Wikipedia talk:Academic bias

This User Essay

Regarding this template:

I would implore anyone coming here to follow the suggestion on that template and get a "potential measure of how the community views this essay" by checking "[[What links here." (Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Academic_bias) Please note that when this end-run around giving all significant POVs a fair shake was first proposed by essay author User:Tgeorgescu at the Village Pump (see archive 100 from "What links here", it was met with stiff disapproval and resistance from everyone at the Village Pump, many of whom basically stated that it was directly polarized against wikipedia's NPOV policy. Tgeorgescu proceeded to write the essay anyway. This should be part of the permanent record. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a suggestion (not mine) to write this essay, besides some of the objections have already been integrated into the article (e.g. rehash of WP:VNT). Comments from an user who supported my initiative were also integrated into the essay. In both cases, with proper attribution. The main objection was not that my initiative would be wrong, but that it is kind of superfluous, since it already follows from other Wikipedia policies. I have answered this objection in the essay. In a way, saying that my essay is superfluous confirms that it meets consensus. But in fact I did not even pretend in the essay that it meets consensus, an essay is not required to gather consensus, since it is different from guidelines and policies. Basically, my essay is a generalization of WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS, WP:MEDASSESS and so on. It simply gives new users an idea of what it is practiced daily at WP:RSN. Anyway, I intended this essay as a shortcut of some arguments which I have often repeated on talk pages. I got somewhat tired of repeating the same old story, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the fundamental Wikipedia policies. The difference is that newbies don't know the fundamental Wikipedia policies, and this is the added value of my essay: it is educative, it is not a novel insight of what should be reformed on Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out, what you are doing is concocting a "No true Scotsman" definition of the English word "academic", one that does not appear in any English dictionary, as a wikipedia-original term to mean what you want it to mean, i.e. only those scholars who pass your POV litmus test can aspire to be granted the title of "academic" by you; others cannot. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

“ An academic has:

• credentials (mostly a PhD from a properly accredited university);
• teaching position (at an accredited university);
• research output in reputable peer-reviewed journals (preferably ISI-indexed).

”

There is no POV-pushing in the quote above, unless you consider accreditation, tenure and publish or perish to be some sort of worldwide POV-pushing conspiracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I consider that to be your own original redefinition of the English word "Academic" that appears nowhere else, you made it up yourself entirely and it demonstrates you will even try to reengineer the English language in your own terms in order to achieve the "bias" you say you want. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

— User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV

Accusations of "Forum shopping"

Note: WP:FORUMSHOP. Original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Please try to centralize the discussion there rather than on multiple forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note I have moved the above accusation, which was misleadingly placed at the beginning of the previous section to give the false impression that I am indeed "Forum shopping" by creating this Wikipedia talk page. A careful analysis will reveal that I have done no "forum shopping" here; Guy indeed did open an ANI about me, but that does not constrain me from giving my observations about the attached User Essay as I have every right to do, independent of his accusations against me in ANI. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Forum shop?"

Please stop adding "FORUMSHOP" to this page. This is hardly a forum; this was a blank, unused page until today when I opened up discussion about the attached essay, as I believe I have a right to do that does not depend on your sufferance, sir. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple solution: stop forum shopping. Your "discussion about the attached essay" is a discussion about the exact same issues ("giving all significant POVs a fair shake" that is being discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing at The Exodus. WP:FORUMSHOP is a Wikipedia policy. Please stop violating it.

Also, you are also not allowed to remove other editors comments. See WP:TPOC.

BTW, you are allowed to use any (unbiased) wording you wish on a section header, but you are not allowed to enter your comments without a section header. That interferes with Wikipedia's table of contents and article archiving systems. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a FORUM, I am not FORUM-shopping, I am discussing the attached essay, and your following my contribs shutting down all my unrelated discussions as "Forum shopping" consitutes WP:HARRASSment and WP:STALKing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You have removed one of my comments from this page (in the edit where you tell my to fuck off in your edit comment). Removing other editor's comments is against Wikipedia policy. Please self-revert your deletion. As for your edit comment, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Science

I've seen some reference to Big Science connected to this essay. How is this connected to main idea of the essay? Are freelance researchers papers excluded on grounds of not belonging to Big Science?--5.15.50.180 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Research is considered on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Where this would not work

The article seems misguided in focusing on one hated group and seem oriented to 'who do we get to piddle on and ignore' reruns rather than to seek positive values. But mostly I am going mention instead some questions about the practicality of implementing this where trying to follow Academic bias seems difficult to apply or of low value and perhaps someone else can clarify the how or if such are handled:

• Academic vs. Academic - the nature of publish or perish drives academics to take different positions, and professional and school rivalries sometimes become knee-jerk tendency to counter anything the other says. So how will an editor detect or sort between a Yale-vs-Harvard difference ? (Yale would presumably like to see CHOPS become CYOPS or at least be included in CHOPSY.)

• When academics are interested parties - how would one detect and handle when academics are not disinterested parties? This is obvious for any topic related to education and schools such as campus rape and their dubious record of handling; or the value of a degree, or topics such PTA, and common core. Less obvious biases are stereotypical pacifism, social progressivism, intellectualism, and politics. Is the editor at Wikipedia to prefer the academic views in all cases or are there checks on this ?

• Academics do not cover all topics or specifics - while there are thousands of academic institutions, they tend to convey many of the same topics and do so in generalities and at a large-scale. A few truly huge people of history or major battles or such get mentioned by everyone, but that just doesn't cover much of Wikipedia content. Wikipedia describes many biographies, locations, bits of history, sports items, music or pop culture, animals, and so forth that are small topics and giving specifics not found in any textbook. So what percentage of cases is there even a chance to use an academic bias, and what is an editor to do MOST of the time  ?

• Academic not include Scholar, Professional, Legal, Journalist, Scientist, etcetera - 'academic' is a teaching role and institution, and while teaching one is not doing scholarly work or research to develop new information, nor is one a professional applying information or setting legal decisions or reporting on real-world applications and events. It is these professionals and their professional association that produces the bulk of printed learned material and association (e.g. JAMA, IEEE). It is the professional association that gives a RS source for finding the 'community' position. What would the academic materials provide in contrast to these as a basis to prefer academics over all other kinds ?

Hope these get some answers to address the practicalities .... Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So, rather than use the work of people who study the fundamentals, you would prefer Wikipedia uses the work of people-in-the-street who LIKE the current fad? Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

But sometimes academic consensuses are different between countries. In my opinion, since we have give realible sources due weight, we should give reader enough space of judgements rather than strongly believe certain bias. When in natural science, it receives less dispute (But not meaning there's no dispute). But when in social science, it's complex. We cannot assume that academic bias are not part of systemic bias.

When mainstream consequence is given due weight, keeping away of put somethin→g against science to death seems to be a good way......2409:8930:FF11:4734:65DA:EF93:ED1A:1023 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should seek to render reliable knowledge and not get involved in ethnic quarrels. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For academic versus academic systematic review can work quite well (or expressing the controversy). I'm more interested in academic discipline versus academic discipline. --Writethenread (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

And, to answer the charges, I already made allowance for writing articles about Justin Bieber and similar people.

Also, I am not saying that CHOPSY are the place where-from streams all that is new and good, but that it is a convenient place for centralizing information, since they cannot afford to get out of sync with mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, which could also be done by most other reputable universities of the world. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Not policy

WP:ABIAS was never meant as policy, so it isn't policy and does not need support as policy. It's mostly an explanation for newbies and for people who still did not figure out what Wikipedia is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed I wrote WP:PAGs. However, I have only rendered explicit what what the unwritten norm for a long time. The credit for inventing a CHOPSY-based encyclopedia should go to Jimbo Wales. There is a difference between creating a social system and describing a social system. I could describe the life from Communist Romania, but it does not mean that I invented Communism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So, if the New York Times writes that it is not allowed to walk naked on the street, it does not mean that the New York Times made that law, nor that the claim should not be trusted because it is merely a newspaper and not a law treatise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Even clearer: I did not invent the CHOPSY-based Wikipedia. The person who invented the CHOPSY-based Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales, I only described in the essay what he invented. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Scientism"

Can we remove this from WP:Academic bias#The CHOPSY test

Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost. — User:JzG

The term "scientism" is not particularly relevant to defining an academic consensus. I don't think this contributes to any arguments. It seems to be a straw man saying that people with different viewpoints on what should be included are not supporters of science. "The scientific debate", while apparently about whether science is a valid source of information, does not extend to what is the importance of science in any field of thought.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course I do not WP:OWN the essay. The point it was making was about scientific consensus, namely that creation science and homeopathy are pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That quote is not effective at stating that point. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"scientism is a term I only every hear" the term shows up in accepted philosophy, social science, or philosophy of science. It's a reaction when a physicist or chemist comes along as says your ideas are garbage because they want to go and impose their preferred definition of knowledge and value on your field. --Writethenread (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Social science does not have anything to bring in as evidence for creation science and homeopathy. So, of course, if those do not make sense for physicists, chemists, biologists and MDs, social science cannot magically turn those pseudosciences into meaningful science. See WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Expertyism

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm a fan of academic this, academic that. There's a definite tinge of hierarchyism and credentialism. For me the point is that *academia as a whole* is a system that creates pretty good models of the world. I'm not sure academics on their own are to be particularly trusted. There are quite a few examples of very successful academics who go a little off the rails and start publishing questionable theories outside of academia. Linus Pauling and vitamin C comes to mind.

I'd also note that there used a bunch of successful professors without PhDs, and quite a few successful academics started out outside academia, Einstein and Witgenstein come to mind here.

I'm not really sure about the whole "mainstream" and consensus arguments either. It just doesn't really reflect what's going on because the "mainstream" on any given topic can consist of a few dozen researchers. The views of the scientific community as a whole, or a given field, or mainstream science are largely irrelevant. What matters is the viewpoints of those people who have looked at the material - generally people who write systematic reviews or make experiments and their beliefs can differ starkly from "mainstream science". If a topic has been researched in depth by a number of people who have got work published and they all agree on a topic, then that's what wikipedia should report regardless of mainstream sciences uniformed bias based on half remembered lectures and the social acceptability of viewpoints. Academics are often people who *would reach* a correct opinion if they were to carry out research on a topic. --Writethenread (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the problem are people who specialize in, say, aetherometry, and claim that they are the only one to speak with certainty about it, since they are the only experts in that field. Don't like what mainstream science says? Just invent your own academic discipline and by default you are its top expert. Wikipedia is by design not bleeding edge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. One hopes that you can distinguish "legitimate" discourse communities from one's that don't have good standards for knowledge creation. It is to be noted that the same process goes on within academia itself, with different fields supporting different standards and methodologies. Psychology and psychiatry come to mind. Psychoanalysis/ depth psychology and other schools of therapeutic psychology in particular come to mind as areas that *might* have very useful interventions but also might be completely wrong about a model of the brain.

I guess it depends what you mean bleeding edge. I think wikipedia is "2-year-old review paper" bleeding edge, which will often be quite different from mainstream consensus. I think it might even sometimes be "this is the only primary source on the topic and this is what it says" bleeding edge. It probably isn't "there are 200 hundred papers on the topic, and we as editors are going to use these to come to a balanced conclusion" bleeding edge.

--Writethenread (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

200 papers in psychoanalysis are still WP:FRINGE by our book. As K.R. Popper stated, psychoanalysis is not amenable to empirical falsification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"our" book eh? I agree that psychoanalysis is fringe. I don't necessarily think CBT is really less fringe. --Writethenread (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You have now been Served

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force § DEMANDS of ACADEMIC-bias POV-pushers at WP:CHOPSY

• This essay is in substantial violation of WP:Reliability and WP:Verifiable
• substantial violation of WP:NPOV
• substantial violation of WP:Civility.

We are demanding that this essay be deprecated - as currently written - and an RfC for a proposed MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE REWRITE.

@Tgeorgescu and his cohorts should not be permitted to disrupt through abuse of process and through WP:hounding the adverse parties. Else we ask that and new task force gathered who have scholastic credentials or demonstrated competence, from outside the english wikipedia.

Demand also that @Tgeorgescu cease and desist from the WP:Tendentious prosecution you are currently conducting against me at ANI, over a content dispute located at the above referenced WikiProject. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)