Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accusations of systemic bias

Hi folks, here's an interesting situation. An editor has tried to create an article on a Mexican individual multiple times. Each time it has been rejected because the individual fails WP:NOTABILITY. The most recent rejection had the editor respond by leveling accusations of racial bias. You can see part of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Looking_For_Help! and the AfD discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_2#Iván_Enrique_Rodríguez. All participants reject the accusation of racial bias. Is there a term or idiom beyond "false accusation" (or "unfounded accusation")? (I also learned of a argument when dealing with accusations of bias: righting great wrongs). - kosboot (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of draft Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct closing in nine days

A Wikimedia committee has posted a draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the page containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)

Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the discussion of the UCoC draft closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been on a handful of discussions on the UCoC. I've not heard anyone who likes it. One of the most significant weaknesses is that it is intended to be "universal." The problem with that is that different cultures regard these issues differently. What might be offensive to one culture may not be in another; and what might be typical in that culture would be offensive in another. The CoC does not take this into account. Not reflecting these and other complexities shows really poor work on the part of WMF. - kosboot (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"The Indian needs no writing"

Our featured picture of Pretty Nose, who has been nominated for deletion again

These are the words of Four Guns – an Oglala chief who is now threatened by deletion for not having left a long paper trail. Native Americans commonly had an oral tradition but this is not well-recognised here and so there is systemic bias – see Native American Oral Traditions which discusses a lack of balance in sources, for example.

As there seems to be a systematic campaign underway, please note the following related discussions which are still open.

  1. Black Coyote
  2. Black Shawl
  3. Crow Foot
  4. Encouraging Bear
  5. Four Guns
  6. Kaipkire
  7. Little Hawk
  8. Many Horses
  9. Minnie Hollow Wood
  10. One Bull
  11. One Who Walks with the Stars
  12. Pretty Nose
  13. Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.

Perhaps others here are familiar with the difficulties of such cases and so may be able to help.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is obvious WP:CANVASSING and should be rephrased. I have sympathy for the idea that some subjects are harder to find sources that constitute WP:RS but this is ridiculous. There has been a huge amount of scholarly research on American Indian history and most of it is far more accessible than would be the case for other subjects. If these people are indeed notable (and some of them seem to be) then why not find the sources to demonstrate that WP:GNG is actually met? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Inclusion, status as of 2020

You may be interested in a discussion at WikiProject Inclusion concerning bias. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion#Status as of 2020. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPING. 84.120.7.178 appointed himself as "maintainer" of the Wikiproject, and started removing people he doesn't like because in his opinion that aren't sufficiently inclusionist. I simply requested that he ask the other Wikiproject participants whether they wanted a "maintainer" and if they do whether they want to choose 84.120.7.178 for the job.
I have no idea what this has to do with systemic bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Notabilty

At Wikipedia talk:Notability #SNG change, there is a lengthy ongoing discussion about potential changes to the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs), and their relationship with the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Since some SNGs may provide alternative routes to establish notability for some under-represented topics, it is possible that the discussion may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding "What is a fully professional league" + football / soccer inclusion criteria

A discussion regarding "What is a fully professional league" based on WP:NFOOTY inclusion criteria (relevant to this project) is going on here:

Input and ideas are welcome.Hmlarson (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Systemic political bias

What are you doing to counter the massive systemic political bias on Wikipedia, caused by relying on media outlets aligned with left-wing political parties? 98.237.242.206 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you, 98.237.242.206, doing to counter the massive systemic political bias on Wikipedia, caused by relying on media outlets aligned with right-wing political parties? - kosboot (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Instead of getting caught up in a right-versus-left diatribe, could we look at the possibility that' we're indeed reflecting the existing biases of the media, printed books, and other written sources? This is not only political (left-versus-right), but also the fact that you need to be literate (and, in some countries, rich) to be able to publish a book. Or to run a newspaper! Not every country has the wherewithal to produce all the books and newspapers they need to cover their issues; what do we do in some cases? Just forget them? fredericknoronha (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, for better or worse, Wikipedia is generally a reflection of society which means that some bias will be inherent. As far as the discussion above, I was being rhetorical to someone who didn't want to bother registering (which means to me that they don't care about Wikipedia, just about one issue). Recent surveys have concluded that right-wing media tends to rely heavily on unreliable sources, so that's one answer to the person who initiated the question. - kosboot (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is generally a reflection of technology companies in society. Yes, there is bias in society, but many non profit organizations in society have protocols to prevent widespread systemic political bias or systemic selection bias. Examples of protocols may include a mission statement or a purpose statement. Those may prevent the development of systemic political bias, systemic selection bias, or systemic implicit bias by the editors who are selected by routinely changing standards. Citations for recent surveys may provide guidance on the source of the material. Not to be critical, but the thought that Wikipedia reflects society is quite scary. NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with fredericknoronha. The bias on Wikipedia is becoming so clear in the last years. In my opinion Wikipedia would need to have some kind of clear editorial policy with its own point of view, at least for cultural, social, gender, political topics etc, a point of view that would be inclusive, egalitarian and non-discriminatory and would superseed so called reliable sources if needed. It is really scary if you think about the current state of affairs. Nowadays Wikipedia is surpressing information in accordance with the interests of global media and publishing corporations. Just imagine what kind of backwards, clerical and bigotry encyclopedia the Encyclopédistes would create if they would only be allowed to rely on the established sources of the day. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's politcy on sources was created so that information could be verifiable. Once you open that up to include all sorts of unverifiable sources, what do you have? Sure, it's biased against unverifiable sources but Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue..." - kosboot (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I know... and that ("notability" and "reliability" of sources, not verifiability itself) is the main problem of Wikipedia. It is not about verifiability, it is about what or who will verify the information. Now we give that power to the abovementioned publishing and media corporations instead of the editorial board. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Then maybe if Wikipedia is not the place, there are other places where it is not only more appropriate but even welcomed. There's the Signpost for one. I bet one could have a monthly newsletter detailing and discussing incidents of bias. I would find that a really interesting publication (as I assume others would as well). - kosboot (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
But Wikipedia should be the place. At least if it genuinely wants to be an ecyclopedia and not just someone else's mouthpiece. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gender bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Wikipedia gender gap. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Loaded words on Wikipedia

Hi,

I've just saved a first draft of an essay in my sandbox which might be of interest to persons here. If anyone would like to take a look and let me know their thoughts, I'd be grateful. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I've published the essay in the Wikipedia namespace with the shortcut WP:LOADED. I would still appreciate feedback. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for input on nomination for deletion of Template:Gender unclear

Hello, I would like to make this WikiProject aware that Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. The reasons for deletion intersect with the goals of this WikiProject, with the template being claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders. The corresponding discussion may thus be of interest.

Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Potential bias in article

In the first section there is a portion of text that says this: "The same flawed standards of wikipedia's predominantly male and first world bureaucracy simultaneously consider hosts of fictional characters and pornographic actresses to be notable."

Is the mention of pornographic actresses and fictional characters necessary for this point about notability? My main concern is it comes across like the article is casually denigrating porn actresses—as if they are undeserving of being notable when compared to Stacy Schiff—just because of their professions. Maybe it is unintentional, but it sounds like bias against porn actresses. Pythagimedes (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. That line was added January of this year, by User:Jaredscribe [1], I don't think we need or have consensus for it. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion → Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force – Given that this WikiProject has been inactive for a while and the talk page redirects to WT:CSB it should probably be turned into a task force like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support, a common sense association of a task with a project. BD2412 T 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - do you plan to revive the project/start the task force? If so, absolutely, do whatever you need to do and ... godspeed, so to speak. If not, I'm against rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles about failed or failing projects

I feel we have yet another type of systematic bias, but I don't know how to characterize it. When a big new project or system is under development, an article is written by enthusiasts, generally with an unconscious or even a deliberate pro-project bias. At this stage the sources are often filled with marketing hype. As the project encounters difficulties, the project ceases to be interesting to these editors and the article becomes neglected, leaving it in a state that no longer accurately reflects the actual situation. I have personally worked fairly extensively to repair this bias for Itanium and Zumwalt class destroyer, which I feel have already reached the "failed" state. I am working on Space Launch System, which I feel is currently in the "failing" state.

This bias would also occur for a subject that was successful at the time the article was written but whose status has since deteriorated.

My interests are fairly narrow, but I suspect that there may be quite a few articles in areas I do not care much about (e.g., bands, movies) that fall in this category. If so, how should we identify these articles and how should we address them? -Arch dude (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That does happen, unrelated sources don't cover failing projects very much, unless they're true fiascos, so there will be a lot more on the launch, and little or sometimes even nothing on the failure. I don't have a great solution, but if there isn't interest in the articles, at least you won't have as many people opposing you when you try to clean up the WP:HYPE. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work on addressing this aspect in coverage of Nazi Germany and the Second World War on WP:MILHIST in the last few years. A number of users have done some seriously impressive work on this but it certainly still a real problem. I, for one, would advocate a more explicit policy against WP:FANCRUFT. I think the best policy we have now for this kind of thing is probably WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion proposal of 106 Tigray War articles

In relation to the Tigray War with a very tight internet and telecommunications blockade since November 2020, there is currently a proposal to mass delete massacre articles that cover some of the better known massacres that have occurred (so far) during the war, based on information that has managed to get through the blockade. Expert opinions differ as to whether the war crimes count as "just" war crimes, or rather crimes against humanity, or genocide. In any case, the current proposal is to wipe the Wikipedia slate clean of 106 of these articles.

Choose a deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre. Your participation with arguments based on what the aims and method of Wikipedia are (Wikipedia policies and guidelines) either for or against the mass deletion of these 106 articles on massacres, or for or against the mass deletion procedure itself, or with a more nuanced alternative, should be added there. Your edit will in principle automatically appear on all 106 deletion discussion pages simultaneously. Boud (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Recently I heard (off-wiki) that an editor's edits were reverted simply because the sources were not in English. I thought that was incomprehensibly ridiculous so I posted to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. One editor responded, essentially justifying that argument. I still find it incomprehensible. To me, the idea of using only (or mostly) English sources supports the idea that Wikipedia is extremely biased. If you are inclined, I strongly encourage you to post to that thread (hopefully supporting the notion that non-English sources are valid). - kosboot (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Literary canon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Literary canon and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Literary canon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent titles for articles about media portrayals of minority groups

Hi. I thought I'd bring the group's attention to an issue, although I don't have time to make a fleshed-out proposal myself. We have many articles that are about how particular minority groups are depicted in the media, but they have inconsistent titles and there are no categories or navigation templates between them. The lack of consistency means that people create duplicate articles and can't find an example to follow when they want to create a new article about media portrayals of a minority group. Here are some examples of the articles I'm talking about:

Does anyone want to try to make a proposal for a consistent title style and get consensus for it? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this one necessarily needs to be standardised - an alternative is to create a reasonable spread of redirects, which would fix the issues you've raised. You also mentioned a template or category. Those are good ideas, and a lot easier to do. --Xurizuri (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Women of color listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Women of color to be moved to Woman of color. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Racial bias on Wikipedia listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Racial bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Racism on Wikipedia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Gender bias on Wikipedia listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gender bias on Wikipedia to be moved to Sexism on Wikipedia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Inputs request @ a concern over systemic bias

A concern over systemic bias is raised @ discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#MOS:MUHAMMAD co-opted in article title naming discussions with following relevant comment

".. IMHO MOS:HON and MOS:MUHAMMAD discussion when closely related to WP:NPOV policy formation itself then be discussed @ WT:NPOV and not doing so amounts to inadvertent systemic bias. .."


Thanks for inputs


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about bias in topics of featured articles

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in these discussions: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Racial bias in Wikipedia featured articles and Talk:Main_Page#About FAs. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Being more welcoming to new editors

I think broken welcoming of new editors is part of why systemic biases are perpetuated on Wikipedia, and concrete steps could be taken to improve it.

My own experience trying to edit Wikipedia a few years ago was unsuccessful, and I've only been able to collaborate constructively with other editors after learning how Wikipedia works from a helpful Wikimedian. Within a short timespan I've encountered most of the issues listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Systemic bias (I'd say the only one that didn't affect me at all was gender bias - likely because I'm a male). What I can't understand is why Wikipedia doesn't tell new editors how to collaborate effectively in spite of these issues.

The secrets of Wikipedia not told to new editors:

  1. Read talk pages and edit history before making an edit. This is a big one in most articles, and yet nobody tells that it's a good idea to check why a proposed edit is not in the article before making it. WP:BRD advocates almost the opposite ("Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia." - "When in doubt, edit!" - this is completely misleading and not how things work at all in articles with multiple editors).
  2. What OR and synthesis is. WP:OR is on point, but talks in an incomprehensible language (must be a result of a tough consensus). WP:SYNTH and WP:SYNTHNOT are useful as reference for specific/marginal cases. But for practice most of it boils down to "1. Each edit must be sourced to a WP:RS; 2. Any conclusions that are obvious from reading sources but not directly stated must be made by the reader independently and not included in the articles (apart from listed exceptions such as math)".
  3. Discussion doesn't mean conflict. I think that's one where really a lot of underrepresentation comes from. BOLD/BRD is the essence of today's WP, but what if I don't want to be bold, but want to collaborate? The WP:BRD tells to "be bold", "discuss the changes... using other forms of dispute resolution", almost from the start talks about fractions engaged in edit war and depicts what looks like a military convoy as an illustration for achieving consensus. Without picking on terms, I think it'd be helpful to clearly state that politely discussing a revert doesn't mean starting a conflict (even if it may feel so, and editors acting as if it is are not uncommon).
  4. Revert is an invitation to discuss. Similarly, revert is not a hostile move, but an invitation for discussion, and I don't think this is communicated in WP:BRD or otherwise. WP:BOLD does a much better job, but it's still worded as if revert is a hostile action ("don't get upset", "careless edit might stir up a latent conflict" etc).
  5. Stay focused in discussion. I've seen behaviour on talk pages where editors would comment in a way that frames continuation of the discussion in the way that has nothing to do with achieving consensus. Surprisingly, it seems more prevalent amongst most active and experienced editors - possibly from the sheer amount of edits and comments they're making. The takeaway is that the goal of the discussion is to get to consensus and any own comment should be worded not to engage in inappropriate discussions but seek to achieve consensus or understand opponent's concerns and their grounding in policy. WP:TALK attempts to explain this, but so much has been added to it that its impossible to get the essence from reading its text.
  6. Stonewalling is a thing. WP:STONEWALL and WP:DISCFAIL are there but its not easy to find them, which is odd, given how many of what the essay considers "stonewalling tactics" are commonplace. I suspect that many edit wars by new editors originate from unfamiliarity with the practice and not knowing how to respond better.

None(!) of the existing welcome templates explains it. Yes, there's a often a link to WP:CTW and knowing what to look for one would find hints to the 'secrets' I've listed above; many have a link to WP:BOLD; none link to WP:SYNTH/WP:SYNTHNOT or WP:BRD or WP:TALK or WP:STONEWALL/WP:DISCFAIL. (Not implying that welcome messages are necessarily the right place for this either.) There's no single simple explanation that tells how to start; help pages focused on practicalities, policies or guidelines aren't supposed to be tutorials. There's a step-by-step guide, but it doesn't tell most of the above either. Surely, a short tutorial telling how to start would be helpful. Not sure what form it should take?

I must be reinventing the wheel writing this, and it must've been discussed before and rejected, but I couldn't find any evidence of this. I think there's a much wider renewed interest in Wikipedia recently and I feel that explaining the above, obvious to experienced editors and new editors from a certain cultural background, would help to make Wikipedia more diverse than it is currently.

Would be interested to hear others' opinions as the above is based solely on own experience and understanding. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

PaulT2022: The points you make here are certainly relevant to improving how we welcome new users, perhaps especially women. It might be a good idea to begin with a draft in your user space on a welcome page which takes them into account. Several of us spend quite a bit of our time mentoring new users. It would be useful to be able to link to a more practical set of suggestions. You might also find it useful to look through some of the essays in connection with Women in Red, suggesting improvements where necessary. As for my own experience in learning how to edit, as I never received any welcome I simply based pretty well everything I did on reviewing how other editors had dealt with the problems I encountered. As time went by, I received useful advice from other editors. I now try to help others along the same lines.--Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
PaulT2022, this is a pretty good layout of issues when welcoming a new editor and what that editor faces when they begin their journey here. Thank you for inviting us here to discuss.
I believe the greatest hurdles are Numbers 3, 4 and 5. Not having a solid understanding of these points has led to so many editors becoming discouraged and leaving Wikipedia and a failure to understand the impact such things can have on other editors has led experienced editors to drive away newer editors and destroy the goal of a collaborative effort. There are countless experienced editors that seem to forget this when they engage in discussions. It does become about the win and when they feel they have made their case they simply stonewall or resort to questioning the competency of the other editor.
Unless it is blatant disruption, I try to never make a discussion about another editor on a talk page. In fact, I refuse to. I am not at conflict with any other editor, even in disagreement. Challenging the competency of another editor or their understanding of Wikipedia policy is atypical to creating a place where collaboration should be the focus.
If it looks as though there is no way to reconcile the differences between my view and another's viewpoint then its best to just let it go or seek further dispute resolution. I would rather an article here contain something I disagree with than question the validity of another editors viewpoints. It is such a devaluing experience to have brought a good faith viewpoint, even if it ultimately is not the view of consensus, to a discussion only to be told you are fundamentally flawed and incompetent by another person that has not experienced life the same way you have so therefore comes to the table with a different view of the situation. I respect all views, even those I may disagree with because they come from an individual's perspective.
While we are supposed to remain dispassionate about subjects we write about, asking us to disassociate ourselves with the experiences we have had in life is like telling us to stop breathing. It will permeate our discussions and it most definitely skews our views on everything from policy to the way we interpret interactions. Whether we are experienced or new we should never make a discussion about the other editor nor should we ever question the competency of another editor when that editor is making a well thought out attempt to express policy as they see it, especially when that viewpoint is different than our own. --ARoseWolf ARoseWolf 16:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott and @ARoseWolf, thank you for your feedback! I've started a draft at User:PaulT2022/Welcome, tried to cover the critical points in the areas you've said are the bigger hurdles while staying succinct.
PaulT2022 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
PaulT2022, I can appreciate your succinctness. My family would tell you it's something I am not known for (almost as bad in verbal communication). Likewise I appreciate your willingness to dive off into the issues facing new and underrepresented editors. I have the draft watchlisted so I can follow its progress and I hope it can be adopted in some format eventually, even if just as a talk page message to welcome new editors and provide them with accurate information with tips/tools available to them to be successful. --ARoseWolf 16:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@PaulT2022: thanks for taking the time to write this up. I think the points you make (and the "6 secrets" you outline) are very helpful. You might want to compare them with the existing page on "Wikiquette", to see what it does and doesn't cover. If you'd like to take your suggestions further, you might find more editors interested in them over at the Welcoming Committee talk page or editor retention WikiProject, which are more directly relevant venues than here. Jr8825 • Talk 12:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the Democracy article show systemic bias?

Editors have been removing the Template:Systemic bias (and other maintenance tags) on the article for Democracy, and I wanted to get outside opinions. Does this article show systemic bias? Should it be more inclusive of non-Western democratic institutions? Freoh (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Freoh: An article such as that one almost certainly exhibits systemic bias, because political theory as a topic is commonly written about (both today and in the past) from the position of Western philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Paine etc.). This is difficult to resolve because the problem may be the availability of sources, at least in English. We only have a limited ability as editors to correct for this, as we're tied by the weight of reliably published sources.
Fighting for a tag to be on the page is unhelpful, though. The purpose of tags is to help editors identify problems so they can fix them, not as a "badge of shame" to warn readers (see WP:TC/WP:OVERTAG). From my own experience, editors hate the systemic bias tag as it can be extremely hard to resolve and some editors find it subjective (it's hard to "prove" to other good-faith editors who don't see an issue). For this reason, and because systemic bias is often a broad underlying issue, it's often inappropriate to tag (most of Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, we can't tag it all, and it can't always be readily fixed). In my view, a systemic bias tag is best kept for clear, egregious cases where the status-quo is damaging, and if it's added it should be accompanied by an explicit rationale ("I'm adding this systemic bias tag because...") together with evidence that sources exist to support the concerns.
The best way to address the problem is to find reliable sources which discuss non-Western democracy, especially if they discuss its significance to democracy generally. Then boldly add (or propose on the talk page, if it's likely to be disputed) sentences which broaden the article to include a non-Western lens. Hope this helps, Jr8825 • Talk 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response! I wasn't trying to add a "badge of shame" but simply to identify problems and draw more attention to the page, as it won't be a "quick fix." I tried replacing the tag with a less aggressive "globalize section" tag, but even that was promptly drive-by de-tagged for being "arbitrary." Are you suggesting that I avoid the WP:CSB#Related cleanup templates entirely, and coordinate solely through the WP:CSBOT page? It seems like maybe we should change the guidance and documentation to reflect this if Wikipedia policy is that these templates are inappropriate. Freoh (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The open tasks page doesn't tend to get used any more. The best place to coordinate and raise awareness is the talk page of Democracy itself -- there are 1,740 editors watching it for changes, which is a lot higher than most articles, so you're likely to get feedback if you're making thoughtful suggestions (a clear talk page thread title and edit summaries will help attract attention). I can already see several other editors have engaged with your points there.
I don't think your globalize tag was necessarily wrong, but I can see you've been adding a lot of tags to that page. Generally, the best path on Wikipedia is to find good sources then be bold and fix it yourself. Since we're all volunteers, nobody else has any obligation to fix the problems you see, and if you feel strongly enough to point something out then you're likely the person most motivated to fix it.
It's not that tags are inappropriate. Specific inline tags you're unable to fix yourself may get restored if you continue to discuss on the talk page and show there's an issue; it was probably wrong for them to be removed but because we have a strict policy on edit warring you shouldn't immediately add them back yourself. However, with broader tags such as globalize, if you're meeting resistance there's little point trying to re-add them, as tags themselves don't achieve much anyway. It'll just get added to a massive backlog. Better to be the change you wish to see. Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting attention on an article

Coming here from /r/taiwan subreddit, there are a couple of editors who want to rewrite a biographical article because in their opinion, contains "cruft" content, as you can see below:

However, concerns were abound that the hypothetical re-write will cause systematic bias to the detriment of the hacking subculture and non-anglophone perspectives especially when they questioned the reliability of Taiwan News, kind of like a Bangkok Post in Taiwan being one of the biggest few English dailies there.

The debacle went further into behavioral conduct as the defending editor either gone rogue or his proxy IP was taken over by a vandal who impersonated them. Even though that is inexcusable that doesn't in any way diminish the editor's concerns that significant bias concerns and WP:OVERSIMPLIFY would have occurred if they went through their rewrite. Therefore please keep an eye on it.

Pinging @Matthewvetter: and others from Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion here since it's somehow related. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Taiwan News was described as "marginally reliable" according to this RfC, however the SOPs for such cases involves in-text citation and sometimes extra-citation with more reliable source. Little to no indication on awareness to such middle ground solutions except the defending IP user. Besides that other Anonymous and cybersecurity related articles are worthy of attention given their intention to "clean up" those contents. Consider reporting to the admins if malicious intentions are proven, although assume good faith still applies as of this time. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging also admin @Oshwah: just in case. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-contradiction on project page

The wikiproject page gives a good description of systemic bias about coverage and selection. But then just below that, there's another section labeled "Distinguishing between selection bias and systemic bias" that says this isn't actually systemic bias and gives a completely different definition that has little to do with this project. Is there any reason why this section has been kept? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien I also thought this section was confusing. It looks like an IP tried to remove much of that section a few months ago, but it was reverted. I support you in removing it unless someone chimes in with an objection.Larataguera (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Systemic bias in deletion nominations of transportation articles

I am concerned about systemic bias in the efforts to have several road articles and am concerned that this is extending to other areas of transportation such as trains. Compare these outcomes:

For context, WP:GEOROAD states that all state highways are typically notable, which helps even the playing field in cases like this. I am concerned that systemic bias and difficulties in finding sources (language, affinity for familiar pages, different countries, digital newspaper archives) are eventually going to result in different outcomes, and articles from underrepresented areas are being nominated more frequently. Looking at trains I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiyaling station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kengzi station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silian station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doirani railway station (Greece), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingshanwei station (China). Thoughts? Rschen7754 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this issue. This is one reason my contributions on Wikipedia have tailed off. Articles are deleted because someone decides it is not notable or not enough references etc. It is not as easy finding sources for certain types of articles especially from Africa. Rather than see many hours of effort deleted from Wikipedia, I have simply curtailed my contributions. There are articles from certain parts of the world that are surprisingly notable. I shall remain in semi-hybernation and hope for the day that there is an equal playing field. Natsubee (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree this is an issue. I always try to help look for sources when it comes to China-related articles, but in general it's a hard problem to solve unless there are people who can read the language and are willing to help find sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Goals and scope

I added a section about goals to the Project page. Most WikiProjects have a section on goals and scope. I think it helps to guide the efforts of contributors. ("what are we doing here?"). The first goal was already mentioned on the page. I am proposing the second goal. I think it's nice to have something a little more contained than "eliminate bias on wikipedia", which is so immense as to be almost inactionable.

Goals

  1. Eliminate the gaps caused by the systemic bias in editors' cultural perspective, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole.
  2. Improve the editing community's understanding of the systemic bias in Wikipedia by reviewing existing scholarship and ensuring that recent studies about Wikipedia's systemic bias are included as sources in various articles about Wikipedia itself. Ensure that sections about systemic bias in these articles are clear, complete, and concise.

Scope: The first goal is extremely broad, as under-represented POVs may affect almost any article. It may be effective to prioritise WP:Featured articles, WP:Good articles, and WP:Vital articles. The second goal is limited to articles about Wikipedia itself.

Just thought I'd post this here as well to invite comment. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Larataguera, I think it's great that someone is trying to keep this wikiproject alive, and I think the project page is much better off than it was before. I think this project is much-needed on Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem there's much activity, and many of the project subpages haven't been edited in years. It would be great to see this project further updated to keep track of major systemic bias issues and organize collaboration on underrepresented subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien thanks for the feedback. I agree that this project seems to be mostly defunct. That's extremely concerning to me, given the severity of the bias and dire need for remedy. Maybe your vantage point as an extra-terrestrial makes it easier for you to see how biased the encyclopedia is?!
I assume the trouble is poor understanding of the bias and lack of actionable goals to remedy it. I think the most concrete and realisable goal for this project right now would be to improve WPs coverage of its own bias: there are a lot of studies on the topic that are not included in relevant articles, such as Criticism of Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia, etc. Editors won't address a bias that they're unaware of or don't understand. There should probably be a comprehensive article at Bias on Wikipedia rather than the current redirect.
I could probably do some of this work, but I actually got involved here because I was looking for help addressing bias in the field of Environmental justice and Environmental conflict, so I'm cautious of getting distracted from that gaping omission in the encyclopedia – although it's so bad that I could never fix it on my own...so some collaboration there is critical. It's really a mess...Larataguera (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the top priority is to fill the gaps by organizing editors and pointing them in the right direction. For example, Germany and Turkey have nearly identical population counts. Despite this, there are 146,873 items under the scope of WikiProject Germany compared to only 50,895 in WikiProject Turkey. Then there's Nigeria, which is over twice as large as Germany or Turkey, but its project only covers 20,718 items. I'd like to see this project as a facilitator that moves editors toward underrepresented regions, creating articles about underrepresented regions and bringing the ones that exist to GA and FA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The second priority, in my opinion, would be to work on the backlog for Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. But again, I think that's something that's going to require collaboration between lots of users, even just for one article. Globalizing an article's scope can be difficult. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Using EJatlas to identify gaps

The Environmental Justice Atlas lists a few thousand environmental conflicts worldwide and has similar notability requirements to Wikipedia. Most of these conflicts could have their own article or be integrated into existing articles about mines (often stubs), hydroelectric projects, or whatever the conflict is about. Many of these conflicts are in places that aren't well represented on WP or affect demographics that are under-represented here. Frequently there is an article about an infrastructure project that makes little or no mention of the associated conflict. It is fairly quick and easy to migrate an EJatlas entry to WP, because the sources are already all together in one place, and much of the article can be loosely structured off the EJatlas entry. (I don't think the EJatlas should be cited too heavily, as it is a tertiary source, but it does provide a list of secondary sources). There is sometimes need for update. Larataguera (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

James Madison

There are several ongoing neutrality disputes on the James Madison article that might be of interest to this group. This is currently a Featured Article Candidate, and there are concerns that this article is skewed toward sources that downplay the significance of racism. Freoh (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Years articles to identify gaps

About a month ago, I compiled all of the major events I could find for 2020 in Botswana and 2021 in Botswana. If you click on them, you'll notice that they're filled with red links. I've found that year articles that focus on a specific nation give a great overview of important topics of that country in that year, and I think they could be useful for remedying some of the omissions in what we cover on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting idea! How did you find the items you added to the articles? Did you just read through lots of news articles about things happening in Botswana or was there some more efficient approach? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's essentially what I did. I've tried to think of more efficient ways to do it (especially for earlier years before internet articles), but this is the best way I've found to build one from the ground up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. What is the best way to promote concrete approaches like this one? Is this something that should be listed in the 'Tasks' section on the project page? (Most of that section seems overly general and unhelpful). What is the best way to coordinate these approaches with other projects? For example, one of the red links in 2020 in Botswana is for Roseline Panzirah-Matshome. Getting her listed at WP:WIRED might be helpful, because that project is more active than this one currently is. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that this WikiProject needs a full revamp if it's going to accomplish anything meaningful. The tasks section could definitely be fixed up, but collaborating with WiR would also be helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Year in Topic articles definitely need work; I've been working on them for years. As long as the entries are referenced, it doesn't matter much whether they are notable outside the country in question. They can of course be linked to the entry in another language Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting under-represented topics on the main page

People could help feature under-represented topics on the main page. For example, I just expanded Lega Dembi Mine, and it would qualify for DYK if it were nominated in the next few days (expanded 17 Jan). I am out of free nominations, and although I've started a QPQ that I could use for this article, I'd rather use my time to write more entries about the most abused people on earth (such as the communities near Lega Dembi). Just thought I'd see if someone is interested in helping to bring content to the main page so that I can focus on writing articles. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MINING

I have started a discussion at Wikiproject Mining that may interest members of this project. Please participate. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of the United States has an RFC

Constitution of the United States, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.      — Freoh 21:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Tools for evaluating systemic bias?

Hi everyone. I'm involved in a couple WikiProjects and am interested in evaluating the possible systemic biases within them. I was wondering if there are any tools that I can use in order to do this? For example, could I run the WikiProject through a tool that analyses its biographies and finds the percentage of men/women/non-binary people, which regions of the globe the subjects are from, etc.?

Just wanted to ask here as I'm considering doing a systemic bias report for one of the WikiProjects I work with, but wanted to check if there are any automated tools before carrying something like this out manually. Kind regards. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I know that PAC2 has done a lot of work in this area. If anyone has the answer to this question, it's them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien thanks for the notification.
Explore gender diversity in a single Wikipedia article is a tool which measures gender diversity in a Wikipedia article by counting entities mentioned in the article through internal links (aka blue links).
You can also look at citizenship diversity using this tool : https://observablehq.com/@pac02/articles-wikilinks-inspector?wikipedia=en.wikipedia.org&article=Sociology&claim=P27&lang=en
If you want to perform analysis for all your articles in a Wikiproject you may choose to run a Jupyter notebook using R or Python programming language. You can look at my page on gender diversity to find some useful queries : d:User:PAC2/Gender_diversity. --PAC2 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much! This is tremendously helpful. I'll be sure to post a link here when I get results through. :D -- Grnrchst (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien and PAC2: Done! If you're interested in seeing my results, you can read the report at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Systemic bias report February 2023. I'm interested in possibly doing more of these reports in the future, so let me know if you think there's anywhere I can improve in this. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
With a report like this, I think it's difficult to get a sense of what the numbers mean without some sort of reference point. I wonder if there's some way to approximate the "target numbers", or what the breakdown would look like if an article was created for everyone in the WikiProject's scope that meets notability guidelines. Of the notable anarchists in history, how many were men? It's likely to be more than 50% given historic prejudices, but by how much? And so on for geographic data and other traits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a good point and not one I know how to answer to be honest, as it's kind of a hard thing to approximate. I guess my short-term target would be to bring up the percentage of women to above the Wikipedia-wide average and hopefully to bring down the dominance of Western Europe to below 50%, although the latter is more tricky than the former.
I agree that it's going to be very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve gender parity, given general notability guidelines. But I guess what I wanted to get at with this is that equity is something to work towards, rather than to set a definite X number vs Y number target. (Maybe I didn't convey that well enough in the text)
Of course, if anyone has suggestions to approximate such a target number, I'm all ears. I'm just lost on how I would do that. -- Grnrchst (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The way I'd approach it is to start with a worklist of the universe of all missing articles on notable subjects (redlink redlists) à la Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index and User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list. There are a few potential paths to this from Wikidata redlinks and Le Maitron but it involves inaccessible sourcing. (I'll reply in the report when I have a moment.) I think the reality is that the source coverage does not bear out gender parity, but I think there can be other markers of ideal counterbalance, such as more exhaustive coverage within the sources that do exist. czar 04:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't expect to get to parity, but it's also clear that Wikipedia does not offer an unbiased reading of existing sources. (So what we really have on WP is 'bias squared': a biased reading of biased sourcing!) I think a list of redlinks would be helpful.
One place to start might be to investigate decolonial literature, which has decades of scholarship that isn't well-integrated in to WP (see here). The search term "decolonising anarchism" yields about 4,500 articles on Google Scholar, and I suspect that many of these would suggest movements, individuals, events, books, etc. that could have articles and/or could be better integrated into recognised and vital content. Thanks so much Grnrchst for taking on this study and initiating this conversation! Larataguera (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Science

 You are invited to join the discussion at Science, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. In particular, there are concerns that this article prioritizes ancient Greek history over African origins of science.      — Freoh 01:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Issues with Black Hebrew Israelites article

The article on Black Hebrew Israelites has multiple issues that need to be addressed to avoid racial bias on Wikipedia. The BHIs originated at a time when many white Christian denominations preached that Black people are the cursed descendants of Ham. That is the historical backdrop of the BHI claim that Black people are not only NOT cursed, but rather the chosen. That this historical background information is never mentioned in the article is astounding and is evidence that the article is insufficient. That the voices of actual Black Jews are mentioned nowhere in the article is another glaring omission. Black Jewish writers such as Shais Rishon, and I'm sure others, have written about the BHI appropriation of Black Jewish identity. The sentence in the opening paragraph about the SPLC considering BHIs to collectively constitute a "hate group" is contextless and inadequate. The SPLC states on their website that "SPLC uses the term Radical Hebrew Israelite to differentiate from the greater Hebrew Israelite faith...SPLC no longer refers to these groups as solely Black Hebrew Israelites...there are non-radical sects of the Hebrew Israelite faith who identify as Black Hebrew Israelites". This indicates that the SPLC distinguishes between extremist and non-extremist BHI sects, a nuance the current sentence obscures. These issues must be addressed to avoid anti-Blackness, stereotyping, and the erasure of Black Jews. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism on Supremacism article

As it exists, the article on Supremacism promotes anti-Jewish falsehoods, such as that Judaism is a proselytizing religion. Noahides are simply not converts to Judaism. The article also presents the views of certain individuals as if they are neutral and inarguable facts, rather than opinions. Two of the sources are simply the opinions of Rachel Feldman, while a third references her opinions. The fact that a section inserts terms such as "goy" and "gentile" for no reason and without context is shocking, the sort of thing I normally see from neo-Nazis and white supremacist ideologues. The claim that non-Jews are "usually referred to as "Gentiles" or goyim" (referred to by whom, I might ask?) is a claim without any source. The section needs to be rewritten to avoid these glaring flaws. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Bohemian Baltimore: This WikiProject is for working on broader, systemic issues, and not too many people are actively watching it. You'll probably have better luck by making a post on the talk page of the individual articles and then putting a notice on the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. I'd also suggest you double check to make sure that you're not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Community-related goals & methods

As in : Wikipedia community

What about

HOW TO / PLANS FOR:

  • creating and supporting a more diverse editing community, especially whilst people are in minority?

And

  • Countering the group-think and dominant behaviour of the currrent very un-diverse editing community?

ugh. : (

The above page is more in depth but I don't understand why those goals/plans are not evident in this Countering Systemic Bias project. 78.149.120.57 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of the United States

If anyone watching here has not seen the ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States it could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to center currently around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. They could use some expert opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I understand that these discussions were found to be disruptive at ANI. If Freoh is still engaging in a WP:1AM battle to insert these fringe opinions into the article after being consistently asked to stop for four months, then I don't think more input is going to change anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, I guess I am hoping for an uninvolved party to come WP:CLOSE them all. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion - 2022 Peruvian political crisis

Hello! A move request has been made for the 2022 Peruvian political crisis article. To broaden the involvement of users, you have been invited to review the discussion and provide your thoughts. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Earth picture

Not sure what the earth picture has to do with anything, but ok Nn88nn88 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oceania Problem

WP:FSM has fallen into inactivity, leaving behind a major gap in both quality and quantity of articles regarding the Federated States of Micronesia. I believe that this unfortunate occurrence should be brought to your attention, as it worsens the systemic bias against Oceanian topics severely. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

This article has had a long history of complaints about its bias, which is ongoing. It's not really a POV issue, but rather how to deal with longstanding historical bias against magic and women dating from the Medieval Christianity. Skyerise (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Witchcraft to be moved to Witchcraft (classical). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Witchcraft: Requested move (systemic bias, unbalanced)

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the article has now been templated for systemic bias and as unbalanced. See Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic bias (and other discussion threads). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, these big, thorny issues have now been taken to dispute resolution. Would appreciate more pairs of eyes on the subject. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan Aboriginal peoples dispute

I've been having problems with a Wikipedia employee who has continuously reverted my additions to the history section of Taiwan to include a section on Indigenous peoples and pre-colonial history. This addition amounted to between 150 words, which I've trimmed to 90. They've argued that there is nothing wrong with how it is and that its fine for only 2% of the history section to be pre-colonial as that is how other sources do it as well. I've raised the point with them repeatedly that this amounts to significant bias towards colonial history and erasure of Indigenous presence and culture that stretches back 30,000 years. If anyone wants to take it up, please do. I can't really handle the systemic bias on Wikipedia anymore. This WikiProject seems hopeless because its so deeply embedded and so difficult to get action on. Poketama (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not getting what you want and not listening to other editors don't mean there's a systemic bias against your (or the reliable sources') viewpoint. "Way too much detail for the main article, belongs in a subarticle" is pretty self-explanatory. You're probably trying to add too much material about particular narrow aspects of the place's history to the most general article about the place, and much of that would be better for Prehistory of Taiwan and Taiwanese indigenous peoples, etc. Unless I'm missing something, no one is trying to suppress you making a valid, well-sourced point of any kind, but rather is objecting to you filling the general article with minutiae about the ancient past when it is better covered elsewhere. And Talk:Taiwan is where to resolve this; not this wikiproject talk page. While, to be honest, I find the editor you are tangling with a bit challenging to get along with sometimes, you've basically accused them of systemic bias without any evidence, and that's not very appropriate. PS: Wikipedia doesn't have employees; we're all volunteers here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Archive_23&oldid=1218396585"