Talk:Systemic bias

message: I really felt that this article was inaccessbile to many readers in it's current format. Like over in the folksonomy article, I think it's bad form to open the article with a big, scary word (neologism) that most readers will probably need to look up before reading the rest of the article. I also find it unpleasant to use the word "bias" in the definition of the word bias.
Second, I moved the whole discussion about "systemic" versus "systematic" bias to it's own section.  This seems like a small distinction that is not of much importance when you're trying to get your head around the concept. Robbyslaughter 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bold for me.  Your definition of "systemic bias" is in fact the same as "systematic bias".  As you say the distinction is small (usually non-existant) and "systematic bias" is the older and more common form.  It is a systematic bias of Wikipedia to use words like systemic.  And readers need to know that. --Henrygb 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold Rewrite / Additions

message: The article ends: 
:Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) and life chances (systemic).  
I have no idea what it means by "life chances" there, thus I have no way to make the suggested comparison.  If anyone can remember what this used to link to, it would be helpful to fix the link. Aumakua 10:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has never linked to anything, but I would guess that it was intended to mean that certain ethnic groups tend on average to be poorer in life and die younger than others in the same society. It is probably a kind of institutional racism line of thought. --Henrygb 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Life chances"?

message: The big problem is that this starts out with the soft sciences usages, psychology and sociology, rather than the use of systemic error in mathematics and computer sciences.  Gene Nygaard 11:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that is because the soft sciences are more prone to re-invented jargon. --Henrygb 11:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole article is systemically biased

message: As an example of how to escape or circumvent or help modify systemic bias, might the concept of a paradigm shift be a useful counter example here? I thought I might add it to the See also section, considering Ethnocentrism is part of the list. A paradigm shift, I understand to be the opposite of systemic bias, in the sense that a paradigm shift is moving over boundaries set by any system. What do you think? Especially with the talk of 'human systems' at the start, it seems appropriate.Drakonicon 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem that you are using "paradigm shift" in Kuhn's sense, so it is difficult to say. --Henrygb 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be suggesting that the older paradigm has a particular kind of bias, and the newer paradigm therefore makes science unbiased. I suspect Kuhn would suggest that the newer paradigm has biases of its own, and in time itself becomes old.  My reading of Kuhn is not that he thought that paradigm shifts were "better" than incremental science within a particular paradigm, but that science has both kinds of change, taking place in different ways. --Henrygb 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paradigm Shift?

message: While I agree that this article could use good references, what is the basis of the claim of original research? And what precisely in the article is being disparaged as original research? A quick Google seach for '"Systemic bias" -wikipedia' will show tens of thousands of uses, many of them in reliable sources and clearly using the term in this way. Unfortunately, I can't quickly find one to cite as a definition of the term, but its basic sense is immediately discernible from these sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have to ask User:68.238.22.242 .  Of course, if Google is a judge of anything then this article should be a redirect to Systematic bias.  One neat example is your suggestion compared with the obvious alternative which throw up  and  respectively in the top 10: the same article with headlines which are two letters different. --Henrygb 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the basis of the claim of original research? 

message: This page should not be merged with Systematic bias. I reverted the merge. Systemic bias has more to do with subtle or institutional racism, bigotry, ignorance of other cultures, etc.. 
See this New York Times article:
"Commerce Dept. Accused Of Systemic Bias". By John Files. October 6, 2005. New York Times. 
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge reverted 

message: See the results of these searches of Google News: 
*http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22systemic+bias%22
Google Scholar: 
*http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22systemic%20bias%22
Google Books: 
*http://books.google.com/books?q=%22systemic%20bias%22 
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google searches 

message: Editors may be interested in Systematic Bias in  by Laura Quilter, which specifically discusses this article, as well as pointing out the biases inherent in Wikipedians - White, Male, Educated, etc etc. A better discussion in the article of gender and race biases in human systems and organizations would be welcome. (So would a few citations, actually....) Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of this article, what we can improve

message: I added the refimprove (insufficient citations) to the header. I believe the header, "In human institutions", and the head of "Major causes" need to have further needed references before this hea4der is taken down. Loverthehater (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient citations