Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

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)

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)

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)