This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Systemic bias page. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Countering systemic bias | ||||
|
This page is to discuss the essay. Please go to the above WikiProject discussion board if you have a question about systemic bias in Wikipedia articles. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There's a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft about traditional vs western/pop culture/neopagan definitions of the word, and which to prioritize in the lead of Witchcraft. Input was solicited at the Neopagan wikiproject and that is currently dominating the discussion. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
When I write and edit history articles I always try to include whatever information I can find on Native history and populations since that's a frequently overlooked topic. I am wondering if there is an applicable Wikipedia guideline (not necessarily a rule) to help guide editors on getting the full picture, including Native history and things such as Native place names. I have my own process but I felt that looking at land acknowledgement practices might be a good place to start. I also commented this on Land acknowledgement while searching for the right place to ask this.
I see that in Systemic bias there are a number of topics that somewhat fit what I'm looking for, but I wonder if there can be an addition about the average Wikipedian and most promoted sources being from white settlers of European ancestry. Settler colonialism and the resulting sources are very much a bias on Wikipedia. Pingnova ( talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The article has sections on a number of different global cultures. There has been conflict around the meanings of the words "traditional" and "witchcraft". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
For the interested, treating the #History of the practice of bride buying—nearly universal in various forms across human cultures since at least the neolithic—with a single long paragraph on Jamestown has to be some kind of apotheosis of WP:BIAS. Handy anecdote for those trying to explain the concept to others, when needed. — LlywelynII 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Mx. Granger:, do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias, so I added the following section:
Your edit summary mentions "editors' responsibility to use a range of sources to avoid bias in articles". That is not our "responsibility" and sounds like an encouragement to create a false balance. NPOV does not mean equal treatment of the POV on a topic. (Some POV are better and more factual than others.) It means we document the often unbalanced way that most RS treat a topic, and such an article will appear unbalanced to readers. We are not allowed to try to create a false balance to please them (or ourselves). We should let it be as is.
Some readers will perceive a bias (usually those who are fringey, whose preferred version is contrary to what RS say), and that's okay, as that is the mainstream RS bias the article should have. Readers just need to know that the bias comes from the sources and not from the editors. Editors are not "taking sides", just documenting all relevant sides according to their due weight, and that means some aspects have more weight than others. That creates a perceived bias. That's what the section above addresses, and I'm sure it could use improvement. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
not all systemic bias is from editors but rather from sourcesis discussed in the section, yes. For example, the section says that "Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage."
(edit conflict) Here's another attempt with a better introduction.
How's that? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Systemic bias page. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Countering systemic bias | ||||
|
This page is to discuss the essay. Please go to the above WikiProject discussion board if you have a question about systemic bias in Wikipedia articles. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There's a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft about traditional vs western/pop culture/neopagan definitions of the word, and which to prioritize in the lead of Witchcraft. Input was solicited at the Neopagan wikiproject and that is currently dominating the discussion. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
When I write and edit history articles I always try to include whatever information I can find on Native history and populations since that's a frequently overlooked topic. I am wondering if there is an applicable Wikipedia guideline (not necessarily a rule) to help guide editors on getting the full picture, including Native history and things such as Native place names. I have my own process but I felt that looking at land acknowledgement practices might be a good place to start. I also commented this on Land acknowledgement while searching for the right place to ask this.
I see that in Systemic bias there are a number of topics that somewhat fit what I'm looking for, but I wonder if there can be an addition about the average Wikipedian and most promoted sources being from white settlers of European ancestry. Settler colonialism and the resulting sources are very much a bias on Wikipedia. Pingnova ( talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The article has sections on a number of different global cultures. There has been conflict around the meanings of the words "traditional" and "witchcraft". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
For the interested, treating the #History of the practice of bride buying—nearly universal in various forms across human cultures since at least the neolithic—with a single long paragraph on Jamestown has to be some kind of apotheosis of WP:BIAS. Handy anecdote for those trying to explain the concept to others, when needed. — LlywelynII 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Mx. Granger:, do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias, so I added the following section:
Your edit summary mentions "editors' responsibility to use a range of sources to avoid bias in articles". That is not our "responsibility" and sounds like an encouragement to create a false balance. NPOV does not mean equal treatment of the POV on a topic. (Some POV are better and more factual than others.) It means we document the often unbalanced way that most RS treat a topic, and such an article will appear unbalanced to readers. We are not allowed to try to create a false balance to please them (or ourselves). We should let it be as is.
Some readers will perceive a bias (usually those who are fringey, whose preferred version is contrary to what RS say), and that's okay, as that is the mainstream RS bias the article should have. Readers just need to know that the bias comes from the sources and not from the editors. Editors are not "taking sides", just documenting all relevant sides according to their due weight, and that means some aspects have more weight than others. That creates a perceived bias. That's what the section above addresses, and I'm sure it could use improvement. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
not all systemic bias is from editors but rather from sourcesis discussed in the section, yes. For example, the section says that "Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage."
(edit conflict) Here's another attempt with a better introduction.
How's that? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.