist topics) has been largely put together by Western(ized) Buddhists, & is heavily biased by their versions of Buddhism. This manifests in (at least) 3 ways:

  • Much more space for forms of Buddhism that are popular in the West than for those popular mainly in the East
  • Much less space for aspects of Buddhism that are played down in the West but much more important in the East
  • Interpretations given as fact that might well be different from those/some found in the East (This can be very difficult to sort out, involving a lot of research)

User:Gimme_danger produced an attempted revision, to which I contributed, on a subpage. Despite a number of notices on the talk page, there were virtually no comments, & nobody other than the 2 of us contributed. I decided to try to get something done by simply putting the revision in place & inviting people to change anything they didn't like, in the usual way. Instead, they simply kept reverting it & ignoring all my attempts to discuss the issues properly on the talk page. Eventually I suggested a neutrality tag, & someone put in a pov-check.

I then posted on the talk page a detailed analysis of many of the issues, which nobody seemed particularly disposed to disagree with, but, apart from some contributions by User:TonyMPNS, little has been done. A major problem is the chaotic way the article is arranged. Buddhist teachings, those that are included at all, are randomly scattered through several different sections of the article. This probably constitutes bias in its own right, and at any rate makes it difficult to say where the omitted material should go. Unfortunately, having repeatedly reverted our attempt to give the article a coherent structure, they have ignored repeated requests to suggest one of their own.

I just noticed today that the tag has been removed. I'm not even sure whether it's the right one for the situation. Can someone advise on that, & what's the correct way to proceed? Peter jackson (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On using official Sources

"propaganda" was a loaded term which has been deleted, also I have been of the opinion that wikipedians treat official sources especially of third world countries with more disdain than necessary, it can be very useful, to take a random example the Nigerian giv website offers good info not only on their foreign relations (the NIgerian POV)

http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/exeres/8D44B602-C2A5-4478-B216-0DF74EE9CDD1.htm


but also some interesting info on the country and its leaders which could improve our articles on them

Nigerian Defence Minister http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/rdonlyres/7813232F-EDDD-417A-853A-6F9508EE5193/1077/MinofDefenceAhmed.pdf


or on Government agenda http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/exeres/59AA73E9-CEC6-43B3-B153-27D568A56B7D.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation suggestion

I don't think this has been mentioned anywhere here, so: if there is a deficient article on the English wiki that has a far more expanded version in a different language, make a translation request over at Wikipedia:Translation. That way, your desire to have a decent english-language article becomes known to a lot more people, particularly those who are unaware of WP:CSD. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-hit wonders

I've been vaguely aware of this page for a long time, but never paid much attention to it. Not long ago, looking at the page titled one-hit wonder, I was struck by the incongruity of classifying Nena as a one-hit wonder. She's had dozens of hit songs and now 30 years into her career she still keeps turning them out, and she's still doing four or five concerts every month and they sell out weeks in advance. Her name is a household word in Germany. In a TV commercial the narrator says "Today Nena tests the new Outlander from Mitsubishi" and we see her testing the sound system, listening to music in the car. The public knows who she is when the narrator mentions her name—otherwise the commercial would fail to accomplish its purpose. Only one of her songs was a major hit in English-speaking countries, so she's in a list of one-hit wonders.

So I put a parenthetical remark after her name in a list, saying that in her own country she's had a long successful career and it's only and she's listed only because in England and the USA she's had only one hit. Someone deleted my parenthesis on the grounds that the same is true of several of the other musicians listed there.

It is certainly appropriate for Wikipedia to record the fact that Nena is a one-hit wonder among English-speaking people, but the statement should not be just an unqualified assertion that she's a one-hit wonder.

I'm not sure what the best way is to organize this information. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What you said absolutely makes sense. did you take it to the talk page? Murderbike (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several glaring omissions in the essay

"The origins of bias" fails to mention that the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, is an American charitable organisation that advocates freedom of content. Wikipedia is thus dominated by supporters of free software/content. Consequently, certain groups of articles often suffer from uneven coverage and are written from a pro-free software/content point of view. While the free software/content movement has a substantial following in some countries (and their governments release lots of content into the public domain), it is completely unheard of in others. Finding or creating free images of (for example) a Singaporean actress is thus very difficult, if not impossible.

Attempts by governments to restrict access to Wikipedia, such as the Great Firewall of China, also worsen systemic bias. Although such censorship is easily circumvented through open proxies such as Tor, Wikipedia has a policy against editing through open proxies. Why does the "The origins of bias" section not touch on this?

In the "Why it matters and what we do" section, consider adding a bullet point encouraging Wikipedians to contribute to articles on under-represented topics that they are unfamiliar with. For example, as a Singaporean, I can fight systemic bias by contributing to Singapore-related articles. This may be the most effective way to counter systemic bias.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects within the next 72 hours, I will edit the essay to include these points. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Over a month has passed and nobody has commented. I edited the essay to include the points outlined above. The wording may need to be refined. If you disagree with the changes, feel free to revert, but please discuss on the talk page after doing so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Mostly good, but while there is nothing wrong with a Singaporean writing about Singapore topics, there shouldn't be any statement that Singaporeans should write about Singaporean topics. If a Singaporean wants to write about Pokemon or a New Zealander wants to write about Singapore, that's at least as good (remember, we're supposed to be writing from published sources, not from personal experience). Sometimes it's better, since there tends to be less personal involvement when controversial issues come up. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English sources

We're debating the wording of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Requirement of direct quotation for use of non-English sources. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a discussion, not a straw poll. We don't need "Support"/"Oppose" votes, we need positive alternatives as to how this policy should be worded. cab (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-biased presentation of locations

This appears to be a major problem for people from the US and Canada: all locations around the world are described either in terms of what US state, Canadian province, or country they are in. From experience, I know that this is what many North Americans do in real life, but it has absolutely no place here.

For example, February 21, 2008 lunar eclipse. Look at the gallery of images under "Observations" and note how the locations are described. Here are the first few:

  • Halton Hills, Ontario
  • West Hartford, Connecticut
  • Rostock, Germany
  • Nashville, TN
  • Sasolburg, South Africa

Now should we look at this and conclude that Ontario, Connecticut, Germany, TN and South Africa are all countries? And the use of TN here is even worse (yes, i know it means Tennessee).

Which is the right way to present this information? I can only see two alternatives:

1) Just countries

  • Halton Hills, Canada
  • West Hartford, United States
  • Rostock, Germany
  • Nashville, United States
  • Sasolburg, South Africa

2) Include state and country information for all locations

  • Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada
  • West Hartford, Connecticut, United States
  • Rostock, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, Germany
  • Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Sasolburg, Free State, South Africa

It MUST be one or the other. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the second choice is the way to go. I try to do that when I remember. Murderbike (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Obvious just country wouldn't work, as there's something like 39 Springfields in the US...even even some names like Paris have more than one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It has to be two. Otherwise you get things like "Springfield, USA" or "Cochrane, Canada" where there are more than one. This is also necessary at times in the UK, which has numerous repeated names as well. --NellieBly (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we distinguish between places of the same name according to how well known they are in an unbiased way, at least in some cases? It really shouldn't be necessary to say Paris, France to distinguish it from all the Parises in the USA. Peter jackson (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The second option seems to fit me best. However, I'd only like to see it for federations. So definitely not: Kladno, Středočeský kraj, Czech Republic, just Kladno, Czech Republic. We should probably propose this to be included in the MOS if we want people to know about it and abide by it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good idea Puchiko. Murderbike (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That won't work consistently. The UK is not a federation, but there are numerous duplicates. Peter jackson (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Allright. But, I mean, nobody in his right mind would write: Kladno, Středočeský kraj, Czech Republic. It just isn't done, not in English sources nor in Czech ones. There are hundreds of towns named "Lhota" in the Czech Republic, but nobody puts what kraj they're in anyway. If it is necessary to distinguish them, the nearest large city is listed. So we shouldn't list the kraj either.
Only include the state/province/other administrative region when it is common to do so. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a database. It would be nice if there was one rule, but its not whats done. The article New York City is a nice example. It could just say "New York" because its so famous. Annoyingly there is a state of new york so it has to be called New York City. It could be called New York, New York, USA .... but its not going to work. Sorry to mess up the perfection of a rule. It has to be a compromise Victuallers (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I dislike the American tendency to refer to American states as if they were countries, I do not think a one-size-fits-all solution is viable. How would places of small countries that do not have states, like Singapore, be described? Would GRCs be considered states for the purpose of describing places? Tampines, Tampines GRC, Singapore sounds awkward. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no standard solution. E.g. "Rostock, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, Germany" sounds absolutely ridiculous to me as a German. Locations in German-speaking countries are disambiguated differently. E.g. "Freiburg" is a very common name (meaning free city). Freiburg im Breisgau is named after the surrounding landscape, which is not a legal entity in any way. The same with "Freiburg im Üechtland", but as it is predominantly French speaking it's referred to as Fribourg even in German. Freiburg an der Elbe, in short "Freiburg/Elbe" is so named because it is on the River Elbe.
The German states have absolutely no place in addresses or the like. (Some US-centric web forms insist on them, but that makes no sense.) The situation in French is very similar, see fr:Rennes (homonymie) for a good example. They would never use the départements for this purpose. It's "Rennes, France" not "Rennes, Ille-et-Vilaine, France" or "Rennes, Brittany, France".
A related problem has come up in Great Fire of London, by the way. Some editors insisted on writing "London, England", which just doesn't sound right in British English. Similarly, I think articles about US places should sound right in US English and make it clear that they are about the US. New York City is at the same time a city where this shouldn't be necessary and demonstrates how add this information unobtrusively. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I realise I was slightly off-topic. In such a list, how about "Nashville, Tennessee (US)"? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we agree that neither of the two options is optimal, I suggest that there should simply be a guideline stating that all place names must mention the country. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest an alternate viewpoint. We should never mention country or state unless it is necessary to do so for dab reasons. If a reader wishes to find out where a place is, then all they need to do is click on the link. The idea of expanding the identifying info is definitely something that has come from paper encyclopaedias. Maybe we don't need all that extra info in our faces. Crispness (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Those who print Wikipedia articles and read the hard copies do not have links to click. Sometimes there is no reason to mention the country; for example, in Geography of Singapore, all locations mentioned are assumed to be in Singapore, unless otherwise specified. Generally, however, we should always mention the country. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free image of Maryam Abacha?

Does anyone know where I can find a free image of Maryam Abacha? She was a first lady of Nigeria and a staunch defender of the Abacha regime - she needs a photo posted...

I got photos for Kenyan Mohamed Amin and Nigerian Bimbo Odukoya easily because both are already dead. Maryam Abacha is still alive. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd start with Wikipedia:Requested pictures and commons:Commons:Picture requests. Requests on those pages can take long to get fulfilled (and often never get fulfilled at all), but it's worth a shot. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's overly restrictive image policies worsen its systemic bias. While the governments of some countries, such as the USA, release lots of material into the public domain, others do not. Moreover, the free software/free content movement is American and is hardly heard of in countries where most citizens struggle to make ends meet. Finding or creating free images of (for example) a Singaporean actress is thus very difficult, if not impossible. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is systemic bias?

I'm trying to understand if this Wikiproject is something I want to be a part of, but the systemic article is a disambiguation page with the following entries:

  • Any body system in general, usually the nervous system.
  • An insecticide whose mode of action is via uptake into a plant, entering the pest when the plant is consumed.
  • Systemic circulation (as opposed to pulmonary circulation).
  • Systemic (amateur extrasolar planet search project)

I do not know which of these meanings is intended here. I apologize in advance if this question is better suited to Talk:Systemic bias, but I figure since this WikiProject is countering it, its members would be well placed to clear up my confusion. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Here's a summary: Wikipedia's content is produced by its contributors. Wikipedia's contributors tend to come from certain demographic groups (The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a nominally Christian country, (8) from an industrialized nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer) So Wikipedia's contributors are the type who are more interested in writing about a new computer game, but not so interested in writing about Laos politicians. Therefore, this project exists to help the articles about Laos politicians get written, and get written well. Below, I have transcluded the articles this project encourages people to work on, maybe this will give you a better idea of what's it all about.
WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.

Feel free to ask any further questions you might have about this project or systematic bias. This is the correct page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Puchiko. Am I to understand that this project has as a central tenet that the demographics of a group of editors, if not representative of humanity as a whole, automatically introduces unacceptable bias (requiring active opposition) in the articles that group creates and edits? Thanks in advance. Blackworm (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Blackworm, It's demonstrated by numerous examples on Wikipedia that the typical Wikipedian demographic tends to over the long term (hence "systemic") make certain topics overrepresented and others underrepresented. The purpose of this project is not to actively oppose the overrepresentation (WP:NOT paper, after all, so we don't have finite space to fight over) but to bring up the quality and quantity of the types of articles that tend to be underrepresented and so make an effort to help correct the problem that way. Wikiacc (°) 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if that answers my question. Put another way, is it automatically true, as this project seems to assert, that if there are more X in Wikipedia that in the general population, then Wikipedia must be biased in favour of X, requiring counterweight? If so, is the same true of a smaller group of editors? I'm not concerned yet with what steps we take to counter the bias, I'm concerned with the proof that this specific kind of bias exists, whether it is distinct from other bias, and whether we can measure its degree exactly, so that we may counter it towards neutrality and not beyond. What steps does this project take to address the risk of overestimating demographic ("systemic") bias? Is systemic bias an established, true concept that Wikipedia as a whole embraces? If not, it seems that a group of editors making edits in that belief is no more adherent to WP:NPOV than another minority of editors banding together to put weight behind some other point of view that unites them. Why is WP:NPOV not enough, and some bias must be sought out and countered more than other bias (as seems to be the case here)? I hope all that doesn't sound too critical, and thank you for responding; this discussion is very interesting. Blackworm (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I understand your concerns, but I think that you over-complicating matters. For example, take a quick look at the coverage of politicians: compare the huge number of articles on the careers of American politicians (often so detailed that they have been split over several articles), and compare it with (for example) Category:Politicians of the People's Republic of China: only 182 articles on national politicians. The imbalance is enormous, and we can find similar imbalances in many other comparisons: for example, under 300 articles on South African soccer players against over 1000 articles on soccer players in the Republic of Ireland, even though the RoI has 1/6th of the population and in much of Ireland Gaelic football is the dominant game. (In other words, Irish soccer players are over-presented by a factor of over 20:1).

So the systemic bias is quite evident: editors tend to write about the subjects they are most familiar with, leading to an imbalance in coverage. This project is simply trying to redress an imbalance which very clearly exists.

You raise some interesting points about whether we can exactly measure the degree of such boas, etc, but this isn't really the place for that discussion. The evidence is very clear that the bias exists, and that the bias reflects the demographics of editors. Whether it does so precisely, or axiomatically, or inevitably is, I'm afraid, a rather irrelevant question when it's clear that it is happening and that steps can be taken to counteract.

I'm sure that there is a interesting dissertation to be written somewhere on the points you raise, but there is no useful purpose served in repeatedly pursuing the point here. If you find evidence that the counter-bias efforts are leading to overshoot, please come and present it here. If some forms of bias are raising undue attention than others, then please present evidence and seek support for work on the neglected areas.

However, all I'm seeing is that for months you have been single-handedly pursuing the same open-ended questions, and I don't see it serving any useful purpose. The evidence of the systemic bias is there, and if you choose not to act on it, that's your privelige. Please can, you now just drop this endless interogation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented evidence of systemic bias in my opinion. You've presented two examples of apparent disproportionate levels of editor interest. You seem to be making the claim that this is due to Wikipedia-wide bias, but you haven't shown me how you reached that conclusion. All you've asserted is the demographic characteristics of Wikipedia, and from this you conclude bias -- as if it is simply a truism no one should question. The project page seems to make the same logical leap. I'm asking it be explained, which is why I ask precise, unambiguous questions above regarding the precise source of this alleged universal, systemic bias in Wikipedia. It's not enough for someone to tell me, basically, "It's just there, trust me... Take this one article... So it's there. And by the way, please shut up and go away."
Assuming I claimed to have evidence of counter-bias efforts leading to a lack of neutrality, who would judge the merits of my claim? The members of this project? Doesn't that seem like asking a group of white male editors whether the articles they have contributed to are biased in favour of white males? Blackworm (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, we don't have scientific proof that systemic bias occurs throughout the entire Wikipedia on a noticeable level, but there are a number of examples of the levels of coverage being influenced by the Wikipedia demographic. I would say, actually, that it isn't the demographic of Wikipedia that influences the degree of disproportionate coverage so much as the availability in common world languages of information on the Internet or otherwise easily accessible across the world. Whatever the cause is, though, there are numerous examples to back up the claim that certain topics are covered more than others to a degree disproportionate to the general population or most objective standards of importance. The purpose of this project is not to discuss how far this claim applies--whether to all of Wikipedia, certain sections or only in isolated examples (a dubious possibility, but a possibility nonetheless)--but to work to address it where we know it does. --Wikiacc (°) 01:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Let's assume for a moment that systemic bias doesn't exist. Will it hurt Wikipedia to have an article about the Persian Women's Movement? No.
Besides, I do believe systemic bias exists. No, I don't have evidence. But I work on a lot of articles related to my country, even extremely important people have stubby articles. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at all controversial topics. They all are at least on danger of being biased. Articles about illegal drugs often don't give the reader a clue, why anybody would want to take them. Sure there are reasons. Somebody on Talk:War on Drugs#Ridiculously biased complains, the article is written in an anti-war-on-drugs style. I suggested to reflect how Wikipedia writes about bad things. When one reads about the holocaust nobody gets the idea there were two sides of the same coin. Still (almost) nobody complains about this. User:Sbharris, who has more than 10,000 edits, just invokes Godwin's Law an says “This article doesn't even come close to representing the consensus of most of the societies of English-speaking peoples, which is what you'd expect from a Wiki on a topic in the English wikipedia.” […] “And as for the government "abiding by the law", in the US, what the governments ends up "abiding by" IS the law. That is how the law is defined.” I contradict both statements. I also had to “fight” to get a section Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws in. The law abiding Wikipedians don't like to hear that their laws are racist and therefore infringing other laws. If we only write what the other (mainstream) encyclopedias write, there would be little sense to write Wikipedia. --mms (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, the differential interest of editors is exactly what is meant by systematic bias. On all topics it limits what we can write about. The point of being aware of it is an attempt to persuade those editors who have the ability to write about the less covered topics to extend our coverage there. The English WP is actually in a wonderful position to be able to do this, because--even with differential interests and knowledge--we are so large that we have a considerable number of good editors from all cultural and language areas. Many good editors from these areas work here, as well as on their own language wikipedias. Our least covered areas are ones where deliberate repression and bias limit the contributions, as well as those areas still too poor to have widespread opportunity to participate. There may not be much we can directly do about that, but we can individually and as a group make an effort to widen coverage where we can. At the very least, we can prevent the deletion of articles on the basis of "no English language sources' or "not of interest to an english-speaking audience". We already have the policy to prevent it; we need the vigilance. DGG (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for Gay

Hello, there is a request for comment at Talk:Gay#Request for Comment that is badly in need of some outside voices. Most of the people who have commented so far were already involved in the debate. The nature of the dispute is such that people involved in this project may have very useful input. Please take a look, and comment if you so desire. Thanks, Aleta Sing 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Africa

Most of the Women in Africa articles need creation, and others need dramatic expansion. I'm working on Women in Côte d'Ivoire and help is always needed. Lotsa PD CIA / State Department summaries get posted onto Wikipedia, and are largely law based (which makes the colonialists look good, much at variance with reality), or about how women have no power in African society (and need to be saved by the west). The truth is rather more complicated, with women often agents of their own liberation, set back by colonialism. That'll end my rant, but please chack out these articles if you know something about the places/peoples/history mentioned. T L Miles (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Decent starting points can be found here: Gender Country Profiles, Afrol.com. T L Miles (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Day-of-the-year articles

Wikipedia:Days of the year is a proposed guideline for what is and is not worth including in various date pages (such as 1 May, 2 May, 7 September, etc.). Editors interested in countering systemic bias may wish to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page to ensure that less-represented areas of Wikipedia are sufficiently allowed for in these pages. — Dulcem (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics

Greetings folks, I set up a subproject concerning mathematics. I have had seen on-going themes in the content and structure of things especially dealing with logic. I think the issue really does rise to the level of needing some kind of organized awareness of this bias. Any help or advise would be appreciated. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interlanguage Links project in the Hebrew Wikipedia

Please take a look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Interlanguage Links/Ideas from the Hebrew Wikipedia

I also added this link to the main page of this project.

This project has a positive side effect: it facilitates writing articles about the culture specific to that language. Users who are interested in this may find this project interesting.

We still have plenty of work to do, but i think that we've been pretty successful with this project in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't have exact statistics - that's also in the works, but we have added links to hundreds and maybe thousands of articles, and we have written some articles about Israeli culture as a direct result of this project. I am trying to export this success to other languages.

Actually i believe that it will be hard to do in the English Wikipedia, because it must have 100,000's of articles without interlanguage links, but medium-sized Wikipedias in the 5,000-150,000 article range may be very successful in it.

Please feel free to ask me for more info about it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested on Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

I see in the project page that the issue of Chinese views on Tibet has been raised before. There is a team of editors at this article that immediately revert any criticism of the Dalai Lama, immediately revert any viewpoints sourced to Chinese publications, and immediately remove the NPOV dispute template that I tried to add. The lede of the article claims that the Dalai Lama is the present Head of State of Tibet, which is obviously not the case, although the claim is sourced to the Dalai Lama's personal website. I launched an article RfC, but I would appreciate input from the members of this project. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It didn't say that for long. It now says "head of the Tibetan Government in Exile" which seems to be the correct compromise. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It is understandable that one who finds himself in a minority of one, would see the other editors on a page as a "team." In practice, I find that highly unlikely. Terrawatt is fairly articulate and has been generous of his opinion. It's just that not many others are buying what he is saying right now. I would say that editors are working hard at dealing with legitimate concerns raised on the talk page about bias or POV. Sunray (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a grid of the most recent POV deletions of well sourced criticism. Note that the same editors show up over and over:

1. Edit by Strettolicious, sourced to Reuters. Deleted by Yunfeng[1][2][3], Binguyen[4], Tdudkowski[5]

2. Edit by Geoffduggan, sourced to New Yorker and others. Deleted by Yunfeng[6][7], Binguyen[8], Tdudkowski[9][10]

3. Sunray engaged in an edit war to restore the formulation that the Dalai Lama is the head of state for Tibet. [11][12] --Terrawatt (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Geoffduggan is well known as an edit warrior for a fringe religious group. Terrawatt's proposed changes generally amount to negative appraisals of the subject's personality that either do not add any information to the article (Hitchens) or that are sourced to a Chinese government mouthpiece (female living buddha). The article is not improved by either type of addition. That is why a number of editors, not acting in concert, including me, have been reverting those changes. Yunfeng (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a clear set of policies by which we can judge whether an article is "not improved." However, you appear to be applying an entirely different standard, having to do with your individual POV. Calling the female living Buddha a "Chinese government mouthpiece" is an excellent example of the sort of prejudice that the WP:BIAS project is trying to combat. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious bias

It may be useful to summarize here some forms of bias I've noticed while working on Buddhism, tho' I'm not sure all qualify as systemic.

  • As I mentioned in the section on Buddhism above, articles on Buddhism are mainly written by Western Buddhists & reflect their perspective on Buddhism, which is not at all representative. No doubt this applies to other religions as well.
  • Sometimes there is a tendency to say such-&-such religion is found mainly in such-&-such countries. This is colonial thinking: religion of "natives".
  • The afterthought mentality. This is common in English-language books on Christianity: "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." (Eg "The Bible consists of 66 books. Oh but actually the Catholic Bible consists of 73 books." Given that Catholics are about 1/2 of Christendom, this is obviously biased. How big does a group have to be before it's wrong to treat it this way? Clearly a fairly small group can reasonably be treated as an exception to a rule stated 1st in generality.

Peter jackson (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable comments, but what do you suggest? Buddhism is found in many countries, but, for example, I can't imagine writing 10 sentences about Shintoism without one of them being, more or less, "found mainly in" Japan. And how do we write about the Bible without saying that, in general, "Christians believe" in a book roughly twice as large as most Jews do (though there there are sects of each that...)? Surely at least in the article lead we need to simplify things, there just isn't room to write: Catholics believe this, and Mormons believe this, and Ethiopian Jews believe that, and... --GRuban (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to suggest anything in particular. i was merely providing food for thought.
I should have specified that I was talking about universal religions. Obviously for ethnic religions like Shinto the ethnicity is a central fact about the religion.
Actually the Christian Bible isn't anything like twice as long as the Jewish one, but never mind. How you deal with things depends on context. The main point I was making was the importance of being aware of these sorts of things, which is what this project seems to be mainly about: avoiding unintentional bias.
Certainly the article lead needs to simplify, but that has to be done in a fair way. Major points of view should be explicitly mentioned. Medium-sized ones should be allowed for by saying most or something similar. Minor ones can be ignored. Major/minor should be determined by objective criteria, not by the prejudices of the contributors.
Applying that to the Bible, there are various ways to deal with it. For a start, the lead is not going to give a list of the books of the Bible, so there's no need to go into detail. You might, if the article were solely about the Christian Bible, which it's not, simply not go into the question at all. You could just say it's a collection of books & say something about the Old & New Testaments. Or you could say there's a certain amount of disagreement on the contents of the OT. Or you could say there's a somewhat variable collection of writings called apocryphal/deuterocanonical whose status is disputed. Or you could say the Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant 66 & the Orthodox is rather fuzzy. Or ... There are quite a variety of ways of doing it in a balanced way. Unbiased people with the requisite factual knowledge & an awareness of these sorts of issues should be able to deal with things sensibly. I can't remember how the Bible article actually deals with things, tho' I did point out (not logged in) that the displaying of the Tanakh & NT books while the deuterocanonicals were in running text was biased, & that's been corrected. Apart from that it looked reasonable.
"with the requisite factual knowledge" I said above. That's often a problem. I find a lot of contributors in Buddhism articles are simply unaware that any other Buddhists disagree with their brand of Buddhism. This is probably because Buddhist writers tend to believe their version is the "true" one, & so just say "Buddhism teaches ..." or whatever. This no doubt happens with other religions too. A lot of it can be sorted out if contributors are a representative sample, but that often isn't so. Peter jackson (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VA

I just came across this today. It's a list of 1000 articles every good WP should have (ie in any language). Has anyone from this project checked it? Some sections look biased to me. Peter jackson (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to which sections seem biased, and in what way? --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't donea detailed study, but the writers, artists & philosophers seem to be predominantly Western. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the point, but can't immediately think of more world-shaking non-Europeans (not to say there aren't any, just admitting my handicaps :-)). Can you find a less biased list of most notables for comparison? --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias in subject

I've been working on the land value tax article, and I'm having a lot of trouble with a USA-centric section. It's about legal issues that have (as far as I can tell) only been problematic in the USA. If the subject itself has a bias, how can we avoid bias in the article? --Explodicle (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says "this is primarily a US issue", and say so, citing the source. --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CFD on Monrovia

Have a look at [13], an attempt to equate importance of the national capital of Liberia with four rather non-notable locations in the US. --Soman (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that needs objecting to. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VC

see recent name-change and copy editing at Viet Cong. i rest my case. --Soman (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)