This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sydney meetup - all IT geeks - plan to get other experts involved
Of the 12 wikipedians who turned up to the Sydney meetup yesterday, I think every single one worked in IT (except for the ten year old, who I don't think had a job yet, but he was the geekiest of the lot).
So I was thinking about a plan to get a broader range of experts involved in Wikipedia: print out articles that clearly needs some work, add customised cover pages saying "millions of people worldwide rely on this as a source of information, please update it at URL" (plus maybe some flattery :-) and drop them in the mailboxes of relevant area experts at the university (and possibly graduate students). It might be easiest to start with a list of academics and select articles based on their expertise, rather than going the other way.
What do people think? -- Danny Yee 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that anything you can come up with that successfully involves people who are expert and not normally inclined to participate is good. Interesting on that demographic: here in Seattle, a very tech-heavy city, our latest meetup included, I believe, two librarians, two library science students, a lawyer/writer, an environmental studies major at Oberlin, and one person with an architecture degree (although I'm not sure whether that's what he does for work). That's out of 18; a slim majority were probably techies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I also like that idea. You should add it to our promoting wikipedia pages (sorry, I can't remember the URL right now). JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
SOS request from User:Cool Cat on articles related to Kurds
Articles are at horrible shape due to constant additions of bias. Basicaly every kurd related region article contains "same stuff". And everything about borders of Kurdistan is a disputed. Not just by the international comunity but by Iraqis as well as the Iraqi Kurdistan article suggests. Please take a look. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
NoCoins
Using U.S. coins as a unit of measurement is bad. Nobody heard of centimetres, or even inches?
Make use of this template:
{{NoCoins}}
— Gulliver✉ 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Centrist Faction merge request
What do we do? Arch O. La 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Foreign language media...
I have a sneaky suspicion that English Wikipedia coverage of things such as Dragon Ball and others, which are well-known throughout the world and exist in dozens of languages, gives precedence to non-standard English versions above all others, even the originals. For example, the articles on various Dragon Ball characters (Lunch (Dragon Ball), Garlic Jr., etc.) point out even the most obscure English names, but often neglect to include the original Japanese name, while others like Dragon World (apparently a term invented by American fans) draw arbitrary parallels to things like European folklore and don't mention the actual Sino-Japanese origins.
(By the way, sorry for the DB-centric nature of my examples, but these are just what pushed me over the edge.)
Does that qualify as systemic bias? It seems to fit into the reference to English language bias on the project page.
Does the globalize tag go on the talk page or article page? I don't think the project page makes it clear (unless I missed it). Thanks. GfloresTalk 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if the problem is such as to render the article nearly useless, it should go on the main page, otherwise on the discussion page. For example, if shadow puppet—a topic where the main concerns should be in Asia—focused on the UK, that would certainly belong on the main page. If, on the other hand, Iberian naming customs happens not to discuss Sephardic Jews (as I suspect it does not), that might be an issue worth pointing out, but it is a minor issue: people are going to look at this article mainly to understand whether someone with a name like Silvia Ramos Gomez is a "Ramos" or a "Gomez". - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Complex wiki syntax
As the wiki grows, we add more functionality, which is good, but this functionality often requires the addition of increasingly complex code to the wiki syntax. With tables, references, complex HTML/CSS, content boxes, and the like, our markup is much more complicated than the original "easy-to-edit" wikis. This is bad, as it alienates non-technical users, or even makes it impossible for them to edit, and biases in favor of those who can deal with the complexity. (Wikipedia's largest percentage of users are young, technical types for a reason.) I'm wondering if it would be worth creating a "wiki syntax reform" group or something, lobbying for simplification of markup syntax while maintaining the enhanced functionality. — Omegatron 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
meta:Meta data of articles — moving meta-data like categories, interwiki links, and so on out of the article
meta:Help:Special characters — Switching to UTF-8 finally got rid of all those ugly HTML entities in the source code (— → —, × → ×, etc.) Including special characters has improved, but is still not optimal.
meta:Tasks_extension — adding tasks (NPOV, needs attention) to an article without adding templates or other code to the top of it
meta:Cite/Cite.php adds references to articles by inserting complicated HTML-like code
Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates — Reasons why templates are being substituted so much, also advocates against conditional templates like {{qif}}, which simplify article source code at the expense of template complexity (article simplicity is more important for systemic bias)
I was thinking on what would be the best way to counter bias. Why not attempt to turn every continent article into a featured one? True its a big goal, but hey, the continents and people on them cant be balanced if they arent ut up on the same pedistal as others! American Patriot 1776 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I will add more as I find them, KI 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you call the articles about that organisations Islamic-terrorism propoganda? Why is i.e. Islamic Relief, an international relief and development organization, a terrorist organisation? Is it because they are Muslim? You are probably one of those islamophobic Wikipedians, who make unbiased articles impossible. Raphael1 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There may be some confusion with the International Islamic Relief Organization which is being sued for financing the 9/11 attacks [2], also see Charities with ties to terrorism. That's not necessarily the same organization, but the mistake is understandable enough that a claim that he's islamophobic is uncalled for. GRuban 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What about innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that count anymore in Guantanamo times, when a 15 year old gets detained without a fair trial? Just because the IIRO got financial support from Saudi-Arabia and supported (pre-occupied) Afghanistan during the famine doesn't make them a terrorist organisation. Raphael1 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't know who wrote that Charities with ties to terrorism article, but Wikipedia might get sued for it. Lots of word like "alleged" and "suspicion". An analogous case - perhaps Wikipedia will be forced to have something like this on it's front page for 28 days - Xed 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Good points. It used to be called Charities accused of ties to terrorism, and I think it should be moved back there. Innocent until proven guilty is correct. However, I'm also going to restore the IIRO that Raphael1 deleted. A list of charities being sued by 600 families of the 9-11 victims is clearly notable, even before the verdict is delivered. GRuban 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Even the "accused" title is wrong... it is not NPOV. That article's title alone inclines me to want to make an AfD for it as it reaks of POV. The wording almost needs to be something ridiculously long like "Charities that in court cases (or something equivalent) were found to have ties to terrorism." or something to that effect. Netscott 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to start an AfD. I'll support you with that. Raphael1 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Do either of you feel it is useful for the Wikipedia to have any article about those Islamic charities that do support terrorism? If so, how should we do so? GRuban 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If there are Islamic charities that do support terrorism, I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them just as they did with 1200 arab or muslim immigrants after 9/11. There might not even be a trial or a written accusal so there won't be much to write about. Raphael1 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that to be a "no, we shouldn't have any such article anywhere"? GRuban 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a new title for this article, Charities referred to in connection with terrorism on the article's talk page. Netscott 16:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: "I'm sure the Bush administration will imprison them…" I doubt it. Actual guilt does not seem to be a major factor in who they have gone after in the past, and I doubt it will be in the future. Real terrorists are much harder to arrest than people who have overstayed their visa: the latter are seldom armed or dangerous. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Manual of Style
There's a budding movement over in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to alter the current guidelines, and start using America instead of United States. The specter of 'Being Anti-American' has raised it's head there again after arguments over neutralty[3]. --Barberio 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Foreign language topics
It seems to me there are lots of topics notable to a non-English speaking audience that are not covered on WP, and there seems to be a bias by at least some on AFD against books etc. that have not been translated into English even if they are bestsellers. Is there a WP policy that states that untranslated books or films, etc. can be subjects for articles, or one that says that they cannot be? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close, although it addresses more secondary sources rather than the subject itself, the primary source. There are plenty of articles about important subjects not translated into English (or translated into English only by WP volunteers) such as Akkari-Laban dossier, but arguing by the existence of articles is not a strong argument AFAIK. Esquizombi 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in examples of where you feel such a bias has resulted in deletion of notable material. - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The CIA and September 11 (book), a German language book that has not been translated, received a number of delete recommendations due to the fact that it had not been translated. I think that's what I had in mind most when I made the above comment. Esquizombi 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Scope
Just wondering about the scope of this project. Everyone seems to accept for example that middle-aged western white males will be unconsciously biased. Is it also accepted that say, communists will automatically be (at least unconsciously) biased in their views of politics, or that devout Christians will be biased on matters of religion. If so, does anyone have any solutions to propose about this sort of bias. Also, what about more methodical deliberate bias - for example contributors persisting in editing after numerous NPOV contributors have pointed out to them their manifest bias. With this in mind I notice that the Jesus article triggered this initiative - and the Christianity related pages seem to suffer particuarly from editors who are repeatedly being accused of being non NPOV - see for example <escape spam filter> blue.info this article. Any initiative to ensure NPOV has to be a good idea. Springald 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Systemic bias is not so much a pro-middle age, pro-west, pro-white, pro-male POV bias, but a bias in terms of what topics such a person tends to add (POV or NPOV) and how much coverage is added to such a topic, as I understand it. Шизомби 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The project is not (and was never meant to be) some sort of NPOV police. For that, you have to go to WP:RFC or possibly WP:PR. — mark✎ 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that everyone has biases, but that some groups are vastly over/under-represented on Wikipedia. So either we have an encyclopedia which cheerfully mirrors this (in which case it's just replicating the faults of every other encyclopedia), or we try to even things out the best we can. JackyR 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please explain when placing a template
Placing a template of this sort on an article with no explanation of why you believe the coverage insufficient is unhelpful. An article of finite length will be incomplete in some sense -- if the topic is a legal, political or economic one, all the variations in every country are beyond the reasonable scope of a single article; therefore, any article dealing with such a topic can be trivially tagged as not having a worldwide scope.
I am opposed to tagging articles as needing improvement without providing at least a somewhat detailed explanation on the talk page, and I think it is reasonable for any editor to remove tags placed without explanation. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any specific article you have in mind? I for one always try to add a short explanation when tagging an article with, for example, {{limitedgeographicscope}}. — mark✎ 10:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have seen this template a fair amount on articles, and rarely has it (or any other cleanup tag) been explained. Perhaps that is just my experience. Now, in the majority of cases, the problem is glaringly obvious. On the other hand, I have seen this tag unexplained on articles that seem to have been constructed with some care and attention to including various perspectives, which includes the instant case, Income tax. A comment there would be helpful to understand whether the project believes we need to discuss every country in detail (I would disagree on MEGO grounds) or whether there is something more substantial. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case I would advocate splitting all the 'Income tax in Country X' parts into their own articles. The main article should describe broader trends (with examples) - illustrating geographical differences, differences between richer and poorer countries, things like that. I don't have the knowledge to even start on it, so I'm not going to demand that someone else does it immediately. If you go through Category:Cleanup by month I'd bet that 90%+ of those tags have no explanation.--Cherry blossom tree 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You recommend what already exists. There are already specific articles on specific countries -- removing the short summaries from the current article will not improve the net worldwide balance of Wikipedia, it merely makes summary information harder to find. But, this is not the place to discuss specifics -- the issues identified by the project should have been raised on the article's talk page. Again, I emphasize my belief that placing a tag on an article (as opposed to a talk page) is a warning to the readership that the article is not to be trusted in some sense. That is pretty serious. In the case of an article with no sources, it is justified, and normally requires no explanation: the tag is removed as soon as at least some citations are added. On the other hand, NPOV tags need to be explained or are subject to removal. I see no reason why this project's tags should be any different. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I am recommending what already exists. I realise that seperate articles exist but I think that listing 5 different rates of tax with two graphs for the UK is more detail than the article needs. I think that the article would be better served by describing the broad trends than by describing individual case studies forcing the reader to make these inferences for themselves and based on a skewed picture - each country listed is in the world's top 25 for HDI, for example - what is the income tax system in Bolivia or Sierra Leone? I don't mean to criticise the article too much - I think it's pretty good - I'm just speculating as to why it was tagged.
I do agree entirely that tags should be explained - I doubt you'll find anyone who doesn't except in blindingly obvious cases. I've added a note to the project page to state this - feel free to reword as needed.--Cherry blossom tree 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the note, and I see your point about the graphs. There is an interesting point about relative importance: U.S. Income tax affects a greater percentage of the world economy than Bolivia's, and has extraterritorial impact. Perhaps it should be mentioned where Bolivia's is not. Perhaps not. Do you mind if I cut and paste your comments into the talk page for Income tax? It would give other editors something to think about.
I hope I am not coming across as petulant -- I actually wrote very little of the present text of that article, but I remember my reaction to tags like this when I first started reading Wikipedia -- "Oh! I'd better watch out for this article if the Wikipedia Authorities have tagged it!" Yes, I know now that is not how we work, but I have had many conversations with Wikipedia users who believe that there are groups of official fact-checkers and reviewers who check articles, and that tags are placed by some official rating mechanism, and I used to be one of them. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
(re-indenting) I don't think anyone would object to the USA receiving more prominence than Bolivia in an article on income tax, I was more bothered that countries like Bolivia (South America isn't mentioned at all, for examplem, nor Africa) were being overlooked completely. You can put any of this on the talk page if you think it'd be worthwhile.
No, not petulant at all. Don't worry. It's easy to forget what effect slapping a tag on an article actually has. Nice talking to you. --Cherry blossom tree 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your comments above gave me ideas about ways in which the article can be improved. I added a mention of the ancient practice of tithing, and briefly how it differs from an income tax. I alluded to how the invention of double-entry bookkeeping, and the advent of a culture with a respect for precision in such matters is essential to a modern income tax. That much I can source to Eugen Weber from memory -- he makes the point that the respect for precision is one of the most distinguishing features between the medieval world and ours. It occurs to me that the spread of the adoption of income taxes (which I know nothing about) would be of interest, and there must be research about income taxes and transparency. So, I will cut-and-paste this discussion over there, because I may not have time to do this for a while. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
PROJECT MEMBERS WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ARTICLE ABOUT YOUR EFFORTS
Hi everyone, I hope you'll excuse me placing this request here, but my intentions are pure and not-for-profit! I was intrigued to discover the existence of Wikiproject 'Countering systemic bias' and I've successfully pitched an article about it to a prominent creative commons webzine. If anyone's interested in explaining why they're doing this and what they're doing, and wouldn't mind providing a few quotes, please do contact me. If you'd like to help, email me at daviddariusbijan-remove-this-bit-@yahoo.co.uk. I'd like to publicise your efforts and the issues raised by your attempts to counter systemic bias.
Many thanks!
81.151.89.1 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I masked your email adress to save you of spam. — mark✎ 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Using bounties to help with CSB
Hi there. I thought I would let you know that I am offering a bounty for the creation of any Featured Article on a political party from one of the least developed countries. Call it my small contribution towards countering bias. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Wikipedia systemic bias
I'd be very interested in hearing what you guys think about the numerous articles in this article-space category: Category:Wikipedias by language. -Silence 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've just learnt a lot by reading the German Wikipedia article. There's always the problem of the wikis left out of this list, but overall I'd say it's a plus. I'm not an admin, and definitely not a Metawiki person, so I wouldn't normally know all the interesting stuff going on at de.wiki. And the scope of, and activity at, these articles will give those of us using en.wiki a snapshot of the areas with little cross-wiki activity, where effort needs to be increased. What sort of comment were you after? JackyR 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Autumn
Should a person from south of the tropic of cancer be expected to work with Northern latitude seasonal terms?
Many articles name the time of year by Spring Summer Autumn/Fall and Winter. While this passes unremarked in articles about the Northern latitudes it is thrown into sharp contrast when used for articles south of the tropic of cancer. For example the Falklands War starts
The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the autumn of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
While this is true most Northen hemesphere readers will assume it started in September/October. But if it were re-written
The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the spring of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
It would be less confusing for most of the readers in the Northern Hemisphere, but wrong for the time of year in the Falklands. So can anyone thing of the best wording to use for this type of thing, because what is meant is:
The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas), was an effective state of war in the 1st quarter of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands
but "1st quarter" which is ugly compared to autumn.
This also applies equally to articles written about things in which are not weather related but rely on the use of seasons for dating and times. For example in Britain the school year starts in the Autumn term, and it starts in the summer in New Zealand. But this does not mean that a child can leave one school at the end of the British summer term and start at a New Zealand school year within the month, because they will have to wait half a year for the next New Zealand school year to start. So what ideas do people have for describing the time of year without it becoming intrusive in articles which are about things other than North South seasons. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting and subtle, but important issue. What comes to mind is using month names whenever they can be found out, i.e. "was an effective state of war from Feb to June of 1982 between Argentina". Also, general phases of the year terms can be used, like: "was an effective state of war during the early part of 1982 between Argentina". Excellent point to bring up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I first saw this when it was plonked into the C-130 Hercules article. It occurred to me that it violates CSB principles because its not practical to add like templates for every country (for example, {{Active military aircraft of Australia}} would have as much right to be there also). So by default we end up with a US-centric view of military aircraft. Admittedly the aircraft are all (presumably) manufactured in the US, but that's not what the template says or is about. The C-130 article says that the aircraft is used in more than 50 nations so it has a wide non-US viewing audience.
I'm not sure what the answer is here, but am interested in other points-of-view. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The aircraft is question were designed for the USAF, to USAF specification and both the name and number were assigned by the USAF. Most other countries that use USAF designs do so without significant modification and use the USAF name and designation. (If they use a heavily-modified version, that deserves a separate article and category.) It makes sense to have {{Active military aircraft of Russia}} or {{PRC fighter aircraft 2000-2009}}, because they also design their own craft. We already have the corresponding categories. By this criterion, Category:Active military aircraft of Australia would contain no articles and so the corresponding template makes no sense. Instead, it would be appropriate to have a list of currently-used RAAF aircraft (something the RAAF website doesn't bother with), giving the nationality (I think they use US aircraft exclusively) and designation of each, and linking to the appropriate article. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Main page bias - something I have noticed over many months
One bias which I have noticed over many months is on the Main Page, particularly the "Selected Anniversaries" section. Pretty much every day - I would say 9 days out of 10 - it has an item from the USA. Now don't get me wrong - I am not a USA-basher by any stretch of the imagination. However, given that there are basically infinite numbers of things that have happened on every day of the year, it seems a little silly to always have at least one USA-related item. Has anyone else noticed this, and what do others think about it? Batmanand | Talk 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The main problem is that people do not provide enough anniversaries from other parts of the world. One way to fix it would be to start a concerted effort to bring up more anniversaries from other countries. — mark✎ 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the anniversaries were originally selected by User:Maveric149, a man who, amongst his vast number of excellent contributions to Wikipedia, has consistently displayed total cluelessness when it comes to grasping the concept that his country has only 5% of the world's population and has only been going for a couple of hundred years. Mark Dingemanse is right that this tendency is best countered by trying to make the sample of anniversaries more representative. 86.136.6.123 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
True, the anniversaries should be have a more international feel to it. But I can't blame the person doing this as Wikipedians from other countries hardly take part in this aspect of Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on an outreach / recruitment project
I'm still just collecting feedback and ideas, what do you think? Do you know of any related ideas? Flammifer 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, well, waht do you know? Wikipedia:Building Wikipedia membership already exists though it's not very active, and not a project). Still, any feedback would be welcome :)
Bounties
I believe bounties could be used to reduce systemic bias in the project. Has this come up in the discussion archives? I couldn't see it after a brief search. We currently have a Wikipedia:Bounty_board where bounties are paid to the foundation. There is also a debate about the merits of having a similar board where bounties are given to editors themselves: Wikipedia:Paid editor job board. Obviously, I'm in favour of the proposal, and I believe it could play a modest part in countering systemic bias — but, as always, do your own thinking! ;-) — Matt Crypto 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Obit pages
Deaths in 2006 on en.WP seems to be drawn from US and UK sources, with occasional other postings. I've added a few newspapers from other countries to the source lists, but have no time to work on this. Does anyone fancy adopting this page and trawling more newspapers and/or the other language Wikipedias for entries? JackyR 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The "average" Wikipedian
When the origins of bias discusses the average Wikipedian, it doesn't say that the average Wikipedian is Caucasian. Isn't this crucial? Otherwise, this WikiProject seems to ignore the possibility of systematic bias against ethnic minority viewpoints in the US --Wzhao553 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Credible references need to be cited for this by stating that the average Wikipedian is a Caucasian. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There are no credible references for anything else on the page. If you want to dispute it then you can't do it on grounds of lacking references. --Cherry blossom tree 20:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the need to have verifiable sources for the "average Wikipedian" claim, not out of doubt but out of necessity. Some raw statistics could open up some interesting questions:
What are our demographics?
Are they changing, and if so how so?
How does that compare to other online sites?
If there are differences. what makes us special? GChriss 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(Or the rest of the world, no less). -Mysekurity [m!] 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Does this page need to cite its sources?
Over the last few days it's had a {{fact}} tag put in and an {{unsourced}} template slapped on it (with the edit summary "None of the biases or supposed are sourced--if they are not sourced, they are opinions" - an esoteric definition of opinion.) I don't think it's necessary. It isn't an article - it's basically an essay about Wikipedia and can be taken as the perspective of its (multiple) authors. If people disagree over its contents then it gets discussed on its own terms rather than by analysing the secondary literature (of which there is none) as happens in articles. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Cherry blossom tree 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked up WikiProject, and it reads: "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia". This doesn't sound like it suppose to be an essay on the perspective of "multiple authors." In any case, this page is publicly assessible, and anyone happening upon the page should be aware that this material is unsourced.IMO--Lostart 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing your definition of a Wikiproject, but I'm sure that assuming it precisely defines this page is some kind of logical fallacy or other. If you read the page and disagree with my description of it then you should disagree based on that, not based on a general description of a few hundred different projects. Everything in the Wikipedia namespace is publically accessible and none of it is sourced. The Wikipedia is there for organising and co-ordinating resources for building the encycolpaedia - not primarily for conveying (encyclopaedic) knowledge. --Cherry blossom tree 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This page doesn't need to cite sources like an article, as it's in the Wikpedia namespace, but it wouldn't hurt to cite any that exist. I take the keenness of the template tagger (and his/her subsequent edits) as a compliment. The project is obviously shaking someone out of their comfort zone: who knows, it might start him/her really thinking. JackyR 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Lostart, in citing the definition of Wikiproject and arguing that WP:CSB doesn't fit the definition, you apparently suggest that this wikiproject can be equated with the essay that is part of the project definition. In fact, as can be seen from the Open tasks and Member lists, WP:CSB fits the the definition of Wikiproject quite well. And as Cherry blossom tree and JackyR argue above, it simply is not the case that pages in the Wikipedia namespace are subject to WP:CITE and WP:V in the same way as articles. The reason is straighforward: they are not articles and have a completely different goals. In the case of WP:CSB, the project description simply serves to define that goal.
Regardless, it is not a bad idea in itself to cite sources. Here are two possible sources to start with: Ethan Zuckerman and The Head Heeb. However, as you will find with most sources on this, they verge on self-references as they point to this very project. I am not aware of sources external to Wikipedia detailing the demographic makeup of its contributors; if they exist, it may be worthwile to add them but strictly speaking, no citation is needed, so I'm all for removing the {{fact}} template as proposed by Cherry blossom tree.
Lastly, I take it that the systemic bias of Wikipedia is self-evident, especially if you look at WP:CSBOT and Special:Newpages. If it is that thesis you disagree with, I would be interested in evidence that shows that systemic bias does not affect Wikipedia. — mark✎ 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As my id was specifically mentioned, let me correct the misconception of my position. I am not arguing whether Wikiprojects officially needs be sourced--I simply don't know (I didn't create this thread title). (Yes, the template I added has the language about the article needing sources; it was the only one I know about--maybe another template would be better.) My point is that to a person who comes upon this page (like myself), this page sounds very authoritative, and it looks like the information was derived from some sort of actual study or survey. To not make it clear that this isn't based on a reliable source is being deliberately deceptive, IMO. I have to say, that for a project that concerns itself about dealing with biases (presumably to avoid inaccuracies and omissions), it seems quite ironic that the project itself seem so unconerned about it's own accuracy, and it's own bias (yes, the project page does have a very strong bias). Sincerely, --Lostart 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
To briefly answer the query from the end paragraph (above); I don't at all disagree with the central thesis of systemic bias in Wikipedia, and that it probably has some effect on the quality of Wikipedia. However, stating in detail WHAT is the bias and HOW it adversely effects accuracy, should be a matter of fact, not opinion. IMO. --Lostart 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I already thought that it was not the existence or non-existence of systemic bias you were taking issue with. However, I must disagree strongly with your characterisation of the project page as being deceptive. While sources are always nice, and should be cited if they exist, I think that a page like this, whether it lacks sources or not, can only be called deceptive if what it states is clearly and simply inaccurate. This is not the case; in fact, as I said above, I take it that the bias is self-evident, especially if you look at the pages I mentioned.
Of course, you are right in saying that 'stating what is the bias and how it affects accuracy [or more to the point, coverage] should be a matter of fact and not of opinion'. However, it is not just the opinion, but the perception of the members of this WikiProject that systemic bias exists and that conscious efforts to counter it are a good thing.
Summing up: I agree with you that sources would be nice, but so long as the problem and some of its causes are self-evident, I don't see what is deceptive about the project page, nor what is wrong with most project members being more concerned about countering systemic bias than about sorting out relatively minor matters like this. — mark✎ 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Imperial units vs SI units
FYI, a discussion is taking place here. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 09:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The template {{WPCD}} puts an article forward as a candidate for inclusion in the next version of the Wikipedia CD Selection (project page at WPCD Selection). It seems that there is no clear guideline on which articles should be included, so it might be good to wait a bit to see what it will become.
In any case, it seems a good idea for WP:CSB to keep an eye on projects like this, since they are as susceptible to Wikipedia's systemic bias as Wikipedia itself. — mark✎ 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Recency bias
One form of systemic bias that ought to be mentioned specifically on the main project page is the bias in favor of current topics as against comparable topics of the past. For example, compare the amount of coverage given to George W. Bush compared to Grover Cleveland, for example. Or compare the coverage of Will & Grace, or even Arrested Development, to I Love Lucy. This is a separate issue from the "Jennifer Wilbanks vs. Bernard Makuza" issue which is discussed there, since both Wilbanks and Makuza are contemporary persons. --Metropolitan90 07:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Bias in the project's governance structures
There is considerable bias, as well, in the project's governance structure, which target unpopular or controversial users and give well-liked users and admins a free pass. I've only glanced at the project page, but it doesn't seem that this is addressed anywhere in the article. There are lots of examples, but one that is fresh is the matter of the repeated adminship bids of User:Robchurch. The very fact that he was even able to allow his name to be submitted less than 10 days after he willfully fabricated false charges against a user and entered them as evidence in an ArbCom proceeding is simply appalling. He voluntarily de-sysopped himself in a fleeting fit of guilt, decrying his actions and apologizing, saying he was unfit for adminship -- but then suddenly was all better and rarin' to judge others and wield admin authority in little more than a week. Users have been placed on probation, blocked or suspended for months, more than a year for far less. This guy is currently up for adminship again after only five months after such despicable conduct -- and people seem content to simply shrug their shoulders and pretend everything is fine. Such hypocrisy/bias engenders nothing but contempt for the project's governance structures. deeceevoice 20:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate your work on the pedia, and agree that the hideous mess you mentioned is a hiddeous mess, I'm somewhat unlear about what are you suggesting, exactly? That we should give "unpopular or controversial users" a "free pass", or that we should "target" "well-liked users and admins", or something else? It is a general trait of all social groups that people who are well-liked by the group are going to be treated better than people who are widely disliked; I'm not sure what we can do to conteract this. If you have some specific suggestions, please make them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The way to start combatting this is to make it policy that admins are subject to standards of conduct at least high as those that ordinary users must adhere to. The current unwritten rule is that they are subject to lower standards of conducts because they have somehow proven themselves, which goes against democratic principles of representation. — Gulliver✉ 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting suggestion, however, I'm unsure of it's connection of "democractic principles of representation". AFAIK, the only people who "represent" anyone else on Wikipedia are the members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, who (partly) represent the whole of the community. Even in that case a quite reasonable argument can be made that the Board members actually are merely responsible to further the aims of the Foundation, not to represent the community(although paying attention to the community is obviously critical to doing that). Admins, in particular, are not "representives" of anyone - they are simply normal users who have been accepted as sufficiently "not-an-idiot" to be trusted with a few extra buttons. I look forward to your further explanation of the relevance of "democratic principles of representation" to the proposal you made. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree that we need to start holding admins to at least the same standards as everyone else. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but if you cocked up using admin tools then your apology is more necessary, not less. I've seen arrogance and dismissiveness from a senior bod who essentially claimed that the rules were different for him and his mates: a cosy We're the elite, they're the masses attitude, which is fun to play but not ultimately good for Wikipedia. User:Mel Etitis has it bang on at No 3 here. JackyR | Talk 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
While I (obviously) support holding everyone on Wikipedia to "at least the same standards", I'm somewhat unsure about the specifics of your argument. Are you speaking of mistakes made with admin tools, or mistakes made by admins, or some combination of these? The original poster was referring to a mistake made without the use of any admin tools (AFAIK). You say "if you cocked up using admin tools then your apology is more necessary, not less." It doesn't look like you are talking about the same thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I am talking about the same sort of thing. Let me be clearer. "If an admin cocked up, then the apology is more necessary, not less. In addition, since admins have access to tools such as blocks, the damage can often be far greater than that inflicted by ordinary users." JackyR | Talk 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
These are real issues, but the CSB project will not solve them. Real experts have left Wikipedia in droves. Critics are banned. The bullies have control of the levers of Wikipedia. They're contemptuous of the idea of making an encyclopedia. They're interested in control. And before you complain to Jimbo, remember that he put them there. - Xed 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is that when this issue is raised, those who don't want the status quo changed feign ignorance, claiming that they don't understand what we are asking for, what democracy issues are involved etc. — Gulliver✉ 01:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
lol @ Lemuel. Got that right.
From what I understand, once an admin is desysopped, he/she can place (or ask that their name be placed) up for adminship again pretty much immediately. And why is that? If they've been stripped of their adminship, or have voluntarily given it up because of wrongdoing/bad behavior, why are they not subject to sanctions at least by way of a mandatory period of time, based on the graveness of the particular infraction, during which they are ineligible for nomination/adminship? How is it that someone like RobChurch can, after a mere ten days after resigning his adminship after admittedly fabricating evidence before the ArbCom, can be up for adminship again? Where is the parity here between the way admin misconduct is handled and the way the lumpen are treated when they act up -- and oftentimes far less atrociously? deeceevoice 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
deeceevoice, reading the history of this particular situation, your allegations seem more than a little spurious. but yes, the power structure here is awful. friends patting each other on the back and turning a blind eye to misbehavior, complimenting photos of each others cats, etc. etc. gang-ups of fans cover up the misdeeds of their heroes. even your own well-documented conduct [4] was not enough to get a banning thanks to a few devotees. i've had "well respected" admin User:Bcorr stalk me and revert my edits anonymously. once uncovered, rather than admonish his allies rushed to his defense. Another "respected" admin User:El C has blocked me repeatedly and unilaterally without obeying policy. so how does this connect to bias? its a systematic bias against non-admins, new users, and anyone who opposes the party line or as they say "consensus". Justforasecond 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I know many graduate students who were turned off during their first or second Wikipedia edit by overzealous editors. My first (anonymous) edits, way back in 2003, were to an article in my field of specialization (literary studies) on a completely non-controversial subject. I deleted two sentences that were completely erroneous and explained why in the edit summary, and was promptly reverted, reverted, reverted again, then banned. The banner was later rebuked by other mods, and in the long run I still edit Wikipedia. But I do very little editing in my field of specialization because of this experience of being arbitrarily reverted by an ignoramus with banning power who knew nothing about the subject. I personally know a number of grad students, also in my field of expertise who never came back after experiences like this.
So I guess what I'm saying is, the culture at Wikipedia is so hostile I rarely feel the desire to edit except when I see a misstatement that actually makes me annoyed, and this is usually in an article having to do with politics, the media, current events, etc. and not the subject I am actually trained in. This makes me much less valuable to Wikipedia than I might be otherwise. And the community as a whole is so suspicious of and hostile to anonymous editors (who are sometime trolls but often beginners dipping their toes in) it probably ought to disallow anonymous edits altogether. Bds yahoo 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I was curious about the incident you mentioned, so I looked it up in the history. I'm guessing it was on the page Nathaniel Hawthorne, specifically, thefollowingfiveedits, right? Looking them over, you did run into a overzelous admin - RickK was widely known for attacking new users, and most people he came across, in fact. However, the reason why the edits attracted his attention was: 1) They were a removal of content (even if the content was wrong, we didn't know that) 2) The first three times you did the removal, you provided no explanation (neither in the edit summary, or on the talk page), suggesting that the removals were more of the type of childish removal of paragraphs that we got, even in 2003, hundreds of times a day. 3) When you did provide an explanation, it did not cite any evidence (like the URL of a correct plot summary, or the name of a book on Hawthorn that had such a summary in it), you just stated, purely on your own authority, that the information was wrong. 4) As a new, anonymous user, there was no-way for other Wikipedians to judge how much personal authority you had on this subject - we had no way to know you were trained in this, or had a long, good track record - all we knew was that someone was removing content, on the basis of unsupported claims that the content was in error.
All of these mistakes are completly understandable from a new user; nevertheless, they are warning signs that the edits may be invalid. RickK judged (incorrectly, apparently) that the edits were invalid, due to these factors. I am sorry that you had this bad experience, but it was hardly a one sided mistake. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I have an interesting idea regarding this whole admin-power-bias thing. After seeing quite a bit of admin misconduct, I've considered starting a user group, perhaps a Wikiproject (I'm not really sure yet), that actively keeps admins under patrol. Basically, we'd make sure that admin's don't abuse their position. Checks and balances, no? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake{Prophesize) 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
An article on CSB
A new article on CSB is here, by David Shariatmadari at OpenDemocracy. On an unrelated note, there a a couple of CSB-related things on the Reward Board. - Xed 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Origin
"The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks the English language to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged in their twenties, thirties or forties, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more inclined toward intellectual pursuits than toward practical skills or physical labor."
Really? How do we know that or what makes us think so? Hyacinth 04:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think so because of a straw poll of who I encounter on WP. Completely unscientific, but all I have to go on. Do you find your experience doesn't match this? Be good if that were so... JackyR | Talk 16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is unverifiable info and should be stricken. The world is a big place and the internet is big stuff everywhere. Filipino hackers showed us that even developing countries are plugged in and kickin' butt. Wikipedia is biased towards the literate, technically literate, internet connected, and spare time to burn, but all of these become less correlated with the white-male-20-something demographic daily. Users that are non-white, female, and over 30 are all over wiki and editing everyday. Just take a look at User:deeceevoice. This user is (or claims to be) female, over 50, African American, and, until recently, not all that familiar with computers. She's one of the most prolific editors at wiki (users that run bots don't count). One bias that I have noticed is users that are hesitant to edit the English wikipedia because English is their second (or third) language. These editors have research skills and could be an invaluable resource and should be brought into the fold. Justforasecond 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Who said I wasn't familiar with computers? I've had a personal computer of one kind or anoher for about 25 years. I'm a self-avowed techno-idiot. There's a difference. deeceevoice 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Even better. We have a technically unsavvy, black, female, non-programmer, school administrator pushing sixty as one of the top contributors. No, Francis, she's not a bricklayer in her spare time, so we may indeed have a shortage of bricklayers. I'll do my best to encourage bricklayers to edit but its rather self-centered to assume you are the "average" wikipedian without supporting evidence. Justforasecond 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"School administrator" and "pushing sixty" -- wrong on both counts. And you have no idea what I do for a living. deeceevoice 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Apologies...you talk about beind educated in the 1950s. Most folks educated in the 50s are pushing 60. I could have sworn you were a school administrator of some sort, but if not, no biggie. Justforasecond 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Just stop speculating on who and what I am and advancing erroneous information as fact. Further, I am no longer "one of the top contributors" -- precisely because of the project's systemic bias. I'm not doing any new writing. It's just not worth putting up with all the b.s. So, add me to the growing list of those who, at least in that regard, have left the project. deeceevoice 09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I was "average", although I am probably around the average age. - FrancisTyers 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
you seem to be 1) white 2) male 3) technicall inclined 4) "formally" educated 5) english speaking 6) in your 20s 30s or 40s and supporting a claim this is the "average" wikipedian. Justforasecond 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Deeceevoice is also only one (1) person. No-one is claiming that every Wikipedian fulfils each criteria (I don't) but that they are over represented in the pool of Wikipedians compared to the set of all human beings.--Cherry blossom tree 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks the English language to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged in their twenties, thirties or forties etc. Francis meets all these yet claims he is not the average wikipedian. Justforasecond 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. --Cherry blossom tree 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Point stricken after clarification.
Possibly, but I don't see how that affects my point that you were replying to. I'm not sure how qualified I am to respond to the new line of argument you've started, what with me not being Francis and all. I will point out, however, that saying "the average Wikipedian meets these criteria" does not imply "someone who meets these criteria is an average Wikipedian", which is the logical flaw you seem to be making. See here for more on that one.--Cherry blossom tree 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You took the words right out of my mouth :) - FrancisTyers· 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that someone was doing a survey to this end at some point? I do think that poin 9 should be struck from the list, however. --Robdurbar 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and for that stat the CSB project page appears wrong. The respondants are largely teenagers. Justforasecond 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Practical suggestion
This Q is gonna run and run, so let's bring it back to Hyacinth's excellent point: what makes us think the opening statement is true? Since efforts at a full census have been cried down in the past, that's not going to be a source. So why do we think it's true? All I can offer is, That's my experience on WP. Do others find the same?
If this does match people's experience, I suggest rephrasing the opening statement (approximately) as follows:
"A glance at userpages and the balance of articles on English Wikipedia suggests that a vastly disproportionate number of Wikipedians here are (1) male, (2) technically-inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) English-speaking, (5) White, (6) aged in their teens, [thank you, Justforasecond] twenties, thirties or forties, (7) from predominantly Christian countries, (8) from industrialized nations, and (9) more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than practical skills or physical labor."
Further bids invited... :-) JackyR | Talk 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the top of this page ("Sydney meetup"), there is more concrete evidence of the Wikipedia demographic. Photos and descriptions of other Wikipedia meetups confirm the general trend. - Xed 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at the photo. . Less than half these folks appear to be white. Most are likely not from a "predominantly christian country" and possibly not from an "industrialized nation" whatever that means....the US doesn't have any real "industry". So once again the evidence is very weak. I think if we have to have this we could say "under 60, speak english, technically literate" as a start and/or couch with a lot of "anecdotal evidence suggests" weasel words. Justforasecond 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be focusing on race for some reason. My point was to draw attention to the description - "I think every single one worked in IT (except for the ten year old, who I don't think had a job yet, but he was the geekiest of the lot)." - Xed 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You said "Photos..confirm the general trend" -- of the proclaimed "trends", photos tell us (most of the time) ethnicity and gender, not someone's line of work. Based on this photo I think "white" should be stricken. The sentiment may be in the right place but there's little to no (and even counter) evidence it is correct. It also demeans the contributions of others. It sends the message that this whole place was created by white folks, but the white folks are trying to get others to contribute. And the dialogue here from folks like Francis seems to be uninterested in reflecting reality but rather coming to some handwavy conclusion about the "average" wikipedian (that just happens to match Francis completely). It's all "yeah yeah, a few non-fill_in_blanks have contributed, but we all know they haven't done much". Justforasecond 14:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
From one photograph. I've flicked through a few others from the list of meetups (from St Petersburg, Washington DC, London and Melbourne - full list here) and have come away with an entirely different picture of the makeup of Wikipedia contributors. You have also completely misunderstood this project, though I think I do finally understand where you're coming from. The fact that certain groups of people have been overrepresented does not imply any attitude at all towards groups of people who are underrepresented (or those who have, for that matter - I can understand why someone might feel they were being criticised for writing about obscure Pokemon rather than the culture of Guinea.) This project recognises that Wikipedia's coverage is very uneven and has all kinds of weak areas and is trying to combat that.--Cherry blossom tree 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Justforasecond, why not conduct a demographic survey if you you think that this does not reflect reality. Although, you could spend that time working on one of our open tasks, thus productively helping to counter systematic bias! :) - FrancisTyers· 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"This Q is gonna run and run"
Is there anyone (except Justforasecond) who actually doubts what is given? - FrancisTyers· 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I seem to remember the same question coming up before. Justforasecond: of course you can find a group where only (say) six criteria are matched. And another group where a slightly different six are matched. Or an individual who matches only four criteria. The point is, what is the overall demographic of WP? We only have anecdotal evidence on this, in any direction, so we acknowledge its weaknesses and follow where it points. This doesn't undermine the project.
Btw, if these were serious Qs rather than just dog-in-the-manger stuff, I'd say a "predominantly christian country" would be one where the Christian festivals are public holidays (I don't understand why you'd describe people in the photo as "likely not" from one, given pic is taken in Australia), and the US is a member of the G8. In contrast to, say, Botswana. JackyR | Talk 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't go hunt down this Australia photo or the survey about Wikipedians age -- others put them here as proof of the proclaimed biases, but when I looked into them I found they weren't really proof at all. As for "likely not", I've travelled to Sydney and all of the Asian folks I met were immigrants arrived with in the past fifteen years. So if "from" means "currently living in", and "predominantly christian country" includes Australia (where under 10% regularly attend church), then, yes, they do meet that "average" requirement. They still aren't white and their contributions are still belittled by ignoring their presence. Justforasecond 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol! When I visited my (white) cousin in Australia, he lowered his voice on a bus and said, "You see all these Asian people? All this immigration is causing tensions here." At which I burst out laughing. Because he was SAfrican and had himself immigrated only 2 years earlier! JackyR | Talk 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Technically you did go and hunt down the photo (you posted it, anyway - the comment relating to the Sydney meetup was making a completely different point) but it doesn't matter - the point you were trying to make has already been disproved. As for the rest of your answer, half of it "is unverifiable info and should be stricken". Also if you really think that how Christian a country is can be measured by how many people regularly attend church then I suggest you read any book on secularisation written in the last 50 years - not attending church does not preclude someone from being influenced by Christian traditions or worldviews. I have already explained to you once why this project belittles no-one's contributions. If you didn't catch it last time, I'll try again.
A phenomenal variety of people contribute to Wikipedia.
The demographic of this group is skewed towards the criteria outlined on the project page.
This leads to Wikipedia's strengths being skewed towards their interests.
WP:CSB attempts to improve this by filling in these gaps.
None of this in any way undervalues the contributors who do not fit the criteria; it could not possibly, without incredibly specculative extrapolations for which there is no evidence. I've wasted enough of my time stating the obvious on this topic so unless you can come up with something worthwhile I'm going to do something useful. --Cherry blossom tree 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a recent thing. User:Lostart complained about lacking citations without questioning the accuracy of the statements. User:Hyacinth started this discussion but hasn't come back to it. It's unclear whether they were disputing the statements or just lack of citations. And then there's User:Justforasecond who we can see here now. I don't remember anything before that (maybe something before my time?) --Cherry blossom tree 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was indeed talking about Lostart. I agree, Justforasecond doesn't seem interested in answers to his concerns, only in repeating them. It's good that he's elicited such elegant summaries as yours above, which explain why we're here in a nutshell. But we're not his therapists.
Justforasecond, if you're seriously trying to improve WP, there was an excellent suggestion above that you initiate a user survey so that we do have numbers (in any direction). In fact, even without consulting users it should be entirely possible (tho massive) to get actual numbers for a) country where edit was made, b) percentages of (all) user pages which identify gender, age, occupation, ethnicity, shoe size... These figures will have the usual caveats of statistical surveys, but at least some base figures will be known. How 'bout it? JackyR | Talk 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tit for tat
For everyone who spends an hour working on one of the articles here, I will spend an hour working on a different one of your suggestion (or the same one if you like). Paste the article, your nick and the diff below. See also Wikipedia:Rewards board. - FrancisTyers· 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why {{globalize}} wouldn't work? In the last few months, quite a few more specific templates have been created, but before creating more of them, I would like to see if they are actually used and also if they work (i.e., if people use these templates to improve our content). In short, do we need it? — mark✎ 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I mean, I'm sure they might help organize stuff so that people can find specific types of bias, but I don't really think we need them. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake{Prophesize) 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not just explain on the talk page? That would be much more helpful to future editors. In the example above, just saying that Western Culture has a western bias is no more informative than saying {{globalize}}. What other bias would it have? Specific suggestions on how to think about the subject more globally would be nice. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
.jpg)
