Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 8

message: Of the 12 wikipedians who turned up to the Sydney meetup yesterday, I think every single one worked in IT (except for the ten year old, who I don't think had a job yet, but he was the geekiest of the lot).  
So I was thinking about a plan to get a broader range of experts involved in Wikipedia: print out articles that clearly needs some work, add customised cover pages saying "millions of people worldwide rely on this as a source of information, please update it at URL" (plus maybe some flattery :-) and drop them in the mailboxes of relevant area experts at the university (and possibly graduate students).  It might be easiest to start with a list of academics and select articles based on their expertise, rather than going the other way.
What do people think? -- Danny Yee 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anything you can come up with that successfully involves people who are expert and not normally inclined to participate is good. Interesting on that demographic: here in Seattle, a very tech-heavy city, our latest meetup included, I believe, two librarians, two library science students, a lawyer/writer, an environmental studies major at Oberlin, and one person with an architecture degree (although I'm not sure whether that's what he does for work). That's out of 18; a slim majority were probably techies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also like that idea.  You should add it to our promoting wikipedia pages (sorry, I can't remember the URL right now). JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney meetup - all IT geeks - plan to get other experts involved 

message: See: Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan etc
Articles are at horrible shape due to constant additions of bias. Basicaly every kurd related region article contains "same stuff". And everything about borders of Kurdistan is a disputed. Not just by the international comunity but by Iraqis as well as the Iraqi Kurdistan article suggests. Please take a look. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SOS request from [[User:Cool Cat]] on articles related to Kurds

message: Using U.S. coins as a unit of measurement is bad.  Nobody heard of centimetres, or even inches?
Make use of this template:
— Gulliver ✉ 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NoCoins 

message: What do we do? Arch O. La 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrist Faction merge request

message: I have a sneaky suspicion that English Wikipedia coverage of things such as Dragon Ball and others, which are well-known throughout the world and exist in dozens of languages, gives precedence to non-standard English versions above all others, even the originals. For example, the articles on various Dragon Ball characters (Lunch (Dragon Ball), Garlic Jr., etc.) point out even the most obscure English names, but often neglect to include the original Japanese name, while others like Dragon World (apparently a term invented by American fans) draw arbitrary parallels to things like European folklore and don't mention the actual Sino-Japanese origins.
(By the way, sorry for the DB-centric nature of my examples, but these are just what pushed me over the edge.)
Does that qualify as systemic bias? It seems to fit into the reference to English language bias on the project page.
elvenscout742 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language media... 

message: Does the globalize tag go on the talk page or article page? I don't think the project page makes it clear (unless I missed it). Thanks. Gflores Talk 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if the problem is such as to render the article nearly useless, it should go on the main page, otherwise on the discussion page. For example, if shadow puppet—a topic where the main concerns should be in Asia—focused on the UK, that would certainly belong on the main page. If, on the other hand, Iberian naming customs happens not to discuss Sephardic Jews (as I suspect it does not), that might be an issue worth pointing out, but it is a minor issue: people are going to look at this article mainly to understand whether someone with a name like Silvia Ramos Gomez is a "Ramos" or a "Gomez". - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: globalize tag

message: As the wiki grows, we add more functionality, which is good, but this functionality often requires the addition of increasingly complex code to the wiki syntax.  With tables, references, complex HTML/CSS, content boxes, and the like, our markup is much more complicated than the original "easy-to-edit" wikis.  This is bad, as it alienates non-technical users, or even makes it impossible for them to edit, and biases in favor of those who can deal with the complexity.  (Wikipedia's largest percentage of users are young, technical types for a reason.)  I'm wondering if it would be worth creating a "wiki syntax reform" group or something, lobbying for simplification of markup syntax while maintaining the enhanced functionality. — Omegatron 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex wiki syntax 

message: I was thinking on what would be the best way to counter bias.  Why not attempt to turn every continent article into a featured one?  True its a big goal, but hey, the continents and people on them cant be balanced if they arent ut up on the same pedistal as others!  American Patriot 1776 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you call the articles about that organisations Islamic-terrorism propoganda? Why is i.e. Islamic Relief, an international relief and development organization, a terrorist organisation? Is it because they are Muslim? You are probably one of those islamophobic Wikipedians, who make unbiased articles impossible. Raphael1 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There may be some confusion with the International Islamic Relief Organization which is being sued for financing the 9/11 attacks , also see Charities with ties to terrorism. That's not necessarily the same organization, but the mistake is understandable enough that a claim that he's islamophobic is uncalled for. GRuban 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that count anymore in Guantanamo times, when a 15 year old gets detained without a fair trial? Just because the IIRO got financial support from Saudi-Arabia and supported (pre-occupied) Afghanistan during the famine doesn't make them a terrorist organisation. Raphael1 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know who wrote that Charities with ties to terrorism article, but Wikipedia might get sued for it. Lots of word like "alleged" and "suspicion". An analogous case - perhaps Wikipedia will be forced to have something like this on it's front page for 28 days - Xed 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. It used to be called Charities accused of ties to terrorism, and I think it should be moved back there. Innocent until proven guilty is correct. However, I'm also going to restore the IIRO that Raphael1 deleted. A list of charities being sued by 600 families of the 9-11 victims is clearly notable, even before the verdict is delivered. GRuban 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even the "accused" title is wrong... it is not NPOV. That article's title alone inclines me to want to make an AfD for it as it reaks of POV. The wording almost needs to be something ridiculously long like "Charities that in court cases (or something equivalent) were found to have ties to terrorism." or something to that effect. Netscott 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to start an AfD. I'll support you with that. Raphael1 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do either of you feel it is useful for the Wikipedia to have any article about those Islamic charities that do support terrorism? If so, how should we do so? GRuban 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are Islamic charities that do support terrorism, I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them just as they did with 1200 arab or muslim immigrants after 9/11. There might not even be a trial or a written accusal so there won't be much to write about. Raphael1 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that to be a "no, we shouldn't have any such article anywhere"?  GRuban 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've proposed a new title for this article, Charities referred to in connection with terrorism on the article's talk page. Netscott 16:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: "I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them…" I doubt it. Actual guilt does not seem to be a major factor in who they have gone after in the past, and I doubt it will be in the future. Real terrorists are much harder to arrest than people who have overstayed their visa: the latter are seldom armed or dangerous. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey, why not? 

message: *Muslim Student Association
*Jamaat-e-Islami
*Muslim World League
*Islamic Circle of North America
*Fiqh Council of North America
*World Assembly of Muslim Youth
*Islamic Relief
*Islamic Assembly of North America
I will add more as I find them, KI 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you call the articles about that organisations Islamic-terrorism propoganda? Why is i.e. Islamic Relief, an international relief and development organization, a terrorist organisation? Is it because they are Muslim? You are probably one of those islamophobic Wikipedians, who make unbiased articles impossible. Raphael1 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There may be some confusion with the International Islamic Relief Organization which is being sued for financing the 9/11 attacks , also see Charities with ties to terrorism. That's not necessarily the same organization, but the mistake is understandable enough that a claim that he's islamophobic is uncalled for. GRuban 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that count anymore in Guantanamo times, when a 15 year old gets detained without a fair trial? Just because the IIRO got financial support from Saudi-Arabia and supported (pre-occupied) Afghanistan during the famine doesn't make them a terrorist organisation. Raphael1 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know who wrote that Charities with ties to terrorism article, but Wikipedia might get sued for it. Lots of word like "alleged" and "suspicion". An analogous case - perhaps Wikipedia will be forced to have something like this on it's front page for 28 days - Xed 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. It used to be called Charities accused of ties to terrorism, and I think it should be moved back there. Innocent until proven guilty is correct. However, I'm also going to restore the IIRO that Raphael1 deleted. A list of charities being sued by 600 families of the 9-11 victims is clearly notable, even before the verdict is delivered. GRuban 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even the "accused" title is wrong... it is not NPOV. That article's title alone inclines me to want to make an AfD for it as it reaks of POV. The wording almost needs to be something ridiculously long like "Charities that in court cases (or something equivalent) were found to have ties to terrorism." or something to that effect. Netscott 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to start an AfD. I'll support you with that. Raphael1 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do either of you feel it is useful for the Wikipedia to have any article about those Islamic charities that do support terrorism? If so, how should we do so? GRuban 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are Islamic charities that do support terrorism, I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them just as they did with 1200 arab or muslim immigrants after 9/11. There might not even be a trial or a written accusal so there won't be much to write about. Raphael1 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that to be a "no, we shouldn't have any such article anywhere"?  GRuban 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've proposed a new title for this article, Charities referred to in connection with terrorism on the article's talk page. Netscott 16:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: "I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them…" I doubt it. Actual guilt does not seem to be a major factor in who they have gone after in the past, and I doubt it will be in the future. Real terrorists are much harder to arrest than people who have overstayed their visa: the latter are seldom armed or dangerous. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic-terrorism propoganda

message: There's a budding movement over in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to alter the current guidelines, and start using America instead of United States. The specter of 'Being Anti-American' has raised it's head there again after arguments over neutralty. --Barberio 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: It seems to me there are lots of topics notable to a non-English speaking audience that are not covered on WP, and there seems to be a bias by at least some on AFD against books etc. that have not been translated into English even if they are bestsellers.  Is there a WP policy that states that untranslated books or films, etc. can be subjects for articles, or one that says that they cannot be?  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close, although it addresses more secondary sources rather than the subject itself, the primary source.  There are plenty of articles about important subjects not translated into English (or translated into English only by WP volunteers) such as Akkari-Laban dossier, but arguing by the existence of articles is not a strong argument AFAIK.  Esquizombi 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in examples of where you feel such a bias has resulted in deletion of notable material. - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA and September 11 (book), a German language book that has not been translated, received a number of delete recommendations due to the fact that it had not been translated.  I think that's what I had in mind most when I made the above comment.  Esquizombi 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign language topics

message: Just wondering about the scope of this project. Everyone seems to accept for example that middle-aged western white males will be unconsciously biased. Is it also accepted that say, communists will automatically be (at least unconsciously) biased in their views of politics, or that devout Christians will be biased on matters of religion. If so, does anyone have any solutions to propose about this sort of bias. Also, what about more methodical deliberate bias - for example contributors persisting in editing after numerous NPOV contributors have pointed out to them their manifest bias. With this in mind I notice that the Jesus article triggered this initiative - and the Christianity related pages seem to suffer particuarly from editors who are repeatedly being accused of being non NPOV  - see for example <escape spam filter> blue.info this article. Any initiative to ensure NPOV has to be a good idea. Springald 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Systemic bias is not so much a pro-middle age, pro-west, pro-white, pro-male POV bias, but a bias in terms of what topics such a person tends to add (POV or NPOV) and how much coverage is added to such a topic, as I understand it. Шизомби 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The project is not (and was never meant to be) some sort of NPOV police. For that, you have to go to WP:RFC or possibly WP:PR. — mark ✎ 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that everyone has biases, but that some groups are vastly over/under-represented on Wikipedia. So either we have an encyclopedia which cheerfully mirrors this (in which case it's just replicating the faults of every other encyclopedia), or we try to even things out the best we can. JackyR 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Hi everyone, I hope you'll excuse me placing this request here, but my intentions are pure and not-for-profit! I was intrigued to discover the existence of Wikiproject 'Countering systemic bias' and I've successfully pitched an article about it to a prominent creative commons webzine. If anyone's interested in explaining why they're doing this and what they're doing, and wouldn't mind providing a few quotes, please do contact me. If you'd like to help, email me at daviddariusbijan-remove-this-bit-@yahoo.co.uk. I'd like to publicise your efforts and the issues raised by your attempts to counter systemic bias. 
Many thanks!
81.151.89.1 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I masked your email adress to save you of spam. — mark ✎ 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROJECT MEMBERS WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ARTICLE ABOUT YOUR EFFORTS

message: Hi there. I thought I would let you know that I am offering a bounty for the creation of any Featured Article on a political party from one of the least developed countries. Call it my small contribution towards countering bias. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using bounties to help with CSB

message: I'd be very interested in hearing what you guys think about the numerous articles in this article-space category: :Category:Wikipedias by language. -Silence 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've just learnt a lot by reading the German Wikipedia article. There's always the problem of the wikis left out of this list, but overall I'd say it's a plus. I'm not an admin, and definitely not a Metawiki person, so I wouldn't normally know all the interesting stuff going on at de.wiki. And the scope of, and activity at, these articles will give those of us using en.wiki a snapshot of the areas with little cross-wiki activity, where effort needs to be increased. What sort of comment were you after? JackyR 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's Wikipedia systemic bias

message: Should a person from south of the tropic of cancer be expected to work with Northern latitude seasonal terms?
Many articles name the time of year by Spring Summer Autumn/Fall and Winter. While this passes unremarked in articles about the Northern latitudes it is thrown into sharp contrast when used for articles south of the tropic of cancer. For example the Falklands War starts
:The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the autumn of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
While this is true most Northen hemesphere readers will assume it started in September/October. But if it were re-written
:The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the spring of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
It would be less confusing for most of the readers in the Northern Hemisphere, but wrong for the time of year in the Falklands.  So can anyone thing of the best wording to use for this type of thing, because what is meant is:
:The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the 1st quarter of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
but "1st quarter" which is ugly compared to autumn. 
This also applies equally to articles written about things in which are not weather related but rely on the use of seasons for dating and times. For example in Britain the school year starts in the Autumn term, and it starts in the summer in New Zealand. But this does not mean that a child can leave one school at the end of the British summer term and start at a New Zealand school year within the month, because they will have to wait half a year for the next New Zealand school year to start. So what ideas do people have for describing the time of year  without it becoming intrusive in articles which are about things other than North South seasons.  --Philip Baird Shearer 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting and subtle, but important issue.  What comes to mind is using month names whenever they can be found out, i.e. "was an effective state of war from Feb to June of 1982 between Argentina".  Also, general phases of the year terms can be used, like: "was an effective state of war during the early part of 1982 between Argentina". Excellent point to bring up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This might be good to raise at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Шизомби 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autumn

message: I first saw this when it was plonked into the C-130 Hercules article.  It occurred to me that it violates CSB principles because its not practical to add like templates for every country (for example,  would have as much right to be there also). So by default we end up with a US-centric view of military aircraft.  Admittedly the aircraft are all (presumably) manufactured in the US, but that's not what the template says or is about.  The C-130 article says that the aircraft is used in more than 50 nations so it has a wide non-US viewing audience.
I'm not sure what the answer is here, but am interested in other points-of-view. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template {{tl|Active military aircraft of the United States}} 

message: One bias which I have noticed over many months is on the Main Page, particularly the "Selected Anniversaries" section. Pretty much every day - I would say 9 days out of 10 - it has an item from the USA. Now don't get me wrong - I am not a USA-basher by any stretch of the imagination. However, given that there are basically infinite numbers of things that have happened on every day of the year, it seems a little silly to always have at least one USA-related item. Has anyone else noticed this, and what do others think about it? Batmanand | Talk 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that people do not provide enough anniversaries from other parts of the world. One way to fix it would be to start a concerted effort to bring up more anniversaries from other countries. — mark ✎ 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the anniversaries were originally selected by User:Maveric149, a man who, amongst his vast number of excellent contributions to Wikipedia, has consistently displayed total cluelessness when it comes to grasping the concept that his country has only 5% of the world's population and has only been going for a couple of hundred years. Mark Dingemanse is right that this tendency is best countered by trying to make the sample of anniversaries more representative. 86.136.6.123 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: True, the anniversaries should be have a more international feel to it. But I can't blame the person doing this as Wikipedians from other countries hardly take part in this aspect of Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page bias - something I have noticed over many months 

message: After seing Wikipedia:Newbie Recruitment Initiative, I decided it could make an interestign WikiProject, especially if it focused on recruiting people underrepresentated in Wikipedia. The temporary project page is here: User:Flammifer/Wikiproject New member recruitment.
I'm still just collecting feedback and ideas, what do you think? Do you know of any related ideas? Flammifer 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for feedback on an outreach / recruitment project 

message: I believe bounties could be used to reduce systemic bias in the project. Has this come up in the discussion archives? I couldn't see it after a brief search. We currently have a Wikipedia:Bounty_board where bounties are paid to the foundation. There is also a debate about the merits of having a similar board where bounties are given to editors themselves: Wikipedia:Paid editor job board. Obviously, I'm in favour of the proposal, and I believe it could play a modest part in countering systemic bias — but, as always, do your own thinking! ;-) — Matt Crypto 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bounties

message: Deaths in 2006 on en.WP seems to be drawn from US and UK sources, with occasional other postings. I've added a few newspapers from other countries to the source lists, but have no time to work on this. Does anyone fancy adopting this page and trawling more newspapers and/or the other language Wikipedias for entries? JackyR 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obit pages 

message: FYI, a discussion is taking place here. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 09:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Metric versus American/Imperial measurements --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial units vs SI units 

message: The template  puts an article forward as a candidate for inclusion in the next version of the Wikipedia CD Selection (project page at WPCD Selection). It seems that there is no clear guideline on which articles should be included, so it might be good to wait a bit to see what it will become. 
In any case, it seems a good idea for WP:CSB to keep an eye on projects like this, since they are as susceptible to Wikipedia's systemic bias as Wikipedia itself. — mark ✎ 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPCD 

message: One form of systemic bias that ought to be mentioned specifically on the main project page is the bias in favor of current topics as against comparable topics of the past. For example, compare the amount of coverage given to George W. Bush compared to Grover Cleveland, for example. Or compare the coverage of Will & Grace, or even Arrested Development, to I Love Lucy. This is a separate issue from the "Jennifer Wilbanks vs. Bernard Makuza" issue which is discussed there, since both Wilbanks and Makuza are contemporary persons. --Metropolitan90 07:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recency bias 

message: A new article on CSB is here, by David Shariatmadari at OpenDemocracy. On an unrelated note, there a a couple of CSB-related things on the Reward Board. - Xed 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article on CSB 

message: For everyone who spends an hour working on one of the articles here, I will spend an hour working on a different one of your suggestion (or the same one if you like). Paste the article, your nick and the diff below. See also Wikipedia:Rewards board. - FrancisTyers · 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tit for tat

message: Would anyone find a use for a new template called template:globalize/Western?
I know I could put it on a few articles (Western Culture could use it.)
It would look something like this:
This article or section focuses primarily on Western viewpoints, and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please [ improve the article] or discuss the issue on the talk page.
:Is there any reason why  wouldn't work? In the last few months, quite a few more specific templates have been created, but before creating more of them, I would like to see if they are actually used and also if they work (i.e., if people use these templates to improve our content). In short, do we need it? — mark ✎ 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I mean, I'm sure they might help organize stuff so that people can find specific types of bias, but I don't really think we need them. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just explain on the talk page?  That would be much more helpful to future editors.  In the example above, just saying that Western Culture has a western bias is no more informative than saying .  What other bias would it have?  Specific suggestions on how to think about the subject more globally would be nice. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template proposal