![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can anyone take a look at Talk:Malta#Terrible map. I'd think it's a no-brainer that a locator map of Malta should be centered on Malta and not Denmark, cutting Africa out almost completely. Apparently a literally Eurocentric map is a "Wikipedia standard"? I'm baffled by this. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog ( talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all! Inspired in part by a conversation here last fall [1] about making Wikipedia more welcoming for second-language editors, I have started a new Wikiproject, the Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange, for editors to assist each other in writing for Wikipedia in a second language. If this interests you, I urge you to sign up and start participating; we need a critical mass for the project to be effective. Tdslk ( talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong language (NSFW). Some will find this refreshingly frank, others may find it offensive, or simply self-promotion. A classic rant offered here as a gesture of support for all the US editors who are attempting to make the encyclopedia more representative and useful for the rest of the world too. -- Djembayz ( talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the lead in Talk:Case_Closed#2015_Break
The versions of Detective Conan (as the series is known in its original Japan) produced in the United States and distributed to Canada, the United Kingdom, and presumably Ireland are known as Case Closed. The article uses this title and the modified character names in this version. However there are also English-language manga and anime versions of this series produced in Singapore, released under the original title "Detective Conan" and using the original Japanese character names. The distribution network of the company making the Singapore manga version includes Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Thailand (the latter two, AFAIK, are the two countries on this list that are not largely English-speaking). Animax Asia has aired the Detective Conan anime in the Philippines ( Archive). The series is known as "Detective Conan" in almost all non-English speaking countries.
I proposed stating that the series is known as Detective Conan in Japan and Southeast Asia in the lead of the article, while the lead currently only says it is known as Detective Conan in Japan. One Wikipedian argues that the Southeast Asian English versions serve only a small number of people, and they are too insignificant to mention in the lead of the article. I argue that not mentioning the Southeast Asian versions in the lead is a form of systemic bias.
Question: Is it systemic bias to exclude the fact that in some English-speaking regions have the series released as "Detective Conan", or is it in compliance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style?
Animax Asia profile ( Archive) WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Poets."-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Pick any year. Are all the women being listed after all the men? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Old article but very focused on ways Wikipedia discourages female editors [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 ( talk) 00:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi All, I started a bibliography on harassment on Wikipedia in my personal namespace: User:Vaughn88/sandbox/counteringbiasbiblio. If others think it is a good idea, I will transfer this to: WikiProject Countering systemic bias/harassment/bibliography, where it can be added to by others. Vaughn88 ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It is totally biassed.Although grey wolves is an legal assocation in Turkey it is described as a terrorist organizaton and neo-fascist.Many users struggle to change that but some other users prevent this and behave unproperly according to wikipedia rules.You can look history and talk this page. Grey Wolves (organization) Best regards Unknowledge ( talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The regional balance/scoping of Tax protester arguments/ Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments/ Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Pacific First Bank merger listed in 1993: PFB had its headquarters in Seattle, WA, had purchased some branches (in the months before being bought) from Great Western Bank in Ontario, CA, and had its operations located in Tacoma, WA. 2606:6000:CFC0:2C:8E6:E63F:3BAE:81D2 ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Devie Dragone, August 2015 <employed at PFB at that time(1993)>
Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015. As I said there: It has been proposed (at Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015) that Calumet (pipe) be renamed and moved to Ceremonial pipe (Native American). There are systemic bias issues here, and I humbly request that anyone commenting here be at least somewhat familiar with the issues we deal with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, or willing to learn about this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The 2015-08-19 issue of The Signpost has a lead editorial that is worth reading: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus - kosboot ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:FOOTY only players for fully professional leagues are considered "automatically notable".
This appears to be biased in favour of Developed World and large countries.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
Currently, there is a appeal filed to unsalt and undelete the article Mass killings in capitalist regimes. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 05:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
RfC regarding an amendment to MEDRS, specifically asking if we should or shouldn't allow high-quality sources to be rejected simply because of the country in which the research is published. Any interested editors are welcome to comment. LesVegas ( talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In many Wikipedia articles it's common to give equivalents of currencies from non-English speaking countries. They may be converted into U.S. dollars, Canadian dollars, UK pounds, Euros, South African rand, etc, and often the conversions come from reliable sources cited by those Wikipedia articles.
The question: When should these currencies be "converted"? Should there be an attempt to include more kinds of currencies other than the USD and/or UKP, or should the currency conversions not be stated to avoid systemic bias claims? Should the currency conversions only be included if reliable sources do so?
Also some published sources try to convert certain educational stages into certain countries into American or British educational stages (for example: Year 1 of Japanese senior high school converted to 10th grade (US) or Year 11 (UK)). Would including these conversions be systemic bias too? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not a member of this Wikiproject and perhaps this is not the place for this but I think that the members should take a look at this article.
Despite the fact that many historians advocate annexation of Canada as a primary war aim for the US as well as irrefutable evidence suggesting this, this article makes only a last-thought, to-the-side mention of this, and then only as a debated "possibly". This is only one of the issues of this article, some of which I have brought up in the talkpage, and I think you should look into them.
I believe this is a result of systemic bias as many if not most Wikipedia editors are from the US. This particular article is under the "protection" of several POV-pushers who suppress the countless complaining editors with fallacious, contemptious or otherwise invalid responses.
Regards, Green547 ( talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This past weekend I attended WikiConferenceUSA in Washington D.C. Among the excellent talks was one by Danielle Citron author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. I highly recommend watching her talk (on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-Y-FuzAH4t=42m47s -- the speaking begins at 42 minutes and 47 seconds from the beginning). Even though her talk was about harassment, she spoke about how it can affect people. I could definitely see the connection with Wikipedia - how argumentative discussions can affect people in predictable ways (for example, forcing people to be silent), resulting in bias. - kosboot ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I restored this article, got rid of the most obvious copyright infringement and began to fix the references. This article needs more work and I'd welcome any help to get it in Wikipedia shape. I think there is much that can be preserved here but the overly promotional language has to go. Liz Read! Talk! 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel, a Wikipedia Signpost editor, wrote a powerful editorial apparently inspired by many of the discussions at WikiConference USA. What has fascinated and horrified me are the responses. These responses made me realize for the first time that this project (Countering systemic bias) will never succeed if it focuses on articles. The real issue is Wikipedia editor behavior (that's why I say look at the comments). - kosboot ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a merge discussion on the notability of this Romanian village, but has implications for Romanian villages in general. Any interested parties, ease have a look and consider commenting. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe,
Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe,
Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--
Ipigott (
talk) 08:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am posting at this "countering systemic bias" board because this issue concerns a health issue and content in almost every language and from almost every country, but which was managed in English language projects.
Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.
More discussion about this is at the Commons page or English WikiProject Medicine at " Request review of HIV posters in Commons". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Photography
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Talk:Ministry of Defense of Georgia#Requested move 30 May 2016 - Please see this requested move which relates to the official name of the Ministry ( WP:NC-GAL) vs WP:RETAIN AusLondonder ( talk) 00:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost. Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work here? If so, please ping me and/or respond here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Of interest to this project: Improving template with the concept of propaganda, especially on academic subjects. 82.132.244.126 ( talk) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Scottish people#Images about addressing the absence of women amongst the images used to illustrate Scottish people. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is just to draw members' attentions to a set of move discussions that have culminated in the following page: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. This is not a non-neutral plea for members to participate (it's rather late in the MR) if they don't want to do so. This is just to bring up the possibility that a "move" decision might open up a near future of many other systemic-bias-plagued articles to be cleaned and cleared of SB (a domino effect of sorts). Temporal Sunshine Paine 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Skin conditions and people of colour, where your contributions would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
National Assembly (Democratic Republic of the Congo) is equivalent to the United States House of Representatives, but has only one source. It needs improvement. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate comments from members of this project on a discussion I've been having with another user at Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans by country#Imperial dependencies. The user seems to think that Wikipedia should not consider colonies to be separate from the imperial power. In practice, this means that huge chunks of the world will be excluded from the list with the ironic excuse that a Jamaican colonial subject was, somehow, as British as someone born in London! — Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia and age profile of experienced Wikipedians are imho showing through very much in the differences how the Hillary / Trump articles are being written. What do you think? (See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikipedia for Trump). -- S I 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gender bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be interested in input (Delete or Keep) at this AfD for American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009. One of the arguments put forward is that we can delete this Honduras-election related article because the information is partly present at Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America. (Hillary Clinton is a U.S. politician.) BlueSalix ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on this fashion firm recently closed as delete at AfD (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop & Suki) and I thought the case would be of interest to this project. While the article had a fair amount of lousy coverage, I cited four reliable, in-depth sources in the discussion ("Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.
[25]
[26]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.
[27]
[28].") which were summarily dismissed (in particular, the Vogue article as an "
advertorial"). I have a fair understanding of the editorial caveats in fashion publishing, but what more depth/breadth of coverage should be expected of a new fashion firm if not exactly the four aforementioned articles? Dismissing, for example, the Vogue article above as an advertorial makes it easy to exclude similar Vogue reporting when assessing
significant coverage (and independent notability) of many fashion-related firms.
czar 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a template for gender bias that can be inserted into an article talk page? Something similar to the globalize template:
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (November 2016) |
but that identifies gender bias.
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
To editor AugusteBlanqui: I went ahead and started the /doc page for {{ Inclusivity}}, so feel free to tweak it wherever you think necessary. and Happy New Year! Paine Ellsworth u/ c 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't all members of Category:American women judges also be members of the parent category, Category:American judges (since that parent does not diffuse by gender)? If so, it currently isn't the case. czar 08:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fulfilled prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
One thing I've wondered is, does Wikimedia's nonprofit status encourage Wikipedia to be biased, or unbiased? I think it could cut both ways. Suppose you've won the lottery, and now are financially independent. You can now publicly say whatever you want without fear of too much reprisal. You can openly praise or denounce any company or any individual (as long as you don't defame them).
So, for example, if you wanted to give a balanced appraisal of the company you used to work for before you won the lottery, you can do that. On the other hand, you can also give a negative appraisal of them, while simultaneously praising their competitor! So being financially independent doesn't mean you have an incentive to be neutral. Looking at the world of nonprofits, a lot of them are biased. For example, Greenpeace is a nonprofit, but it definitely has an agenda about environmental issues. Likewise, at the universities, a lot of the tenured professors express fringe opinions, because they are free to do so.
On the other hand, to the extent that Wikimedia seeks to cater to its donors' sensibilities in order to attract donations, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by those donors' biases. (Is it coincidental how many of WMF's board members have ties to Google?) But to the extent that Wikimedia lets Wikipedia be run by its community of editors, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by the Wikipedia editors' biases. These biases become self-perpetuating as a biased project tends to attract people who share similar biases, and repel (or, in some cases, expel) those who don't.
It's the same problem politicians run into when, say, they're trying to create a nonpartisan commission for redistricting. Where are they going to find the politically neutral arbiters? They can get retired judges to do it, but every one of those judges was originally nominated and confirmed by partisan politicians, often as a reward for political favors (e.g. helping with a campaign). Wikipedia elects its arbitrators, so we see the same problems there that we'd see in any other situation where judges are elected.
Perhaps Wikipedia is more biased than the for-profit Britannica, World Book, etc. were. Those encyclopedias had to cater to the sensibilities of the masses, so if anything, the problem may have been that they were too milquetoast or populist at times. They couldn't say anything that might offend readers.
One difference is that most revenue models for a for-profit free online encyclopedia would involve advertising, rather than user fees (as was the case with Britannica). A lot of proprietors of for-profit websites say that they feel like they have to watch what they say, so they don't lose advertisers (since the advertisers' customers might demand that they pull ads). But a donor-supported nonprofit, unless it lives entirely off an endowment from past donations, also has to pay attention to which side its bread is buttered on. (If it does live entirely off an endowment, and is insulated from outside influence by being governed by a self-appointed board, that still leaves it open to being influenced by the board members' biases.)
I question sometimes whether we achieved any additional neutrality from going the nonprofit route, that's enough to outweigh the disadvantages in terms of efficiency. A nonprofit has to devote a lot of resources to begging for money, rather than getting investors to put in that money (which, in the tech world, is often with little expectation of profit). And if the nonprofit is poorly managed, there is no way that a big outside investor can buy the organization out so he can revamp it. (Although this same problem arises in the tech world, where people like Zuckerberg have supervoting shares.)
Wikipedia tries to overcome all those problems by saying, "We'll just limit the articles to containing information from reliable sources." Most of those reliable sources are for-profit media outlets like The Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, etc., though. So whatever biases those for-profits have, Wikipedia will tend to mirror. On the other hand, as these media outlets become increasingly unprofitable, they end up getting taken over by billionaires who use them as their personal Pravdas to push various agendas.
What about clinical studies; aren't those scientific, and therefore neutral? They could be, if funding were given out for studies in a neutral manner, and if all studies were published, regardless of whether the results fit the funder's agenda. That's not the case, though. N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Contributors here may be interested that an RfC for a policy on gender neutral language to become a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines is open for votes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. The proposed policy is limited is scope and so excludes articles, talk pages or any discussion by individual contributors. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, requesting people who know about Pregnancy in art to edit this newly created page and add information about it. 2.51.16.229 ( talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Community health initiative
Helping the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects.
Hello! Today we'd like to introduce the new Community health initiative, the people who will be working on it, and most importantly how you can get involved. See the post at Village pump (miscellaneous), Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 02:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC))
As far as I can tell, there seems no proposal on the table for editors who may be experiencing bias and inappropriate counter-productive efforts to build an encyclopedia. Where do I ask for someone to address this issue on my behalf? Best Regards,
I have been trying to contribute for a week and I feel there is a certain amount of discrepancy in AfD results. This has been extremely discouraging, particularly because my second article was nominated for deletion within a few hours (despite similar articles in Europe/US existing for years). I have been contributing broadly about transport and places and I can't help but feel that articles about US/Europe/Australia tend to be kept while similar articles about India (and other Asian countries) are quite easily deleted. There is a requirement of WP:BEFORE but editors seem to ignore it and just vote for delete without even attempting to find sources. There is also a lack of will to WP:PRESERVE information. In cases of US/Europe/Australia, often editors ask for a merge to preserve information. However the same courtesy is not extended to other articles. Here are some examples to illustrate my point
I would be happy to know if there is any way to address this. I understand that there are fewer editors from India and other Asian countries, which creates a problem. But I also feel editors could be a bit more aware and at least attempt to search for sources. I try hard to find references, and it is extremely discouraging if articles are going to be deleted simply because a number of editors vote delete (perhaps without attempting to search for sources). It takes a lot of time to find sources, add citations and copy-edit the articles. If Wikipedia will delete contributions so easily, I might as well not contribute.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any good tag for a section of an article which has a left-to-right-text bias (i.e ignoring languages such as Hebrew and Arabic)? I found such bias in Banner blindness#Location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language editions.
Few months later, I propose creating the Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage
This project aims at countering the systemic bias related to context. I am presenting it to a grant and I expect that the site becomes a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions.
Here is the link of the project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)
If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it. In any case, I will appreciate any feedback, comments,... Thanks in advance for your time!
Best regards,
-- Marcmiquel ( talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science.
Zazpot (
talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This group has quieted down since I first joined some time ago. I was wondering whether participants might be interested in drawing up a document to help others detect systemic bias in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). What might be recognizable characteristics that anyone could be instructed to detect? Does anyone have interest in pursuing such a project? - kosboot ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_E._Park_(2nd_nomination)
Sociologically, it's understandable some amount of systemic bias might exist on WP regarding academic areas some think not notable that happen to persued by whatever minority community among WP's overall population of contributors (I dunno, family studies? romance novelists? religion studies?). Yet, IMO, should contributors make an extra effort to stringently follow WP's guidelines in every case, any such biases may become quite effectively countered.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can anyone take a look at Talk:Malta#Terrible map. I'd think it's a no-brainer that a locator map of Malta should be centered on Malta and not Denmark, cutting Africa out almost completely. Apparently a literally Eurocentric map is a "Wikipedia standard"? I'm baffled by this. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog ( talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all! Inspired in part by a conversation here last fall [1] about making Wikipedia more welcoming for second-language editors, I have started a new Wikiproject, the Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange, for editors to assist each other in writing for Wikipedia in a second language. If this interests you, I urge you to sign up and start participating; we need a critical mass for the project to be effective. Tdslk ( talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong language (NSFW). Some will find this refreshingly frank, others may find it offensive, or simply self-promotion. A classic rant offered here as a gesture of support for all the US editors who are attempting to make the encyclopedia more representative and useful for the rest of the world too. -- Djembayz ( talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the lead in Talk:Case_Closed#2015_Break
The versions of Detective Conan (as the series is known in its original Japan) produced in the United States and distributed to Canada, the United Kingdom, and presumably Ireland are known as Case Closed. The article uses this title and the modified character names in this version. However there are also English-language manga and anime versions of this series produced in Singapore, released under the original title "Detective Conan" and using the original Japanese character names. The distribution network of the company making the Singapore manga version includes Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Thailand (the latter two, AFAIK, are the two countries on this list that are not largely English-speaking). Animax Asia has aired the Detective Conan anime in the Philippines ( Archive). The series is known as "Detective Conan" in almost all non-English speaking countries.
I proposed stating that the series is known as Detective Conan in Japan and Southeast Asia in the lead of the article, while the lead currently only says it is known as Detective Conan in Japan. One Wikipedian argues that the Southeast Asian English versions serve only a small number of people, and they are too insignificant to mention in the lead of the article. I argue that not mentioning the Southeast Asian versions in the lead is a form of systemic bias.
Question: Is it systemic bias to exclude the fact that in some English-speaking regions have the series released as "Detective Conan", or is it in compliance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style?
Animax Asia profile ( Archive) WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Poets."-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Pick any year. Are all the women being listed after all the men? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Old article but very focused on ways Wikipedia discourages female editors [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 ( talk) 00:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi All, I started a bibliography on harassment on Wikipedia in my personal namespace: User:Vaughn88/sandbox/counteringbiasbiblio. If others think it is a good idea, I will transfer this to: WikiProject Countering systemic bias/harassment/bibliography, where it can be added to by others. Vaughn88 ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It is totally biassed.Although grey wolves is an legal assocation in Turkey it is described as a terrorist organizaton and neo-fascist.Many users struggle to change that but some other users prevent this and behave unproperly according to wikipedia rules.You can look history and talk this page. Grey Wolves (organization) Best regards Unknowledge ( talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The regional balance/scoping of Tax protester arguments/ Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments/ Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Pacific First Bank merger listed in 1993: PFB had its headquarters in Seattle, WA, had purchased some branches (in the months before being bought) from Great Western Bank in Ontario, CA, and had its operations located in Tacoma, WA. 2606:6000:CFC0:2C:8E6:E63F:3BAE:81D2 ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Devie Dragone, August 2015 <employed at PFB at that time(1993)>
Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015. As I said there: It has been proposed (at Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015) that Calumet (pipe) be renamed and moved to Ceremonial pipe (Native American). There are systemic bias issues here, and I humbly request that anyone commenting here be at least somewhat familiar with the issues we deal with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, or willing to learn about this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The 2015-08-19 issue of The Signpost has a lead editorial that is worth reading: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus - kosboot ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:FOOTY only players for fully professional leagues are considered "automatically notable".
This appears to be biased in favour of Developed World and large countries.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
Currently, there is a appeal filed to unsalt and undelete the article Mass killings in capitalist regimes. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 05:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
RfC regarding an amendment to MEDRS, specifically asking if we should or shouldn't allow high-quality sources to be rejected simply because of the country in which the research is published. Any interested editors are welcome to comment. LesVegas ( talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In many Wikipedia articles it's common to give equivalents of currencies from non-English speaking countries. They may be converted into U.S. dollars, Canadian dollars, UK pounds, Euros, South African rand, etc, and often the conversions come from reliable sources cited by those Wikipedia articles.
The question: When should these currencies be "converted"? Should there be an attempt to include more kinds of currencies other than the USD and/or UKP, or should the currency conversions not be stated to avoid systemic bias claims? Should the currency conversions only be included if reliable sources do so?
Also some published sources try to convert certain educational stages into certain countries into American or British educational stages (for example: Year 1 of Japanese senior high school converted to 10th grade (US) or Year 11 (UK)). Would including these conversions be systemic bias too? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not a member of this Wikiproject and perhaps this is not the place for this but I think that the members should take a look at this article.
Despite the fact that many historians advocate annexation of Canada as a primary war aim for the US as well as irrefutable evidence suggesting this, this article makes only a last-thought, to-the-side mention of this, and then only as a debated "possibly". This is only one of the issues of this article, some of which I have brought up in the talkpage, and I think you should look into them.
I believe this is a result of systemic bias as many if not most Wikipedia editors are from the US. This particular article is under the "protection" of several POV-pushers who suppress the countless complaining editors with fallacious, contemptious or otherwise invalid responses.
Regards, Green547 ( talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This past weekend I attended WikiConferenceUSA in Washington D.C. Among the excellent talks was one by Danielle Citron author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. I highly recommend watching her talk (on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-Y-FuzAH4t=42m47s -- the speaking begins at 42 minutes and 47 seconds from the beginning). Even though her talk was about harassment, she spoke about how it can affect people. I could definitely see the connection with Wikipedia - how argumentative discussions can affect people in predictable ways (for example, forcing people to be silent), resulting in bias. - kosboot ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I restored this article, got rid of the most obvious copyright infringement and began to fix the references. This article needs more work and I'd welcome any help to get it in Wikipedia shape. I think there is much that can be preserved here but the overly promotional language has to go. Liz Read! Talk! 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel, a Wikipedia Signpost editor, wrote a powerful editorial apparently inspired by many of the discussions at WikiConference USA. What has fascinated and horrified me are the responses. These responses made me realize for the first time that this project (Countering systemic bias) will never succeed if it focuses on articles. The real issue is Wikipedia editor behavior (that's why I say look at the comments). - kosboot ( talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a merge discussion on the notability of this Romanian village, but has implications for Romanian villages in general. Any interested parties, ease have a look and consider commenting. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe,
Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe,
Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--
Ipigott (
talk) 08:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am posting at this "countering systemic bias" board because this issue concerns a health issue and content in almost every language and from almost every country, but which was managed in English language projects.
Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.
More discussion about this is at the Commons page or English WikiProject Medicine at " Request review of HIV posters in Commons". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Photography
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Talk:Ministry of Defense of Georgia#Requested move 30 May 2016 - Please see this requested move which relates to the official name of the Ministry ( WP:NC-GAL) vs WP:RETAIN AusLondonder ( talk) 00:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost. Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work here? If so, please ping me and/or respond here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Of interest to this project: Improving template with the concept of propaganda, especially on academic subjects. 82.132.244.126 ( talk) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Scottish people#Images about addressing the absence of women amongst the images used to illustrate Scottish people. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is just to draw members' attentions to a set of move discussions that have culminated in the following page: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. This is not a non-neutral plea for members to participate (it's rather late in the MR) if they don't want to do so. This is just to bring up the possibility that a "move" decision might open up a near future of many other systemic-bias-plagued articles to be cleaned and cleared of SB (a domino effect of sorts). Temporal Sunshine Paine 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Skin conditions and people of colour, where your contributions would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
National Assembly (Democratic Republic of the Congo) is equivalent to the United States House of Representatives, but has only one source. It needs improvement. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
See here. Count Iblis ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate comments from members of this project on a discussion I've been having with another user at Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans by country#Imperial dependencies. The user seems to think that Wikipedia should not consider colonies to be separate from the imperial power. In practice, this means that huge chunks of the world will be excluded from the list with the ironic excuse that a Jamaican colonial subject was, somehow, as British as someone born in London! — Brigade Piron ( talk) 13:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia and age profile of experienced Wikipedians are imho showing through very much in the differences how the Hillary / Trump articles are being written. What do you think? (See also User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikipedia for Trump). -- S I 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gender bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be interested in input (Delete or Keep) at this AfD for American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009. One of the arguments put forward is that we can delete this Honduras-election related article because the information is partly present at Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America. (Hillary Clinton is a U.S. politician.) BlueSalix ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on this fashion firm recently closed as delete at AfD (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop & Suki) and I thought the case would be of interest to this project. While the article had a fair amount of lousy coverage, I cited four reliable, in-depth sources in the discussion ("Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.
[25]
[26]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.
[27]
[28].") which were summarily dismissed (in particular, the Vogue article as an "
advertorial"). I have a fair understanding of the editorial caveats in fashion publishing, but what more depth/breadth of coverage should be expected of a new fashion firm if not exactly the four aforementioned articles? Dismissing, for example, the Vogue article above as an advertorial makes it easy to exclude similar Vogue reporting when assessing
significant coverage (and independent notability) of many fashion-related firms.
czar 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a template for gender bias that can be inserted into an article talk page? Something similar to the globalize template:
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (November 2016) |
but that identifies gender bias.
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
To editor AugusteBlanqui: I went ahead and started the /doc page for {{ Inclusivity}}, so feel free to tweak it wherever you think necessary. and Happy New Year! Paine Ellsworth u/ c 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't all members of Category:American women judges also be members of the parent category, Category:American judges (since that parent does not diffuse by gender)? If so, it currently isn't the case. czar 08:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fulfilled prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
One thing I've wondered is, does Wikimedia's nonprofit status encourage Wikipedia to be biased, or unbiased? I think it could cut both ways. Suppose you've won the lottery, and now are financially independent. You can now publicly say whatever you want without fear of too much reprisal. You can openly praise or denounce any company or any individual (as long as you don't defame them).
So, for example, if you wanted to give a balanced appraisal of the company you used to work for before you won the lottery, you can do that. On the other hand, you can also give a negative appraisal of them, while simultaneously praising their competitor! So being financially independent doesn't mean you have an incentive to be neutral. Looking at the world of nonprofits, a lot of them are biased. For example, Greenpeace is a nonprofit, but it definitely has an agenda about environmental issues. Likewise, at the universities, a lot of the tenured professors express fringe opinions, because they are free to do so.
On the other hand, to the extent that Wikimedia seeks to cater to its donors' sensibilities in order to attract donations, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by those donors' biases. (Is it coincidental how many of WMF's board members have ties to Google?) But to the extent that Wikimedia lets Wikipedia be run by its community of editors, that makes it susceptible to being influenced by the Wikipedia editors' biases. These biases become self-perpetuating as a biased project tends to attract people who share similar biases, and repel (or, in some cases, expel) those who don't.
It's the same problem politicians run into when, say, they're trying to create a nonpartisan commission for redistricting. Where are they going to find the politically neutral arbiters? They can get retired judges to do it, but every one of those judges was originally nominated and confirmed by partisan politicians, often as a reward for political favors (e.g. helping with a campaign). Wikipedia elects its arbitrators, so we see the same problems there that we'd see in any other situation where judges are elected.
Perhaps Wikipedia is more biased than the for-profit Britannica, World Book, etc. were. Those encyclopedias had to cater to the sensibilities of the masses, so if anything, the problem may have been that they were too milquetoast or populist at times. They couldn't say anything that might offend readers.
One difference is that most revenue models for a for-profit free online encyclopedia would involve advertising, rather than user fees (as was the case with Britannica). A lot of proprietors of for-profit websites say that they feel like they have to watch what they say, so they don't lose advertisers (since the advertisers' customers might demand that they pull ads). But a donor-supported nonprofit, unless it lives entirely off an endowment from past donations, also has to pay attention to which side its bread is buttered on. (If it does live entirely off an endowment, and is insulated from outside influence by being governed by a self-appointed board, that still leaves it open to being influenced by the board members' biases.)
I question sometimes whether we achieved any additional neutrality from going the nonprofit route, that's enough to outweigh the disadvantages in terms of efficiency. A nonprofit has to devote a lot of resources to begging for money, rather than getting investors to put in that money (which, in the tech world, is often with little expectation of profit). And if the nonprofit is poorly managed, there is no way that a big outside investor can buy the organization out so he can revamp it. (Although this same problem arises in the tech world, where people like Zuckerberg have supervoting shares.)
Wikipedia tries to overcome all those problems by saying, "We'll just limit the articles to containing information from reliable sources." Most of those reliable sources are for-profit media outlets like The Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, etc., though. So whatever biases those for-profits have, Wikipedia will tend to mirror. On the other hand, as these media outlets become increasingly unprofitable, they end up getting taken over by billionaires who use them as their personal Pravdas to push various agendas.
What about clinical studies; aren't those scientific, and therefore neutral? They could be, if funding were given out for studies in a neutral manner, and if all studies were published, regardless of whether the results fit the funder's agenda. That's not the case, though. N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Contributors here may be interested that an RfC for a policy on gender neutral language to become a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines is open for votes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. The proposed policy is limited is scope and so excludes articles, talk pages or any discussion by individual contributors. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, requesting people who know about Pregnancy in art to edit this newly created page and add information about it. 2.51.16.229 ( talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Community health initiative
Helping the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects.
Hello! Today we'd like to introduce the new Community health initiative, the people who will be working on it, and most importantly how you can get involved. See the post at Village pump (miscellaneous), Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 02:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC))
As far as I can tell, there seems no proposal on the table for editors who may be experiencing bias and inappropriate counter-productive efforts to build an encyclopedia. Where do I ask for someone to address this issue on my behalf? Best Regards,
I have been trying to contribute for a week and I feel there is a certain amount of discrepancy in AfD results. This has been extremely discouraging, particularly because my second article was nominated for deletion within a few hours (despite similar articles in Europe/US existing for years). I have been contributing broadly about transport and places and I can't help but feel that articles about US/Europe/Australia tend to be kept while similar articles about India (and other Asian countries) are quite easily deleted. There is a requirement of WP:BEFORE but editors seem to ignore it and just vote for delete without even attempting to find sources. There is also a lack of will to WP:PRESERVE information. In cases of US/Europe/Australia, often editors ask for a merge to preserve information. However the same courtesy is not extended to other articles. Here are some examples to illustrate my point
I would be happy to know if there is any way to address this. I understand that there are fewer editors from India and other Asian countries, which creates a problem. But I also feel editors could be a bit more aware and at least attempt to search for sources. I try hard to find references, and it is extremely discouraging if articles are going to be deleted simply because a number of editors vote delete (perhaps without attempting to search for sources). It takes a lot of time to find sources, add citations and copy-edit the articles. If Wikipedia will delete contributions so easily, I might as well not contribute.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any good tag for a section of an article which has a left-to-right-text bias (i.e ignoring languages such as Hebrew and Arabic)? I found such bias in Banner blindness#Location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language editions.
Few months later, I propose creating the Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage
This project aims at countering the systemic bias related to context. I am presenting it to a grant and I expect that the site becomes a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions.
Here is the link of the project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)
If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it. In any case, I will appreciate any feedback, comments,... Thanks in advance for your time!
Best regards,
-- Marcmiquel ( talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science.
Zazpot (
talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This group has quieted down since I first joined some time ago. I was wondering whether participants might be interested in drawing up a document to help others detect systemic bias in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). What might be recognizable characteristics that anyone could be instructed to detect? Does anyone have interest in pursuing such a project? - kosboot ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_E._Park_(2nd_nomination)
Sociologically, it's understandable some amount of systemic bias might exist on WP regarding academic areas some think not notable that happen to persued by whatever minority community among WP's overall population of contributors (I dunno, family studies? romance novelists? religion studies?). Yet, IMO, should contributors make an extra effort to stringently follow WP's guidelines in every case, any such biases may become quite effectively countered.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)