Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 7

message: Public education is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive, because it lacks geographical balance (currently content covers US only). If you are interested, you can vote for this article there. Also the nominations South America, Developing countries' debt, Gaborone, Acholi language, John III of Portugal, Asian values and Grameen Bank may be of interest to you.--Fenice 13:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages (WP:FAOL).  It is a project aimed at better highlighting the excellent featured articles in other languages and showing where the English versions are lacking.  While other language Wikipedia do have differing standards I think it's quite important to see what they think are good articles.  It has already highlighted some articles that are featured on one language but don't appear here. violet/riga (t) 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles in other languages 

message: "Thus the only way systemic bias would disappear would be if the population of the world all spoke English at the same level of fluency" is highly biased. The author should mean "(...) world all spoke the same language(...)" instead of implying that the language the world should speak is english. I believe this should be corrected.LtDoc 02:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intended meaning was that, the only way the English wikipedia(which is where this WikiProject is located)would be free of systemic bias is for everyone in the world to speak English wit the same level of fluency and interest in using the English language Wikipedia.  It's not biased to say that - as this edition of Wikipedia is in English.  I rephrased the paragraph in question to make this point clear.  Thanks for bringing it up! JesseW 07:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Biased anti-bias page 

message: I'm no rightwinger nor a Republican, but I find the Leftist and anti-US slant to be very much over the top and extreme. Perhaps it is because of contributions from rivals like Canada or the UK, or the presence of a lot of college students (many youth swing to the Left during college years). But it really contradicts the NPOV claims of Wikipedia. For example, there are numberous pages on US "imperialism", etc. but when someone tried to make an article on Chinese imperialism it was immediately VfD'ed. VfDs are slapped on any topic which is seen as POV against some Non-American entity, while if a topic is POV against the US, it gets defended as acceptible ("the topic may be POV but the article is not"). Other areas I see this are anythintg related to Islam: Islamophilia was deleted, while Islamophobia kept. Again and again, the VfD weapon is used to eliminate topics that don't fit in a general ideology of blaming the US. If articles were allowed to survive, perhaps bias could be addressed by contributors, but the VfD ensures that anti-US topics simply outnumber other articles. Willowx 06:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unlikely that the citizenship of editors will have anything to do with it given the population of the US (I suppose at least half the contributors will be from the US). You also mention students, but in general the editors will be higher educated and such people have more leftwing tendencies than others (I think). And it may be my education  :) but I notice opposite things like the use of the word 'regime', which is only found for certain countries and not for others (like the US). See my little research in Talk:Regime#Negative connotation in Wikipedia articles. Still, this doesn't refute the possibility of your claim. But you have to take into account that maybe because you're from the US you only notice certain things. And not others like the fact that you claim not to be a Republican is supposed to clarify things for others who are not from the US and where the word Republican might mean something completely different. If I said I was a liberal you'd probably get the wrong idea about me because it means something different in your contry. This is not a reproach, just human nature. Thouigh still this doesn't mean you're wrong (notice how hard I try not to be biased :) ). DirkvdM 08:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: To be quite honest, and I'm not an anarcho-primitivist, but I find the Right-wing, US, and capitalist slant to be very much over the top and extreme.  Perhaps it is because of the majority population of USians, or the presence of a lot of suburbanites (many suburbanites swing to the right before their bank ballances are repossessed in market collapses, see Argentina).  But it really contradicts the NPOV claims of Wikipedia.  For example, until my edit the Tet offensive misnamed the PLAF, PAVN and NLF forces, but the miniutae of US operational forces are detailed at length.  Precocious unspecialist editing by beer swilling buffoons in the "white belts" of cities continuously degrade specialist articles, and the bombast associated with male chauvanists drives specialists in feminism off core feminist topics.  The constant degradation of article quality is used to drive off disciplinary specialists and the oppressed, and the only articles allowed to survive untouched are those with no relevence for the dominant US imperialist world view.  The degradation of quality ensures that pro-US anti-disciplinary articles are the only ones that will exist. Fifelfoo 11:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, some things said here are well over the top. Can WP do much about polarization in US politics? Not really. (I think it is now true to say that one blog is started for each English Wikipedia article that is started.) But WP can do some things better than it does now. It is not too good simply to equate systemic bias to political bias and POV getting into things. It is more insidious than that. Charles Matthews 11:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Charles. Of course, the original post completely misses the point. This project is about systemic bias. It is probable that most WP editors are young men from Europe, Austalia, New Zealand and North America. This would create a natural bias towards things that these people are in to. an example would be when our article on Klingon is longer than that on an African language. I think that we would all agree that the latter is more important and valuable as an encyclopaedia article than the former. However, the bias of editors would lead them to know more about an invented language for a TV show than a real language in a remote continent. There are so many other examples that could be given of this systemic bias. Correcting such bias may, at times, appear to be anti-American or leftist (which, from the POV of USA, would include the majority of the world's population). The example given by Fifelfoo is a good one. An article about the Vietnam War should include minute detail of US military subjects alongside sketchy and confused articles about Vietnamese military. Trying to balance such articles could be accused of being anti-American and leftist, but that's only because the article is overly pro-American and militarist in the first place. --Gareth Hughes 11:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-American & Leftist Bias 

message: Cultural appropriation has just been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Public education and Flirting as well as Teenage pregnancy are also currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive and may be of interest to you.  If you are interested in contributing, please vote or comment here: This week's improvement drive--Fenice 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I'm thinking there should be a standardized warning for words like nanotechnology, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, etc that have hidden connotations to them or are used in a vague opportunist way for propaganda purposes. From the talk page for nanotechnology, this comment sparked my current thoughts:
:There should be some special wikipedia marker for a "buzzword" or a word primarily used to palaver. Nanotechnology is definitely such a word. The definition given in this article is a good example. It is so broad that it can be used to credit Eric Drexler or Richard Feynman or whoever with the invention of agriculture for who would deny that using evolutionary methods to select nanoscale structures is out of bounds to the nanotechnologist? People were doing such selection when they started selecting the first cultagens for their grain value thousands of years ago. Nor is this an unreasonable generalization of the definition. Artificial life simulations are already used to find reasonably optimal solutions used in many mass market devices and there is little distinction between such methods and the methods used to cultivate highly productive grains. Jim Bowery 20:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connotation bias, looking for relevant spot 

message: Please note I have nominated this category for deletion as I believe it may be an instance of systematic bias.  Opinions are welcome. Hiding  talk 09:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:SOC occupations]]

message: If the 'request for cleanup' and 'copyediting' tags go on the main page of an article shouldn't the 'World-Wide view' tag go as well? I think that this one even more than the others should go on the actual article page. The other two are already ovbious to people, whereas the world-wide-view may not be. 
Does anyone agreee?
Ravedave 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the talk page? 

message: I have nominated Music of Nigeria for WP:FA (see here), but it hasn't garnered much activity at all -- three supports, no opposes and a few comments/neutrals.  I think generally at least five or six supports are considered necessary in the absence of opposition, so I'm leaving a message here in case anyone is interested in reading the article and leaving comments on ways it can be approved and voting support or oppose based on if it meets the criteria.  You do not have to be familiar with Nigerian music to vote -- actually, it may be better if you aren't -- but please read the article and, even if you vote to support, leave any comments on sections that seem unclear or incomplete, or other suggestions for improvement.  Thanks Tuf-Kat 20:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nigerian music FAC

message: I've cross posted a comment here, lest it not recieve any comment on the article talk page that it is placed, and as it is possible someone is misusing the tag of your project.
I don't understand the presence of the systematic bias tag upon this article; if the term is only used in Europe then surely its okay for the article to have a European perspective? If the term is used elsewhere, then shouldn't there be at least some reference to this fact in the article already?
The Non-obviousness article seems similarly slanted towards the US, but it doesn't have a tag. Should not an apparent bias in this article imply a similar bias there? --Neo 10:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Inventive step]] bias tag

message: Hey so just asking but do you guys really create neglected articles?  The statement "This project creates and improves neglected articles" implies that you do. 134.173.94.191 08:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: to be completely honest yes.Geni 10:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: yes, we do. If you would be so kind to take a look at our neglected articles, you'd make us happy. — mark ✎ 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really create articles?

message: :On a related; but side note; since I first encountered it I've had a problem with the name of this project. Doesn't systematic imply some form of concious effort on the part of at least someone or a group of people. I would agree that there is an unconcious bias, but should not the name of the project assume good faith on the part of the participants and have a less reactionary name? --Neo 13:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: systemic not systematic. But the name is pretty bad. Someone above suggests "Ensuring Global Perspective" as an alternative. - Xed 14:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But many of the issues are not matters of globalism. Yes, there are aspects of this that have to do with geography (under-coverage of Africa, for example), but others (disproportion of concern with popular culture vs. high culture) do not. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn,my misreading; then again if I make the mistake others might too... (::smile::) systemic isn't as bad of a word; I like the word 'implicit' - one definition of which is "Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent" (hopefuly true) as the definition " Implied or understood though not directly expressed" is immidiately not true, and "Having no doubts or reservations" is similaly not applicable. --Neo 19:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current name may be accurate, but it's too jargony, obscure and combative. And it's frequently misunderstood, requiring repeated explanations - Xed 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have nothing against it, although we should keep in mind that whatever name we choose, there will remain editors who are convinced of our 'Anti-American, leftist bias' and they will read that into the 'global' part just as well. — mark ✎ 08:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: this project is also ment to cover things that are not covered due to to be blunt lack of interest in them by geeks.Geni 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's my geography training, but I have trouble getting past "global" in a geographical sense; to me, it doesn't include the other systemic biases identified by this project. Brainstorming here - Ensuring Broader Perspective, Broadening Wikipedia's Coverage, Addressing Underserved Topics...  While I generally do favor finding a new name, I do have concerns - it would be a shame if we lose sight of this project's fundamental critique of Wikipedia: there is systemic bias in what is covered, and there are specific reasons for this bias - it's not random, and it's not harmless. It's important, I think, that we keep this critique front-and-center even as we try to become more accessible. CDC (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this name ought to be fixed, and also with Cdc that "global" is going to make things sound unnecessarily geographic.  I like CDC's suggestions but I'm worried that a word like "ensuring" might make us sound a bit Thought-Policish.  Since so many other Wikiprojects have only one-word descriptions (Africa, Cricket, etc.), why use a verb at all?  I'd suggest Wikiproject Underrepresented Topics; it makes the critique clear but (hopefully) shouldn't be particularly controversial.  --Dvyost 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real problem with any of this, but it's not just a matter of under-represented topics: it's also that certain topics are covered from a very narrow perspective. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ensuring Broader Perspective is probably the best suggestion so far, then. ··gracefool |☺ 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *"Wikiproject Broader Perspective"? Frankly we aren't in a position to "ensure" anything very much. Kappa 11:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. Both Broader Perspective and (if we want to keep the verb) Broadening Perspective sound good to me. BrianSmithson 11:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *I think I'd prefer the former (Broader Perspective); a glance at the List of Wikiprojects shows the other projects tend to be all nouns.  On the otherhand, being the most active folks on the list couldn't be all bad either...  --Dvyost 14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the title Broader Perspective; although should it be singular or plural? Of course Wikipedia offers only one perspective, but the idea is that it should reflect many perspectives. --Neo 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: or Wikipedia Wide(r) Perspective - Xed 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I read Addressing Underserved Topics as Addressing Undeserved Topics...  - Xed 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost a week since anyone posted a new comment to this discussion.  Does that mean we're at consensus on Broader Perspective?  --Dvyost 15:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I would like to vote to keep the name. This topic started by someone not reading systemic properly, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it. I feel that broader perspective is far to vague. --Gareth Hughes 16:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I concur with Gareth here. 'Countering systemic bias' is to the point, and its unambiguous. I feel that 'Broadening perspective' leaves the real problem unsaid — Wikipedia often is broad in perspective, but it doesn't include all perspectives (as Neo also pointed out). — mark ✎ 13:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have any say in this, I agree; "systemic bias" is fine. u p p l a n d 13:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I think the current name is much more descriptive than any of the pproposed alternatives. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's change the name

message: Africa is the most neglected continent in wikipedia. Wondering how you can help in countering this systemic bias? There's now a revived Current events in Africa page that compile news and update on events related to Africa. It helps to draw more attention to the continent, and it's working already: two of the entries are now also listed in wikipedia's Main Page, "In the news" section! It is easy to contribute to this page, although we need more users to be involved. Check it out, and hope you can help, thank you! --Vsion 01:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events in Africa 

message: I nominated Mário de Andrade for featured article (link to FAC) some time ago, but the nomination has stalled.  I had trouble getting comments on peer review for the same reason, I think--people aren't interested in commenting on a Brazilian poet.  We are very weak in this area, and I think having a featured article might help us attract Brazilian and Portuguese-speaking editors.  I'd appreciate any advice on getting this through.  Thanks.   Chick Bowen 17:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC possibly of interest to this wikiproject 

message: My dear friends and fellow Wikipedians,
 
A proposal has been made here which could effect the way all featured articles, and perhaps even eventually all articles, are handled in the future. While it has the well-meaning intention of addressing some real problems, if it is adapted, I fear it will actually create more problems and possibly destroy the wonderfully open and collaborative nature of the Wikipedia we all so love.
I therefore, strongly urge you to join us who OPPOSE this potentially dangerous proposal. Thank you for your time, thoughts and words.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really want [[Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Yet_another_plan...|'''this?!''']] 

message: I believe that Wikipedia lacks information about corporate culture. For more information, please see the thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Corporate slang. Thanks. Samohyl Jan 08:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate bias 

message: I read the article and I find this an interesting matter, and agree that we should strive to get read of this bias. What I do not understand is the suggestion to register oneself in that page. What for? I mean, can't one do the same things atht are suggested in the article without having to register there? Thanks in advance for clarifying this. --Anagnorisis 04:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is to identify yourself to other members who want to communicate on a specific topic; if somebody's looking for an editor on African languages, for example, they could find the indefatigable editors Mark Dingemanse and Mustafaa.  And it's just fun to build a sense of community where possible, no?  --Dvyost 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Countering systemic bias/members

message: Help us to counter systemic bias in the Wiki's philosophy articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions Banno 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy articles 

message: Editors might be interested in Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested_move. - Xed 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Côte d'Ivoire 

message: The following article List of theatres in Mumbai has been put up for deletion: (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatres in Mumbai). Most of the deletion votes are based on western standards of the defination of a cinema/theatre. In other words, people think that small establishments are included here, when the case is just the opposite in Mumbai, which is home to Bollywood. I don't see list of schools in Louisville etc. ever appearing on AFDs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of thing that makes the perennially proposed notability requirement so insidious. Not notable seems to always boil down to "I haven't heard of it," and since only a small cross-section of the population ever votes at AfD, the encyclopedia gets skewed in certain directions. - SimonP 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Merely bringing to your attention that :Category:CSB Articles has been proposed for deletion; see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 14#Category:CSB Articles. Courtland 00:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, have voted delete. I don't think anyone is using or maintaining it. Let's clean up after ourselves. — mark ✎ 20:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category "CSB Articles" proposed for deletion 

message: The Guardian's 0 out of 10 for Haute Couture reminds me that CSB is not just about the Developing World.-Xed 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Systemic bias can be sciences/humanities (rather obvious in terms of depth of coverage). It can even be A-Z: I would bet that lists of red links are filled in more from the beginning of the alphabet. Charles Matthews 23:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, CSB had "Art and Design" as one of it's targets, as well as "Female-oriented subjects" (this was changed into "Women's studies", a dry and academic title, which left fashion-related subjects like Haute Couture and traditionally female occupations like Nursing out in the cold). CSB recently has been synonymous with the Developing World, but even anti-parochialism can become parochial. - Xed 23:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just the Developing World 

message: Articles with a "Religious view" section always have Christian, usually have Judaism, occasionally Islam or Buddhism. This does not reflect the global distribution of religions. 
See this table on my page - the religious beliefs ranked in order of prominence - that is, percentage of world population. Actually reflecting this would mean including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (all defined religions with 4% or more of the world population) to any article which has a religious views section. Even in articles where all those religions are covered, there are often many paragraphs for Christianity and one-line statements for Islam and Buddhism - see Religion_and_abortion. 
Should we add a mention of the religious bias to the article page for WP:BIAS? KillerChihuahua 13:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the above does fall within this project's concerns.  Jkelly 05:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I wholly agree with what you're saying here... good catch. --Dvyost 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur. — mark ✎ 08:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: yep, sounds eminently sensible.--cjllw | TALK 08:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If that means excluding Judaism, I would be strongly against. Today's population numbers is only one aspect of the big picture. The Jewish populations were repeatedly decimated throughout the history, but we cannot ignore the fact that both Christianity and Islam have been strongly influenced by Judaism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it means that at all. It just means that some religions are under-represented. This is about adding extra content rather than removing it, even pre-emptively. --Cherry blossom tree 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please help with correcting this bias by adding religious views as appropriate. I am not suggesting the view of any religion which is less that 1% should be removed, or not added. I am merely suggesting that the major religions of the world are poorly represented, and the information is usually presented with a bias towards American distribution. At the very least Islam and Hindu should be presented, and preferably Buddhist also. Chinese folk religion is a group, not a single religion, and as such a single "view" is virtually impossible to find. Tribal religions is also a group.
Should entry on Project page be modified? I was trying to be concise, but I may have been unclear instead. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious bias 

message: Wikipedians should know that there are people who have had unusual childhoods, including having been military brats(Soldiers' child), children of personnel who are/who have been in extremely secretive government agencies, who's families have unusual occupations that the average civilian does not comprehend at all. They should know that these people exist before rushing to summarily judge other people. MY childhood was a military oriented one with some kin that were in certain government agencies, thus this explains any and all "quirks" I may have, since I ended up as a secretive person, since secrecy meant survival. Martial Law 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unusual Childhood

message: I'm not sure this project will work.  For every attempt at reducing bias that works, another may actually incorporate more bias.   People will perceive themselves at reducing bias when they are actually incorporating it.  That's because modern world views on bias are heavily biased themselves.  We have a tendency to see ourselves as living in an age that is more enlightened than past ages, without considering the new prejudices we are teaching ourselves.  And unfortunately, one of the big prejudices we are learning is prejudice in dealing with prejudice!  I could give examples, but people would get their backs up because they don't want to see their prejudice.
To deal with bias you need self-awareness; but people tend to confuse this with political awareness.  Many people think they're self-aware if they are challenging old ideas - but if such challenging fits what you'd like to believe or what you're leaning toward, then it doesn't get at the heart of self-awareness.  In some ways it's the opposite.  Self-awareness is really hard because it means challenging yourself on what you don't want to believe.
I'll try one example that hopefully will be benign:  you might think that you're a good, progressive-minded person who has learned all about racism - but you might develop such strong feelings about it that you start to see racism even where it isn't; and in doing so start to prejudge people as being racist when they're not.  And since you hate racism, there's no way you're going to admit you've developed it yourself, particularly not if your sympathy is towards the groups you see as victims of racism.  I'm not denying the great deal of racism that exists towards many (or should I say all) races.  I'm saying it because few people really have the honesty to truly face their biases.
The only way to succeed at this is to stop trying so hard to correct what is wrong in others, and start looking at yourself.  If you're going about trying to "remove" systemic bias from articles, that's the least effective way - many people will do this because of their own needs, and increase the bias.  The most effective way is to understand yourself more, before you write them.
I wouldn't say any of this if I hadn't done a lot of work on myself - even as I write, I'm reconsidering some of my words.  I have to do what I'm suggesting:  focus most of my attention inward, rather than in talking to you people.  Only by trying to see the other side of everything, no matter how wrong it might seem - to the point of empathizing with it - have I had any success.  And still there's many times I avoid being honest.  So now I will leave you to your emotional honesty, and try to get back to mine. 24.64.223.203 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misunderstood the thrust of the project. We don't primarily aim to reduce Wikipedia's systemic bias by altering information it already contains to make it more neutral, we try to improve the coverage of areas where it is weakest in terms of breadth and depth (such as those listed on WP:CSBOT.) The 'bias' in 'countering systemic bias' refers to bias in topic selection rather than article content. I suppose its our own fault for having an ambiguous project name.--Cherry blossom tree 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not how I read it, but i'm prepared to let it lie. It's not just about worldwide content (though that's a big part of it.) It's any area that's neglected. Open Tasks lists womens studies, art & desgin, agriculture and so on. It's difficult to find a name that adequatly covers all of it (and we haven't found it yet.) --Cherry blossom tree 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How effective will this project be? 

message: Just a note that WikiProject Organized Labour has been created. I would consider it a descendent of the CSB and would like to list it in the "Related WikiProjects" section. As well, would it make sense to place the Organized Labour Tasks template in the labour section of the CSB open tasks, or just a note and a link?--Bookandcoffee 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either, I think. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Organized Labour

message: Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]]

message: I started WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies to incorporate text and information from the public domain LOC Country Studies into Wikipedia.  Part of the purpose of these studies was to teach Americans about little known places.  Systematically incorporating the studies will go a long way to fighting systematic bias.  See what I have already done with Eritrea.--Bkwillwm 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikiproject 

message: As I have proposed in a recent Arbcom case; I have been witness to what I would identify as a consistent and pervasive bias against renewable energy solutions. Examples of the bias include:
* Protracted criticisms of renewable energy in other articles
::Such as in Nuclear power where the wikipedia concludes that wind power is uneconomic due to the fickleness of the resource. This assertion is based on a selective citation of a single study and it hardly fair to the broad spectrum of positions on the complex subject of real-time energy economics.
* Censoring, whitewashing, or fact-softening such items as government studies of the risks of a nuclear accident as in CRAC-II, or the medical consequences of exposure to nuclear radiation as in Price-Anderson Act.
* I would suggest that being geeks generally, Wikipedians share my own tendency to trust complex technological solutions and to place substantially more weight on the value of new scientific discovery than on the risks posed to the general public by new technology - particularly in the field of nuclear irradiation. Benjamin Gatti 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that Nuclear Fission may not push an agenda, but certainly Nuclear power does, and has been listed as NPOV for over a year by consensus. I would suggest that where the articles stay focused on subject matter, they do ok, but Nuclear power sets forward an agenda which is very close to the inverse of your animal farm Haiku. I would suggest that an article on Nuclear power has no business asserting the inadequacies of (say) wind power because it is not rationally encompassed by the advertised subject. Broader subjects - such as Future energy may rationally encompass a debate, but a narrowly defined subject does not and should not. The fact that Nuclear power does take pot shots at alternatives discloses the bias, and mis-characterizing the argument as has been done here further demonstrates the systemic nature of the bias. I suggest we accept that the bias is real and begin to deal with it effectively. Benjamin Gatti 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose that the bias against sustainable energy (general in favor of nuclear) be officially recognized