Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 6

message: Judging from the votes, it seems that Famine is to be the new 'CSB Collaboration of the Week'. I'm going to change the templates etc. to reflect that.  — mark ✎ 16:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: If you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet it says and I quote 
:"In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception , or to create the illusion of broader support for a position."
It indicates that sock puppets unless identified, effect the content of the article 'negatively'. Same should be true if number of editors having affiliation to particular opinion/position is more then other. 
So as it is mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
:" The encyclopedia tends to focus  on certain topics while neglecting others"
so we can reasonably assume that 'The encyclopedia tends to support certain positions while neglecting others'
::"Same should be true if number of editors having affiliation to particular opinion/position is more then other." Absurd. By this standard, how do we favor science over pseudoscience, sane opinion over lone loonies, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
:::Let me give you example on Wikipedia article on wikipedia. I quote
::::"Wikipedia's systemic bias of covering some topics in much greater depth than others is also considered significant, something that even the site's proponents admit 
:::So as we have created 'WikiProject Countering systemic bias' believing that popularity among wikipedia's editors alone can't be held as 'significance standard' on a subject. We should have some thing equitant for 'significance of a particular position'. As we believe that the popularity among editors can't be the standard of 'significance of subject' similarly popularity among editors alone can't be the standard of 'significance of position'
:::Zain 20:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness of Sock puppets as an Example

message: A discussion is going on here about reusing featured articles on the main page. One of the arguments mentioned is that 'most of the most interesting featured articles have already been featured'. I think that most editors that are involved in CSB will not agree with this statement. I think that it is in the spirit of CSB to produce as many featured articles as possible and not to rely on the 'canon' of previously featured articles. Maybe people could take a look there and put in some words.  — mark ✎ 01:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say no to reusing featured articles; produce new ones 

message: The Systemic bias article is a sub-stub!  It's not even a stub! :(  Maybe before countering systematic bias, it should be defined better so everyone knows what they're countering?  The stub gives a definition, but surely it's worth an article? --Sketchee 07:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed. Also, as it stands, some of this is specific to systemic bias in Wikipedia, which is not appropriate for an article in main space. I'll try to give it some work. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
::I was amused to see that the only country mentioned in the systemic bias article is the United States. --Lee Hunter 14:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an example from India. --Lee Hunter 14:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Systemic bias"? 

message: This has been somewhat suggested above by other users: I think one thing that may be helpful is to start descendent projects stemming from this one.  I think it's a large project with a lot of people who want to help but wants to do different things.  No one wants to be told what to do or work on.  It seems a bit unwikipedian if we all try to focus our efforts in one place at a time too much.
We started the Music subprojectWikipedia:WikiProject Composers just a day ago.  That new project page lists a growing "How to help section" so that people can just jump in, pick something that sounds good to them and get to editing. It's all intentionally flexible. With three people we've already gotten a list going on neglected topics and people working on articles. I think it's a bit intimidating as is for someone to jump into CSB and edit an article.
The WikiProject page has a large number of categories for projects, but few projects in most of them.  Almost any main category of Wikipedia could be made a Wikiproject effectively.  If people think that Africa needs more attention, then they can use an African Wikiproject to focus that attention.  The countering system bias project can then just focus as a mother project assisting in alerting people of neglected projects and serve a call to arms when a project isn't made. (ie "The attention is needed to write about War!  We need people to start a War Wikiproject to guide the creation of these articles.")  Then this CSB project can serve as guidelines making sure that in other categories.
The possibility is there that people won't want to work on Wikiproject X.  This is why the broadest categories would need to be found. Rather than starting a descendent project from here to tackle just Guinea, there is more likely to be people who'd want to work on project Africa.  With the people who want to work on Wikiproject Africa already altogether, it would be easier for Wikiproject CSB to ask them if they could please tackle the Guinea article(s).  The Geography subpage, IMHO, and actually all the subpages would be better handled as seperate Descendent Wikiprojects with one of it's stated goals when filling out the template.  This wikiproject can still link to To-Do lists of subprojects, members can participate in both the subproject and main CSB project.  Everyone is free on Wikipedia to edit any page, so if CSB members want to edit descendant projects in that manner it would be just like editing any other page as no one can own projects anyway.
Just my ideas and opinion.  Don't mind me! :D--Sketchee 10:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
:That is a very good idea. Wikiacc 02:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendent Projects 

message: See Labor union, List of labor unions, :Category:Labor unions. In the rest of the world outside US, these are refered to primarily as "Trade Unions". Also, Trade Unions, is neutral in term of US vs. British English. Anyone feeling like chipping in on the talk pages? --Soman 13:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: List of labor unions was at List of trade unions for years before someone moved it in November, for the "sake of consistency", was the option to move labor union for consistenct considered ? Jooler 11:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Labor union" vs. "Trade Union" 

message: I so-called Google test is often used to claim that one particular usage is more common or correct, but I believe that this is based on the false assumption that articles on the Internet truly reflect International uage. It is my opinion that trying to prove that a particular form of words is more common using this method proves no such thing. I contend that it merely proves that one particular usage is more common on web pages in the United States. I think that there should be a Wikipedia namespace page clearly stating the flaws of the "Google test" Jooler 11:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! I've noted some on . Maybe somebody can add and/or move to a new page? Elf-friend 00:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The so-called "Google Test"

message: Here's a suggestion for a simple thing folks can do to further the aims of this project: Work on enhancing the date (September 22, May 1) and year (1922, 1733) pages to broaden their scope and better link to underrepresented people, places, and events. Of course, this alone won't fix Wikipedia's systemic bias - no one change will - but it might help increase the exposure of these articles, and maybe get a few people to think more broadly about Wikipedia's content as a whole...  CDC (talk) 03:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An easy task 

message: Lord's Resistance Army has been expanded significantly since it's listing on CSB Open Tasks. It has gone through Peer Review last month and is a Featured Article Candidate right now. Please read the article and support it with your vote if you think it's worth it. The FAC request is here. Thanks!  — mark ✎ 12:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great article. That's why it's Featured now :). Now where was that CSB accomplishments page?  — mark ✎ 02:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another CSB article on FAC 

message: I just read about Wikiportals. Should there be a Countering Systemic Bias wikiportal? Anyone up to the task? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
:the effort would probably be better focused on identifying and fixing problemsGeni 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSB Wikiportal 

message: I have started a vote for deletion for the :Category:Terrorist organizations at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.  My reasoning is that placing the category on a page rests entirely on personal judgement and is thus inherently biased.  Note that none of the articles in the category are current powers, despite the brutal methods used by almost all armies throughout time.  I have removed this category from a number of articles such as Sudan People's Liberation Army and Mau Mau Uprising as, regardless of their various violent acts on civilians, the label just seems to mean "Organizations I think are nasty".  Please vote if you see the same problems I do... or object if you disagree with me.  -  — BanyanTree 21:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terrorist organizations" cat up for deletion 

message: Howabout noting words like regime as danger-flags for potential systematic bias in the politics paragraph? (This page already has some discussion)
Ojw 21:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be something for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering systematic bias, I guess. See the project details page of countering systemic (not systematic) bias for some reasons why it would not fit here.  — mark ✎ 12:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: R&eacute;gime

message: After fiddling around with CSB for a while and trying to think through some of the issues that I've experienced, I have a proposal that I think may make some sense.  It involves the abandonment of WP:CSBCOTW and a focus on the open tasks list, basically making CSB a two-page project.  I'll lay out my case below.  This is meant as the starting point for discussion, rather than a decree, so feel free to say if you disagree in whole or in part.
=== Argument ===
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is inherently unfocused.  An editor who is knowledgeable and interested in one of the neglected areas of Wikipedia, may have no interest in another neglected area.  
A Collaboration of the Week requires focus from members.  In a normal WikiProject, each member is assumed to be capable of contributing to the weekly collaboration, because they share a common knowledge and interest such as the projects for Sydney or Biology.  This is not true for CSB.  Every CSB CotW excludes some members, regardless of whether or not they wish to be active in the project.  The CotW is thus stagnant both in nominations and edits to nominated articles.
The open tasks list reflects the diversity of CSB members.  The CotW does not.  The list allows members to see progress made, even if they do not think they can meaningfully contribute to the topic being worked on.  
CSB is ill-organized.  The main page is messy, hard to follow, and spends a great deal of time repeating content already on the open tasks list.  There are numerous subpages for members, new articles, etc that are not integrated with the rest of the pages.
Despite its problems, CSB plays an important role in Wikipedia.  Many neglected topics do not have enough editors to form their own WikiProject or notice board.  CSB allows these efforts to be pooled and displayed on this page, and informs the rest of Wikipedia of their own biases.   CSB should not be abandoned. 
=== Proposal ===
Abandon the CSB Collaboration of the Week.  Make the open tasks the center of collaboration, not in the sense of everyone working on one article but as in everyone working on the broader goal of making sure that neglected topics get some attention.
WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open TasksWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias is an attempt to create and improve articles that are systemically neglected. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks .	WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open TasksWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias is an attempt to create and improve articles that are systemically neglected. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	
Article requests: Prince Hall Freemasonry, First Sudanese Civil War
Copyedit: Desmond Tutu, Initial events of the Rwandan Genocide
Expand: Arabic literature, OK Jazz, Stokely Carmichael, Spatial tense, AIDS in Africa, Betty Friedan, Women's studies
other tasks | edit
Update: Darfur conflict
Change the template to reflect an open tasks focus. (Idea to the right)  Anyone may add an article from the open tasks list to the template, or replace one of the older items on the template.  The main guideline is to make sure that a balance of articles are represented and that they are occasionally rotated. While the template is meant to replace the one now in use, it could also be placed on the talk pages of articles listed and elsewhere.
Reorganize the CSB main page.  Merge the descriptions of neglected areas into the tasks list.  Abandon the new articles page.  Move the member list back to the main page.  The front page should be relatively short, with: intro, "what you can do", announcements section (for related WikiProjects, notice boards and happenings), and member list.
And now I'll get off my soapbox.  What do people think? - BanyanTree 01:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing. The 'Related changes' link on the Open Tasks page is pretty useless if people sign their comments there (because then the recent changes of the listed articles are interspersed with User and User talk page changes). What to do about that? Is it best to keep everything anonymous, or should we just take leave of the Related Changes idea? I liked it a lot because you could see CSB at work; but I also like to know which people are working on which things. Maybe we could include a 'Related changes' link on the Template instead, just to get an idea of the activity CSB generates.  — mark ✎ 10:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I like seeing who is working on what more than I appreciate seeing the net change in the listed articles, but I am pretty ambivalent on the whole.  I also think the template idea for the open tasks list may be necessary, as it is getting unwieldy as a single page.  People seem pretty positive about the proposed changes above, but I'll hold off implementing it for a bit to let more people comment. - BanyanTree 15:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I've implemented the changes.  The intro ended up being much more wordy than I had expected and could probably do with some ruthless cutting.  I'm also not sure that people will agree with my tone, examples, etc.  What do people think of the structure, at least of the main page? - BanyanTree 01:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for reorganization of CSB 

message: Abandon the CSB Collaboration of the Week.  Make the open tasks the center of collaboration, not in the sense of everyone working on one article but as in everyone working on the broader goal of making sure that neglected topics get some attention.
WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open TasksWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias is an attempt to create and improve articles that are systemically neglected. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks .	WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open TasksWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias is an attempt to create and improve articles that are systemically neglected. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	
Article requests: Prince Hall Freemasonry, First Sudanese Civil War
Copyedit: Desmond Tutu, Initial events of the Rwandan Genocide
Expand: Arabic literature, OK Jazz, Stokely Carmichael, Spatial tense, AIDS in Africa, Betty Friedan, Women's studies
other tasks | edit
Update: Darfur conflict
Change the template to reflect an open tasks focus. (Idea to the right)  Anyone may add an article from the open tasks list to the template, or replace one of the older items on the template.  The main guideline is to make sure that a balance of articles are represented and that they are occasionally rotated. While the template is meant to replace the one now in use, it could also be placed on the talk pages of articles listed and elsewhere.
Reorganize the CSB main page.  Merge the descriptions of neglected areas into the tasks list.  Abandon the new articles page.  Move the member list back to the main page.  The front page should be relatively short, with: intro, "what you can do", announcements section (for related WikiProjects, notice boards and happenings), and member list.
And now I'll get off my soapbox.  What do people think? - BanyanTree 01:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: You've said a lot of things that needed saying. The CSB pages do read as if they were set up by some long gone former civilisation, and we are left wandering/wondering in the ruins (marvallous as they are). The CSB COTW is the second most successful COTW on WP — righ after the COTW. So, I think there is a general problem with this kind of thing. It's a shame, but Wikipedia isn't always good at collaboration. I've seen a good few articles nominated, and won, COTW that could have been candidates for CSB COTW. All in all, I agree: a reworked open tasks list might provide a better focus for us to work on.
I'd also like to mention template:limitedgeographicscope. When I've used it on a page it has had quite an impact: editors have felt really get to grips with improving the scope of the articles. Perhaps we could think of a few other templates that could mark out the biased articles. Gareth Hughes 01:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing. The 'Related changes' link on the Open Tasks page is pretty useless if people sign their comments there (because then the recent changes of the listed articles are interspersed with User and User talk page changes). What to do about that? Is it best to keep everything anonymous, or should we just take leave of the Related Changes idea? I liked it a lot because you could see CSB at work; but I also like to know which people are working on which things. Maybe we could include a 'Related changes' link on the Template instead, just to get an idea of the activity CSB generates.  — mark ✎ 10:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I like seeing who is working on what more than I appreciate seeing the net change in the listed articles, but I am pretty ambivalent on the whole.  I also think the template idea for the open tasks list may be necessary, as it is getting unwieldy as a single page.  People seem pretty positive about the proposed changes above, but I'll hold off implementing it for a bit to let more people comment. - BanyanTree 15:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I've implemented the changes.  The intro ended up being much more wordy than I had expected and could probably do with some ruthless cutting.  I'm also not sure that people will agree with my tone, examples, etc.  What do people think of the structure, at least of the main page? - BanyanTree 01:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: user:jcbos wanted to delete Christian before Bible in the first sentence of the article New Testament. He calls anyone who revert that deletion a POV-pusher. His single argument is that he claims Christian Bible to be a pleonasm. He is very busy on the Dutch Wikipedia where he managed to organize a stampede against the addition of "Christian" before "Bible" in the first sentence of the article on New Testament. How systemic can bias be and countered? Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jcbos attempted to remove the word "Christian" before Bible on English Wikipedia well, in a couple of dozen articles, but steady reversions of his edits by at least 6 other editors finally brought him to the Talk: page, where it was shown that "Christian Bible" is actually a disambiguation.  He still considers himself to be correct, and that those who reverted him were "POV pushers", "trolls" and "un-wiki", but I think you are right, his belief that the Christian Bible is the real Bible, and that everyone should know what is meant by "Bible", is really an example of systemic bias. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... it's impossible for one person to have systemic bias, as such bias is... system-wide and unintentional.  If Jcbos tried to effect a change consciously, and was consciously blocked by a number of other editors, then that is an edit war, which is precisely the opposite of a systemic bias.  If Jcbos had a hundred friends he enlisted to enforce his views, that would still be a systematic bias, not a systemic one because it was done consciously.  NPOV and "systemic bias" are defined entirely differently.  However, topics that are systemically biased against are probably more subject to NPOV because of the limited number of contributors.  If a large number of people care enough about an article and its accuracy to get into an edit war, that's a clear sign that it's not CSB material.  It's a bit of a Catch-22.  - BanyanTree 17:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christian Bible" 

message: I'm kinda dumb, so I dont know what this means...
*Even among their general socioeconomic and ethnolinguistic demographic, Wikipedians tend to be more technically inclined. This is due to the simple barrier represented by the "Edit" button, which many readers either do not recognize or refuse to utilize. The inclination is more towards computer science and physics than areas such as agricultural science.
How does the edit button  play in all of this??  Jaberwocky6669 02:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
:we know that the vast majority of our readers do not edit. The mentioning the edit button is simply an effective way of pointing out the devide between the two groups.Geni 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Button

message: I think its time we revised the lists of open tasks, many articles that started off as stubs now look like good articles. I'm offering to keep track of suggestions in my sandbox and update the open task page somewhere toward the end of the month. --nixie 04:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open task drive

message: I am concerned that the trend towards applying a "notability" requirement for schools will create a situation where we have articles for most old and/or elite schools, but no coverage at all of schools in the middle and lower range of achievement. A case in point is the Clover Park Votes for deletion. My preferred solution would be to include schools articles based on the quality of the article, not just the school. Perhaps wikipedians interesting in countering systemic bias have other suggestions? Kappa 00:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a tendency in that direction, but let's face it: more elite schools than non-elite are unique in ways that would matter to people who've never attended them. Quite a few non-elite schools merit articles either because of events that have happened there or because they have managed notable academic accomplishment in trying circumstances. But most schools don't deserve an encyclopedia article of their own. It's perfectly reasonable to write about the average school in the article about a community or school district of which it is part: there simply isn't enough to say to merit an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the way the VfDs are going, if anything there is a bias toward keeping all school articles even the substubs. I'm not entirely conviced that this is the concensus of Wikipedia editors in general, it seems more like a concerted effort by a set of editors. I don't know that anyone from this Wikiproject is going to want to devote time to writing about their local highschool, or fixing school stubs when things entirely more significant and encyclopedic are missing or stubs. --nixie 06:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: School notability

message: I was under some naive impression that the related tasks would have something to do with articles that have "bias" problems, which to me indicates how articles are manifested and slanted, rather than the mere ommission of topics. "Systemic bias" is particularly limited to ommission perhaps, but this would be better called "cultural oversight." In otherwords there seems to be some oversight in the apparent scope for what constitutes "systemic bias." <comment>The notion that an 'inherently biased demographic' can or should take upon itself the task of filling in gaps, could equally be viewed as the enforcement and spreading of bias, rather than the correction of it.</comment>-SV|t 14:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: See m:En validation topics - particularly Mathias Schindler's suggestion to measure "Encyclopedic general interest". This would give an actual numerical measurement of what the community thinks is needed in an encyclopedia. (It also solves the last hole in my 1.0 plan.) - David Gerard 20:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People, this is an important topic. Go put in some words there if you feel like it. I think the main problem of measuring "Encyclopedic general interest" by voting is that our user base is not our audience. — mark ✎ 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Measuring Wikipedia community expectations of encyclopedicness

message: The  template mentioned on the project page is up for deletion at . Kappa 10:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I added my vote for Keep, the score is running at 20 for Keep and 4 for Delete. -- <SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#006666; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ffaaaa;"> B.d.mills </SPAN> (Talk) 02:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|limitedgeographicscope}} on Tfd 

message: Does anybody have ideas for verifying this article? It's up for deletion and the consensus seems to be "delete if not verified", which seems reasonable, and Google isn't a lot of help. If this guy exists a lot of the information in the article should be verifiable and he probably passes any reasonable notability test, but this is the encyclopedia of the Google generation.
* Damian Ohanyido Okoli
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Damian Ohanyido Okoli]]