Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests has an RFC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests 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. Boud (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A note on NSPORT systematic bias

See here; discusses how NSPORTS furthers Systematic bias by effectively encouraging editors to create articles about men over articles about women, by making it easier to create articles on the former than on the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Christian perspectives in articles about other religions

@StAnselm, to answer your question in this revert summary, I think your third sentence answers your first question. I added the content in question precisely to avoid this essay giving off the impression that all articles on religious topics should weight things toward the largest religions, as that would be systemic bias. An article on a Jewish text of little relevance in Christianity should not have 1,300 words on its significance in Christianity and 300 on its significance in Judaism. You're welcome to disagree with that perspective, but I don't think that your disagreement would be consistent with this essay, which takes the opinionated stance that Wikipedia's goals are "inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia." Putting more focus on what Christians think of a Jewish topic is "imbalanced coverage".

And, why is it especially an issue with Christian POVs? Because, again, this is an essay on systemic bias. The majority of English Wikipedia editors come from countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. Someone adding 1,300 words on Buddhist perspectives on the Zohar would be bias, but not systemic bias. It's also not something that tends to happen. For instance, I'm sure there are some Buddhist perspective on the Zohar, but in 20 years of that article existing no one's taken the time to add them. That should tell you why Christian perspectives are "especially" prone to causing bias. Just like white perspectives are more than black perspectives, male perspectives more than female perspectives, cisgender perspectives more than transgender perspectives—the point of this essay. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: It's fine if you don't want to respond to the above, of course, but if you don't plan to, I'd like to restore the material I added. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Average Wikipedian"

I just noticed that the data that the Average Wikipedian demographics is cited to over a decade old and concerns the German Wikipedia. Has there been any recent sources of information about the demographics of who edits the English Wikipedia? The growing dominance of editors who use mobile devices might have changed these characteristics which are basically presented as facts for this language Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I added some peer-reviewed research published in 2013 that I found at the meta Gender gap page. With appropriate attribution, these may be helpful sources: Community Insights/2018 Report; Community Insights/Community Insights 2020 Report (via the Gender Gap Research page). Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a 2010 source, though it cites the same 2005 survey. That survey definitely doesn't concern only the German Wikipedia though. The survey was conducted by Universität Würzburg, but it did cover the English edition. Liz would you consider striking that statement about the survey only concerning the German Wikipedia? It might cause confusion.

More recent studies would be great, I agree.Larataguera (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Average Wikipedian 2.

Point number 5 is an English speaker (native or non-native)

No shit sherlock. Pretty sure you have to understand the language of the Wikipedia edition you're working on in order for your contributions to be sensible. Synotia (moan) 15:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

CHOPSY and Academic bias

Please comment on WP:Academic bias, which is systemic by design on wikipedia, and strongly defended by its proponents as a necessary way of combatting pseudo-science and fringe theories.

I have drafted an essay in response alleging systemic bias in Western Civilization itself, in the church, in academia, and in mainstream news and politics, to argue that CHOPSY is not always "Neutral".

Also earlier sections may be relevant: {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing Especially the bottom three sections are relevant in discerning how CHOPSY (and the way it is applied here), may or may not be implicated in a systemic-bias that I alleged to exist on Wikipedia against non-native speakers of english, Asians, Africans, Arabs, and a peculiar case of bias against Jews. This is still only a draft, and I don't intend to publish it outside my user space, as it represents my own view that I wish other to consider and respond to for a year or three before trying to form any consensus around it.

I would appreciate feedback both on the existing CHOPSY bias and my essay in response, and suggestions on how we can all improve in collaborating on this WP:Encyclopedia

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)