Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 14

Bias review

I've been thinking of tagging this article for globalization but i think it would be a discussion i cant win, i dont think much editors know or care for bias in the enciclopedia unless its not an English,Christian,white bias. For being an article on "world history" it deals surprisingly little with the world and a lot more with Europe and a eurocentric view of world history. So id like to invite bias concious editors to take a view of the article and comment on its talk page your impressions, thank you.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Is anyone actually trying to stop you from expanding the parts of the article about the history of the world outside Europe? If so, I'll be glad to defend the actual expansion. But, looking at the talk page, I don't see that. Just sticking a tag on doesn't help that much. As for the article itself, looking at the article lede, I see 7 paragraphs: 1 and 3 aren't about any continent of the world specifically, 2 mentions Asia, 4 discusses Asia and North Africa, 5 and 6 are about Europe in detail, and 7 waves a hand at "other parts". So, yes, a bit Europe-heavy, and a woeful exclusion of South Africa, the Americas, and Australia. The rest of the article is slightly better than that: the Middle Ages and Modern History sections are Europe-heavy, but Asia and the Americas are at least mentioned throughout, and the comparative tables are a nice balancing bit. Still, room for improvement. Please, go ahead. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Brazil floods/ITN

At the moment the in the news section on the main page has coverage of the Australian floods but not of the Brazilian ones which have killed an order of magnitude more people. Anyone here interested enough in current events to get the current stub into shape so that it can be used in the ITN section?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia geodata mapped

A very interesting visual illustration of Wikipedia's systematic bias problem: all geotagged articles, mapped. Some of this reflects lower levels of geotagging in particular regions, but most of it is simply a lack of geographical coverage. There are many places with higher population densities than the US which are virtually black on this map. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this the English Wikipedia or all Wikipedias? - SimonP (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

LGBT

Please see here. I think this is a long standing and blatant case of systemic bias on the wiki. The reason this has gone unchallenged is, I assume, a misguided notion of political correctness. In any case, anyone daring to question the use of US subculture self-designations in Wikipedia's voice all over the place will run a significant risk of being branded a homophobic bigot. At least such moderate proposals I have made on talkpages so far invariably are stomped upon and characterized as ridiculous, absurd, etc. without any recognizable understanding of their motivation.

Let me emphasize that I have nothing against the initialism as long as it is strictly used as a self-designation, reflecting the reality that since about 20 years there is a community that self-designates in this way. But extending this to areas that aren't self-designations, such as LGBT laws, is silly. There isn't a single "LGBT law" in the wide world. These laws are made by legislatives, not by interest groups, and they are either limiting or asserting rights specific to certain groups. If any of these laws has officially been labelled "LGBT" I haven't seen it. Perhaps in the future the United States legislative will come up with laws so termed, but this hasn't happened yet, and once it does, the term will refer to such a law specifically. Until then, the widespread use of the term in Wikipedia's voice is simply another attempt to propagate use of a neologism on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cities

There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#And now for something completely new... about the bias inherent in all articles describing cities that are centers of conflict or social and political woes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk accurately describes the dynamics of editing such articles: "I think it's inherent in the way wikipedia works that nobody would object to describing the airport that services a certain city, but you'd have a hard time finding consensus for saying 'X is one of the poorest and most dangerous cities in the world'." --Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet one could refer to measures of relative wealth and crime, for example "X is rated as the 2nd poorest/most dangerous world capital according to the (crime survey/wealth survey)" and compare it with alternative surveys. If it's well referenced to a solid source, there can't really be a justifiable reason for removing it - although I imagine people will try! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

US bias

Would someone please take a look at Special education, and let me know where the alleged "US bias" is? More than half the article is under ==National approaches==, which describes practices in twenty-two (22) countries, and the US section is not the largest. It seems silly to me to have a globalize/US tag on an article that is mostly about something other than the US.

I admit that the article is written in American English, and this seems to be the sticking point: the other editor is from the UK, and apparently has decided that any technical term she personally isn't familiar with is a biased Americanism, despite what I thought was ample evidence that the UK uses the same terms. For example, the article cites the same paper from the UK government office Ofqual more than 30 times, but that's somehow proof of more US bias, because the UK government used terms that she has decided are American terms. (Honestly, I don't expect Americans to know what these terms mean: that's why they're defined directly in the article. If anything, it's equal-opportunity confusion.)

We really could use a third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mm, I don't have time to look properly, and it's hard without going into specifics. I chipped in on one thread on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at your comment tomorrow afternoon, but let me say now, that whatever your opinion is, I'm grateful to have it.

My note above sounds a little harsh on re-reading, so let me say that I'm perfectly convinced of the sincerity of the complaining editor, and I value her past help in improving the article.

The article has been difficult in part because of very persistent socking from a POV-pushing American student with disabilities, and as a result, dealing with routine editing issues like this is more complicated and stressful than it should be. I'm happy to hear from any established editor, regardless of whether or not s/he happens to agree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

There is presently a debate over whether the list article Declaration of independence ought to include a hatnote pointing specifically to the United States Declaration of Independence. Those in favor argue that historical, demographic, and practical factors justify this treatment, while those in opposition argue that no country's document should receive special treatment under any circumstances. Please see here if you are interested in weighing in on the matter. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Where the editors are

Here's some graphics that go part way towards answering who edits the english wikipedia (or at least where they were on May tenth 2011). Cloveapple (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Updating task list

I've been slowly going through the Open Tasks list checking to see what tasks are still current. So I took the note down that said only one person is updating the task list. I also added "Check articles to see if they still need work, and if they've been improved move them to the right section or leave a note" to the list of suggestions for participating. I'm also going to take down the "outdated" template at the top of the Open Tasks page. Cloveapple (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Major area of concern

You guys may wish to take a look at WP:VITAL. There seems to be a very, very strong bias in which articles are considered vital, particularly when it comes to biographies. → ROUX ₪ 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a disturbing list if it's taken seriously, although I did notice they had a mention of systemic bias in their FAQ. Cloveapple (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Little weight given to Asian role shaping spontaneous order concept, article entirely from Western perspectives

Hello, I'm new to the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject, but can't help grabbing the megaphone to inform fellow anti-Western-culture-bias editors that Spontaneous order gives little to no coverage to the Chinese philosophers who (arguably) birthed the concept of spontaneous order over two millennia ago. Since Confucius and Confucianism played such a huge role in creating spontaneous order (arguably inventing the concept) failure to include this is especially problematic. The Spontaneous order article is more an economics geek thing than a balanced treatment of the subject.

For my full argument for the importance of China (historically and presently) to this topic, please see Talk:Spontaneous_order#Little_weight_given_to_Asian_role_shaping_spontaneous_order_concept.2C_then_and_now

NickDupree (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ago_Oba article needs at least one source

This is an article about Nigerian royalty that's set to be deleted on June 18th if no sources are added. Cloveapple (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Contemporary bias"

Hi. I'm studying several examples of systemic bias in English Wikipedia. Doing some numbers, I have seen that 72% of all the biographies in English Wikipedia are about people who lived in the 20th century, and that 99.66% lived in the 2nd millennium. Further details here User:Emijrp/Systemic bias/Contemporary bias. The notability level for recent centuries is very low compared with older ones. Regards. emijrp (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And how many people who lived in the 8th century can you name off the top of your head compared to the 18th? Yeah. I thought so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I'm not a historian. Perhaps, "contemporary bias" means "lack of historians bias". emijrp (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a silly idea. Estimates say that around the year 1000, world population was about 200-300 million. At the moment it's about 7,000 million. [1] That's a factor of 30. Even if we had perfect records of things that happened hundreds or thousands years ago, there would still be a lot more notable people who lived after 1900 than before that date. But of course we don't. We can't just make up fake biographies for 9th century mayors or the 9th century equivalents of barely notable 1990s starlets. This is definitely not what systemic bias is about. Hans Adler 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And on that note, consider the fact that in the past 100 years, it's been MUCH easier for someone to gain notoriety for various reasons, not the least of which is the ability for instant communication. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bias is when there is the possibility of writing articles on a subject, and we don't - it's not about us not writing about subjects that don't exist. For example, the reason there are more articles on British snooker players - Category:Snooker players by nationality - is not the result of any bias in Wikipedia, it is that most snooker players are British. However, the poor coverage of Kabaddi in comparison to snooker, is the result of systemic bias. When looking at lack of, or poor coverage on Wikipedia, it is helpful to look at the reasons, and not assume it is purely due to bias. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum controversy-related Google bomb and related neologism coverage @ Jimmy Wales' talk page

Hello, here's a thorny one. Please check your breakfast at the door because this discussion involves some unpleasant matter. The short of it is that in 2003 US Senator Rick Santorum said some things about homosexuality, and amongst other repercussions a Mr. Savage linked the Senator's last name to an unflattering definition. I felt, and wrote, that the tendencies here go against common sense policy for civility. This certainly, to my mind, has some applications for systemic bias. Emphasizing media coverage and then "fleshing it out" with excruciating specifics by Wikipedians leads to a coverage with no balance that respects all the individuals involved - this especially seems to be covered by WP:COATRACK as well. My request for contributions is twofold: Firstly, insights on whether there is systemic bias in the gathering of sources, for or against; secondly, insights on whether my notions about civility in presentation and especially avoidance of presentation issues is itself a bias issue. Thanks! Edwin Herdman (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a request for comment at Talk:Santorum Google problem, which basically asks the question what do we do about this? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Globalize tag abuse

If someone adds a {{notability}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate, you can resolve it at WP:AFD or WP:Notability/Noticeboard.

If someone adds a {{globalize}} tag to an article, and you think it inappropriate (oh, maybe he beleives that every "truly balanced" article must mention his home country by name), and normal discussion is not resolving the dispute, is there a central home for resolving this kind of problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment. 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:UrbanRenewal & Leopard Capital

Hi, I've had User:Urbanrenewal accuse of me of a conflict of interest where none exists, and in doing so he's accused my area of interest (Cambodia's private equity arena) as receiving 'an inordinate amount of focus', which I believe is evidently untrue. Any support would be welcome: below is a portion of my objection to User:Urbanrenewal, which is specifically relevant to the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, a Project who's idea I believe in passionately.

QUOTE

UR, you claim that "this small [Leopard Capital] group" has "received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia". However in consideration of the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, I object to your claim that LC has received an 'inordinate amount of focus' as potentially invalid. Considering Wikipedia’s list of private equity firms mentions 204 firms, only 53 of which are not headquartered in America, and 0 which are based in Cambodia...if anything, to aid the very serious and increasingly important Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, it follows that LC and its like actually require more focus, not less.

UNQUOTE

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

Names in world cultures

Template:Names in world cultures does not include any Anglophone countries. Articles like American name or British name don't seem to even exist, while German name, French name and Tatar name do. This is a very clear example of the anglophone bias that is epidemic in English Wikipedia. Our biased encyclopedia considers American and English names as "normal" - any explanations and articles are unnecessary. German and French names, on the other hand, are "exotic" and therefore need articles explaining them. These names also need to be included in Template:Names in world cultures - it seems that "world culture" here simply means "non-American culture". We should work to fix things like this. Nanobear (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is probably because this is the ENGLISH language version. Other language versions use their own preffered spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.65.55 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

German FAs

Of the 1987 FAs on de.wiki we don't have even a substub for 324 of them. I haven't gone through any of them but I thought it quite interesting. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template informing users about systemic bias and suggesting ways to counter it

I notice that various Wikiprojects have devised various types of welcome templates informing new users about their Wikiproject and inviting them to join the project Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Topic-specific messages. Should we devise a project specific welcome template for this project too?-MW ^ℳ 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. However, I think we'd need to make a big effort to word it positively, rather than plaintively. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's correct. We should be using positive wording. The Welcoming committee already has some great looking templates. Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. We may just need to come up with some suitable wording, choose one of those templates, modify some parts to include this project, and create a new template.-MW ^ℳ 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I would also suggest that we word it in a way whereby it can be used for all types of users. I mean, for registered users, IPs, users who have made contributions, users who have not made contributions, etc. One important consideration in making the template widely deployable is to not to thank the users for their contributions. If we include a sentence thanking them for their contributions, we have to make sure that their contributions are constructive. What is/is not constructive can be contentious and can be cumbersome to check out. Secondly, we may also want to use the template to welcome users who have made few or no edits so far. I have found that most welcome templates become unusable for new users because the template is thanking them for their contributions. Now, most new users get their first edits reverted. We can't thank them for edits that were reverted. So the "thank you" templates become unusable due to this reason.-MW ^ℳ 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. When would the template be used? For any new editor, including those who haven't made any edits?

Personally, I'd prefer something a little more specific which is targeted at new editors who have at least a faint hint of interest in areas which overlap with CSB. In other words, a welcome template you'd give to a new editor on Amadou & Mariam which you wouldn't give to a new editor on Lady Gaga. In that case it should be OK to mention contributions. Also, many people wanting to edit CSB areas may be facing big technical (or language) barriers compared to the average slightly-geeky anglophone editor, so maybe we need to take extra care to use clear language and cut through tech jargon. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred that it should be of such type which makes it usable on all newbies. However, if it is felt that it is necessary that the template be used only on users who have made edits and whose edits show some clue that they may be interested in this project, I am happy with that too :-)MW ^ℳ 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey Invitation: Please Contribute Your Feelings on Systemic Bias

I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community, and am posting to invite you to participate in research exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

WPCSB Survey

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page.

This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or at livingst@uoregon.edu. My faculty advisor is [light@uoregon.edu Dr. Ryan Light]. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the [human_subjects@orc.uoregon.edu Office for Protection of Human Subjects].

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon - UOJComm (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: The survey will be open through the middle of August, so feel free to take it whenever you get a chance. You can begin the survey at anytime and return later to finish it. If the system gives you a hard time and starts you at the beginning (which it shouldn't), you can relaunch the survey and skip to where you think you left off. Just be sure to enter your username again on the first page; I can then match up your responses. As always, let me know if you have any questions, and I greatly appreciate your participation! UOJComm (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the survey and encourage other Wikipedians to do so. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Due to big (good) life events, interviews will now begin in mid-to-late September. Thank you for your interest and your patience. Meanwhile, the survey is still open to all WPCSB members, so please contribute your thoughts if you haven't yet, and thank you to all editors who have! - UOJComm (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: UPDATE: Thank you to all the editors who have completed the study's survey. Those who have not completed the survey but are interested in participating, or those who have started the survey and planned to return to it later, I encourage to complete the survey at your earliest convenience, as I am going to begin analysis of the survey responses in the the coming weeks. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, and thank you again for your participation. - UOJComm (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Ham

There is a question over correct article WP:SCOPE of Curse of Ham being used to completely exclude African positions on the so-called "curse of Ham", in favor of western opinions on a Bible passage that has been used for centuries to justify racism and slavery. Please see Talk:Curse_of_Ham#Request_for_further_comment Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Canaan,son of Ham

The above dispute has now spread to another one regarding the WP:SCOPE of Canaan, son of Ham. The same editor with whom I am disputing argues that al-Tabari's assertion that Canaan's wife was named "Arsal", a granddaughter of Tiras, is off-topic to the subject, for a variety of shifting reasons, and repeatedly blanks the info, but definite hostility to mentioning pertinent information he is for whatever reason uncomfortable with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

gender gap on WP

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Gender+disparity

Wikipedia has no information on gender gap, not even in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias or in Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Those don't even have the words "gender" or women"! There isn't even a red wikilink in Global_Gender_Gap_Report.

The disambiguation page "gender gap" needs to be made into an article, and the redirects Gender disparity and Gender differences need to be made into disambigs or redirects to the new article on gender gap. --Espoo (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The is gender pay gap (which I have added to the gender gap dab page) and an extensive Male–female income disparity in the United States article. Gender pay gap is the contentious issue and I don't see a need for an actual gender gap article. The disambiguation sums up the issues nicely. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to recruit help at WP:WikiProject Women's history. Also, the gender skew among Wikipedia editors is documented at WP:Wikipedians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates: Higher education by region vs. Higher Education by country

I created the Template:Higher education by region to replace the Template:Higher Education by country. The speedy deletion is being contested. I would like help from an expert in Countering systemic bias. I believe that the regional approach is more comprehensive and more consistent with the long range goals of this project. Am I right? ...wrong? or ...? See discussion Thanks for your attention. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a systemic bias issue. You're organizing countries by continent. While nice, I'm not sure in what way that specifically counters underrepresentation. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Change The Ratio Logo.jpg

Wikipedia has this new file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg.

• 

—Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rampant pro-Western and anti-Eastern view enforced in Wikipedia

There is rampant pro-western views enforced by users in Wikipedia articles. One simple example is the removal of contents from articles that are not western in nature. Take the case of military pages or that concerning eastern nations. Anything that's being said good in terms of facts or figures are being removed to and fudged facts and figures are enforced to ensure a pro-western point of view. This is not only done by a bunch of British users and admins but also by others from the western world. There is no discussion or arguement as such, just misuse of Admin powers to support vandals to vandalize the pages. One example is removal of Russia from the list of blue water navies, even though the consensus was to have it. It has not been reverted by the Admins who are in cahoots with vandals. Similar vandalism has been noticed in pages with regard to Indian armed forces, in which many information being removed. Take the case of the page of India. The GDP figures will always be from 2010. How many time you change it to 2011. This will get reverted but no Admins will correct it to the standard that's 2011 which is used in every other page of western nations. Take any military article, it starts with western viewpoint and ends with it. It do have images from western nations. Any attempt to change it to bring equality will get the user blocked. Then in British armed forces pages there are fudged facts and figures along with projection of Britain as a great power and a blue water Navy while the sources say otherwise. No one will be allowed to discuss this in a fair manner and the Admins misuse their powers to block those who try to make proper edits. No Consensus is the first and last weapon used by these people to block any edits even though they cannot defense their arguments with proper sources. To hide their acts, they even remove the discussion or talk page of the blocked user thereby saving themselves from scrutiny at a later time. All these kinds of dirty things are being played in Wikipedia.Coverauto (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Coverauto (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please, giving links? I went to Talk:India and don't see any discussion of the 2010/2011 GDP figures. I went to Talk:British Armed Forces, and don't see any discussion of "blue water". I went to your editing history, and this is a new account. --GRuban (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the GDP figures. Mistook the Economy of India page figure (which is mentioning 2010 and all the articles about the economies of countries show the same) with that in the India page. So that's o.k. I would rather discuss about military pages. First i would like to point out that my account may get blocked before this discussion is completed and may have to create another one to post here. I would like to point out certain pages, that may give you an idea of how difficult it's to edit pages that do have info on anything British. I'm not saying that i'm against Britain or something. But I would like to put the fact as such rather than say otherwise. But this is not allowed in Wikipedia by some vandals (I have noticed large number of them from Britain itself) vandalizing pages and preventing users from making edits or changes. Not only that they vandalize other pages as well with fudged figures and push other editors to the corner. Finally the Admins may block the other editor. This has been going on for a long time. Rather than me telling you the problem, it's better you check the discussions etc and reach your own conclusions. May be at some places, i may have got angry and used harsh words. But it was not meant to be, but that's how things are. And for the final info about my user id, i'm a user who has been banned for Wikipedia from editing. Either valid or invalid,they will remove it. But i'm very much concerned about this kind of stupidity happening in Wikipedia. SOmething need to be done to prevent this kind of things. I may contribute or may not, It's left for me. But this problem must stop.

Let me provide the pages that may provide you an insight into the problem.[2][3][4]See the Not FOrum part of discussion.[5]Coverauto (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mohamed Bouazizi in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Wrad (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Adopt a Press Hero redlink

As some of you know, I've been working for a while to try to increase WP's coverage of world journalists, as a part of both this project and WP:WikiProject Journalism. While the US, UK, and Australia seem well-covered, up until last week, we still didn't even have articles on Steven Gan (Malaysia) and Aboubakr Jamai (Morocco), for example, each of whom is widely recognized as a leading journalist of his country, and whose struggles for press freedom have been regularly covered in world media. I'm glad to say that we now have at least a stub for each of the 100 or so CPJ International Press Freedom Award laureates, which has been a pet project of mine for a while, but working through these has also shown me how much is still missing.

I'm now setting my sights on a new list, the 50 International Press Institute World Press Freedom Heroes of the 20th century. Sadly, even on this one, we still have 14 redlinks, and many more articles in need of cleanup. (There's still some CPJ winners badly in need of cleanup, but I'm trying to prioritize the completely missing first.) I'm hoping to start filling in a few of these a week... would anyone like to pitch in on this project by adopting a redlink?

Thanks all! Khazar (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll adopt Grémah Boukar Koura, and should be able to turn it blue in a few days. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be the same person as Grémah Boucar, which you redirected to his radio station last May. Does he still "count" for purposes of this project? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely counts; just looking here [6] suggests he deserves an article in his own right. I didn't realize I still had a redirect in the CPJ template. I'll have to go back over it and see if I missed any others. Thanks! Khazar (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Next Nizar Nayouf (or Nizar Nayyouf). Except that I see you've left. :-(. So, you're encouraging other people to write about these heroic journalists who face torture and death from governments or organized crime figures and don't quit. And you yourself are quitting because of what? Because a well meaning volunteer accused you of not paraphrasing enough? Please, reconsider. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying some points on the Wikiproject main page

Things that jump out from a quick review:

• Lead reads: Create or edit one of the articles listed on the CSB template. If you don't particularly like any of the subjects on the template, our open tasks list has a wide array of articles in need of attention. and also
• Category:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias has a blue box that reads: This is a tracking category, a category intended to build and maintain a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Rather than being part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme, these categories are used to track, for example, pages using deprecated syntaxes, to maintain a list of pages that may need to be edited en masse later, or to aggregate the members of several sub-categories by other classifications into one larger list.

It's a bit unclear if there's some hidden template to be added to some articles and who can do so; and if you just manually add things to the CSB template or the open tasks. More explicit explanation would help for those new to wikiprojects or this one.

• Tasks needs a bit of clean up and reorganization
• And for any obvious errors, necessary additions, etc. it would be nice if it was clear how to change those hidden templates that list regions/countries (as I asked above) so people don't have to go to Village Pump to find out.

Just some preliminary thoughts/suggestions. CarolMooreDC 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias vs. West Asian countries/Middle East??

I find it a bit strange that the template under the "Asia" region calls the Middle East (which has an article) "West Asia" which does not. Considering the rather rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia, it seems strange we're making it so difficult to even FIND the Middle East on this project. I'd fix the template if I could figure out where the heck it is, but I can't. Thoughts on fixing this?? CarolMooreDC 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Both terms have articles. If you enter West Asia into the search box it takes you to Western Asia. Cloveapple (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess didn't do a good enough search. Anyway, I do see the page reads: The terms are partly coterminous with the Middle East, which describes a geographical position in relation to Western Europe rather than its location within Asia. Due to this perceived Eurocentrism, international organizations such as the United Nations,[1] have replaced Middle East and Near East with Western Asia.

Fair enough. In fact I just added a short version of this definition to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Asia since it repeatedly refers to Middle East without defining it. But I still think that the section on "West Asian countries" needs at least to mention it includes what's called "Middle East" and at very least needs to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Asia, which it does not currently. But that mystery template makes it difficult to make any such corrections. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no "rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia". Please stop making these kinds of wild assertions, they aren't helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I really have to list all the dozens of articles where an absurd anti-Muslim/Arab agenda is pushed in one way or another? Maybe I'm oversensitive because I kept reverting a sock puppet who kept trying to turn Gender apartheid into a Sex segregation in Islam article, even though latter article already exists. He then sent me 80 plus email death threats when his sock kept getting squashed. (All through wikipedia so it's on file and at least one admin said he knows who it is.) And also because I see the article Honor killing and a bunch of other related articles have WP:Undue emphasis on the very customary/tribal (not religious) oriented honor killings by Arabs/Muslims, while not bothering to detail similar many such abuses in other cultures. And of course when I added one Arab Palestinian who denounced it - perhaps in the wrong section - Jayjg deleted it. I do intend to find a few more Arabs/Muslims who also denounce honor killing and put in proper section. We'll see if that gets reverted. Anyway, that misuse of legitimate articles of concern to women that just happens to support the agenda of those who excuse bombing Muslim/Arab nations by their support for women's right (even if such bombings kill far more women) is rampant bias by my definition. And that's just two articles where this sort of thing happens. CarolMooreDC 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All sorts of absurd anti and pro everything propaganda is pushed in one way or another on just about every topic on Wikipedia - that it no way means that there is "rampant bias vs. Middle East Muslims and Arabs in Wikipedia". Please recognize that your personal viewpoints on this may be skewed, to the extent, for example, that you might even bring up my quite proper removal of non-notable trivia from an article as some sort of example of God knows what (and by the way, that individual didn't denounce "honor killing", he said the term should be made illegal, which is obviously something entirely different). In the future, please make more factual and relevant statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe making the term "Honor killing" illegal is a way of "redefining it" to the world. As a libertarian I don't support that, but found it interesting. And like I said, getting more relevant opinions from more people (as well as more examples of individuals who have murdered others for honor who are NOT Muslim/Arab) and sticking them in the appropriate part of the article IS on my list of WIKI things to do and we can discuss details then. Per the description of this project, that's about adding material that's omitted. (And I can see that deleting WP:Undue is more an NPOV noticeboard issue, if not dealt with on talk page of an article.)

By the way, I notice you followed me here after I brought up the issue of Countering systemic bias on another article where we may have some different perspectives over bias. Just doing you administrator duty again?? :-) CarolMooreDC 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "followed" - are you referring to the fact that earlier this week you suddenly showed up on the Talk: page of Anti-Defamation League to yet again oppose whatever I was saying, despite not having edited the article in the last year and a half, and not having made a Talk: page comment there in almost 4 years? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone asked me to comment since I had been there before. Israel-Palestine related lobbies are one of my many interests. What's your explanation for coming here? Anyway, obviously there are disputes among editors on what is and isn't systematic bias in ALL areas and we have more than adequately expressed ourselves here, don't you think? CarolMooreDC 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

EPA redir

Currently EPA redirects to United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA is a commonly used abbreviation so it should be a dab page (which is at EPA (disambiguation). This is a bias towards the US and against all other uses of the term. Admitedly the US EPA is the most notable use of the abbreviation but this can be reflected by having United States Environmental Protection Agency near the top of the dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for either support or non-support.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've tried this before! Talk:EPA (disambiguation) - in 2009 and 2011 yet! You may have a stronger case now, though. Searching for EPA on google brings up different things at different times. I just searched and got Protection Agency Ireland in position 3, Environment Protection Authority, Victoria, Australia in position 4, ENGLISH POOL ASSOCIATION in position 6, european press photo agency in position 8 and Environment Protection Authority South Australia in position 9. Searching on Bing and Yahoo I get mostly USEPA, though our article on Eicosapentaenoic acid is in position 4 and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in position. Usage for our articles (Jan, 2012) has

• http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/United%20States%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency: 37611 times in 201201
• http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Eicosapentaenoic%20acid: 10960 times in 201201.

That's not a blowout, and considering that EPA_(disambiguation) has been viewed 1242 times in 201201 we can assume that a number of the former were actually looking for something else. Drop a link here, and we can hold another RFC. It won't necessarily succeed, but I'll support you. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Daylight savings time in various time zones

I found a note in Daylight saving time by country implying that there was some systemic bias there to counter. What bias? It was a North American & European idea in the first place, and I don't see how making an alphabetical list will help; or starting in Oceania and Asia, which has the smallest amount of land area or population observing daylight saving.

I moved the article to Daylight saving time by region and country because it wasn't even sorted by country.

Also, I plan to put North America first, followed either by South America or Europe. Any objections? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Facing deletion due to systematic bias

I guess this will be an appropriate/neutral notice board to inform of this... the article Pak Watan is facing deletion due to systematic bias in the forming consensus. It is not a neologism and rather one of the old terms used for the country. Its alternate words / synonyms have citations in the national anthem. The websearches also support the appearance of the word. The issue is most sources that turn up are the ones rather named after this use of word rather than the word itself due to the insufficient and disproportionate coverage of Pakistan related topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

This title literally means the Muslim world or Ummah as a term...currently a move discussion is taking place at Talk:Nation of Islam to move it to "Nation of Islam (religious movement)" which would be more appropriate. Evidently this movement is named after the literal meaning of the term. Unfortunately due to popularity of the movement, the move is being opposed by the current contributors of the article. This seems to be a systematic bias issue as the movement seems to have more coverage than the term itself... or is it the awareness of the editors? Comments from neutral users is appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there another meaning of "Nation of Islam" such that it needs to be distinguished by "religious movement" in parenthesis? Simon Burchell (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as pointed out above.. the Nation of Islam ie. the Muslim world specifically given the Pan-Islamic term Ummah. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-abortion violence and the United States

Is this edit creating a US bias? There is a higher incidence of [[anti-abortion violence] in the US but I feel that countries should generally be in an alphabetical order. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed

Mohamed Nasheed is in serious need of an article overhaul. He's a former president of the Maldives who resigned in February of this year--possibly at military gunpoint, possibly not. He's also the subject of a major upcoming documentary The Island President, which is about to get nationwide distribution in the US. All this is causing his article to get a lot of attention from vandals and drive-by partisans, but not the sustained rewrite that it needs. I'm working to make some improvements... can anyone else pitch in? Thanks all! Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles

Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed task: remove references to rape as "sex" or "intercourse"

I trust I don't need to explain why it's problematic to diminish rape by referring to it as "sex" or "intercourse." Unfortunately, this does happen on WP, especially in plot summaries. This is peculiar, since in the cases I've seen, the issue of consent was not debatable (e.g., see the talk page for Observe_and_Report). So, perhaps we can keep a list of pages which need to be updated to accurately reflect rape. Thoughts? Ninestraycats (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a quick fix on the occasions where it comes up, so I'm not sure that a list is really required. Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2. My worry is that the fix won't be quick. My very limited experience editing out racist/sexist bias is that it gets reverted quickly without good cause (again, see the talk page for Observe and Report). I'm not sure what can be done to combat this, but I was thinking if more users were to get on the corresponding talk pages and raise their voices, we could make the changes. What do you think? Ninestraycats (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you DO need to explain, because the very first line of rape states "Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melodia. This is pretty basic so I refer you to any 101 introductions to rape and feminism. The idea is that our perception and knowledge of rape is severely warped, in favor of rapists. For example, one way in which rape is put "out of sight and out of mind" is by not using the rather ugly word itself. Thus, if, a plot summary refers to an act of rape as "he had sex with her," it trivializes and normalizes the experience. Ninestraycats (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While I respect what you're trying to do, NSC, I think it might fall under WP:Votestacking to have a select team of users that you call on to swing votes on controversial articles. It's probably best that these get resolved article by article. In any case, I think the focus of WP:CSB is more on gaps in coverage than the sort of corrections you're mentioning: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is "What haven't we covered yet?", rather than "how should we change the existing coverage?" Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Khazar2: I thought about that (votestacking) and should've re-phrased hehe. I am no by no means advocating editing by force of numbers. The cases that I've seen are entirely objective, and I can't stress that enough. Thus, I would hope that a single person would be enough to make the appropriate change. But in the few cases I've ran into, this is not the case. So I'm sort of at a loss for what to do... my suggestion was just a reach in the dark. However, you are right about the goal of WP:CSB, so discussing a solution to this problem should be done elsewhere. I am new to WP editing, so do you have any suggestions for what to do? Start an offshoot of WP:CSB? (there was one for gender, WP:CSGB, but it is inactive) Is WP:CSB already stretched thin enough that we can't add a new focus? Ninestraycats (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there's nothing else for it but to have the discussion organically article by article. To have a team of editors on call to intervene in cases like this would (rightly) lead to complaints of votestacking. Perhaps the best project for you to post notices at would be WP:WikiProject Crime--they would be perceived as neutral here, as opposed to WikiProject Feminism or some such, where it could be argued that you would have odds of finding editors who share a particular viewpoint. I'd suggest phrasing your post as neutrally as possible ("Comments are requested at ARTICLE regarding the usage of "rape"".) to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASSING. Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD War on Women

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Women_(2nd_nomination). See my comments there. Don't get me started. CarolMooreDC 04:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has been kept, so thank goodness. Interchangeable 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Villages in Tibet

Recently I've noticed a number of articles like these DolmaSampa, Cogo, Tibet, Codoi, Tibet. They are all unreferenced articles concerning Tibetan villages of no clear notability. Normally I'd hit an unreferenced place article with an AFD, however this article might be in a category that's particularly vulnerable to systematic bias. Could somebody comment on the appropriate action here? Should we keep this kind of article even though it is very difficult to verify. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If the articles are unsourced, or unverifiable, or fall far short of the GNG, they should be deleted. They're not encyclopædia articles by any reasonable definition. Creating lots of crappy content does not solve our systemic bias problem; creating decent content would help solve that problem. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to require no-diacritics names

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. This has also been raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#See Talk:Sasa Tuksar. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The above WP:TENNISNAMES guideline was fairly securely quashed, though I have no idea if SMcCandlish's note here actually attracted anyone. Systemic bias, or perhaps just Anglo-bias continues. Related to SMcCandlish's note above is the shortcut WP:USEENGLISH which is frequently cited as a reason for removing East European BLP titles' accents and carons. It currently has only one example in it of a name with accents, "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" which is fine, but evidently doesn't register with some Users as "foreign" or e.g. "Lech Wałęsa to Lech Walesa per WP:USEENGLISH" wouldn't be a common miscite at WP:RMs. I've proposed then adding a real "foreigner" not just an Irish cardinal. This may fall in the remit of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, if it doesn't then ignore this note. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I chipped in at the original discussion because of the notice here - looks like it was a landslide "No" anyway... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good on you. The original discussion was, yes. Adding a foreigner to WP:USEENGLISH will be more problematic. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the Barnstar for countering Systemic Bias.

It would seem that I have asked a question that I am advised should be dealt with the the members of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It seems odd that there is no Barnstar for recognition of such activity and thinking. I have wryly observes that there may be a systemic bias against countering systemic bias. The view has been expressed that it is a "Project" matter and that it should be treated as a "Project Award". I have reservations as to that view, as it limits the recognition to only project members and means that others could not be recognised. Discussion on the matter can be found on Wikipedia Talk - Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dialectal Differences

We have 11 articles on the differences between American English and British English, complete with its own navigation template. But we have only one article on the differences between North and South Korean, which is itself up for a merger, and I cannot find any articles that are solely about the differences between dialects of other languages (such as Eastern/Western Armenian, or Quebec/Parisian French). I propose that we create at least one dialectal difference article for every language that has dialects. Interchangeable 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been more than a month now. Will someone please share their thoughts on this? Interchangeable 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not - there are a number of articles on varieties of Spanish, for example. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose rote creation of lots of dialect-difference articles based on, say, a list of dialects. We're not going to overcome systemic bias by creating a framework of our own devising and then creating a hundred very short placeholder articles to fill each slot in the framework - in terms of content, this has had bad outcomes in other neglected areas. However, I would applaud creation of dialect-differences articles if they are written one by one, with a little TLC, and based on reliable sources which have substantial discussion of differences between dialects. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not supporting creation of stubs, but I would support well-written dialect difference articles. Interchangeable 19:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Ya Kun Kaya Toast's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a Singapore-based food business! All members of this WikiProject are invited to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at this article's ongoing peer review to help it achieve GA status! May you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible systemic bias at Good Article Reviews

Hello, there has been raised an issue of apparent systemic bias within Good Article reviews at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1. Contributions to the debate are be welcome. --ELEKHH^T

I'm completely lost here. Systematic bias here relates to what? Is Wikipedia systematically lacking coverage of Delaware? --LauraHale (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but Bobrayner already answered this. Thanks for the feedback. --ELEKHH^T 00:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You brought it here, so can you answer this here? What sort of systematic bias issues are involved with this article? Does the article need attention because Delaware is under represented on English Wikipedia? Is the article systematically erasing women? A minority group in the United States? What group of people or what region facing systematic bias caused you to comment here about this article? :) I'd love to know so I can go and address the systematic bias problems by adding the geographical information or under represented group to the article. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought all that would be clear from following the links and there would be no need to duplicate information here. It seems obvious to me that there are many forms of systemic bias, not simply lack of representation. To be more explicit, it was brought up in the linked discussion that there is a noticeable difference in the applied standards both in terms of determining notability and GA promotion for US road articles, as opposed to other topics. This likely has to do with the typical causes of bias such as availability of sources and contributors' demographic groups. The almost serial production of short road GAs thus leads to over-representation among GA quality articles, as well as inconsistency. This again has detrimental effect to the efforts of potentially showcasing GA articles on the main page for instance. While I hoped that members of this WikiProject might have experience of countering such phenomena, I understand that this is a more subtle form of systemic bias, and as such might not be a priority or even in scope of this WikiProject. This has been mostly clarified by Bobrayner. If you need further clarification please don't hesitate to ask. --ELEKHH^T 02:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This project is dedicated to specific types of sytematic bias that have ZERO to do with this project. If Bob in anyway implied that this article had problems related to coverage of minority groups, under represented geographic regions, under represented populations on Wikipedia, Bob is wrong. That you think a project dedicated to improving coverage of minority groups, under represented geographic regions, under represented populations on Wikipedia is the correct place to address problems with WP:GAN appears to be a problem. I cannot see the problem. Can you explain to me why a project dedicated to improving the coverage of and increasing participation of minority groups, under represented geographic regions, under represented populations on Wikipedia is relevant to "Roads articles have an easy time of it"? I absolutely CANNOT see the connection. Can you EXPLICITLY spell out how your problems with Delaware Route 17 connect to improving the coverage of and increasing participation of minority groups, under represented geographic regions, under represented populations on Wikipedia? I just cannot see it. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Please, please, please let me know how these things connect. --LauraHale (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me just a case of an innocent editor posting without taking the time to read the project description; no harm done. Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I read that "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions", however I did not understood it as "exclusively". I am sorry that my enquiry distressed you so much. Please feel free to remove my message if you consider it was inappropriately posted. I would also appreciate if you could observe WP:CIVIL and WP:SHOUT. Thank you. --ELEKHH^T 03:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@Elekhh, I will admit I am distressed because it looks like some one tried to highjack an important issue, the systematic bias in terms of lack of content and participation by certain groups, in order to try to go after WP:GAN. There is tremendous amount of space for dealing with systematic bias things. As you're apparently extremely interested in roads, there are systematic problems with roads in that most of the current editors focus on the United States. Do you want to help counter that bias by working on roads articles in countries like Oceania, Africa and South America? --LauraHale (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You still keep misunderstanding me. I am not extremely interested in roads, in fact not at all interested in roads, and I was not trying to "hijack" anything. Among many other aspects of Wikipedia, I am interested in consistency of GAs and that includes various biases within GAs, although apparently not with the meaning attributed to the term by this WikiProject. You could also just collapse this discussion and mark it "not in scope". --ELEKHH^T 06:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What sort of systematic bias issues are you interested in? What areas related to under represented groups/regions in terms of content and participation would you be interested in working on? We could seriously use some help with female Olympians if that is an area of under representation you might be interested in improving in terms of systematic bias problems. There are very few articles on female Olympians from Asia and Africa. --LauraHale (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, I am more interested in qualitative rather than quantitative bias issues. These relate to undue weight and lack of world-wide view issues within existing articles, often result from the majority of sources being from for-profit news organisations as indicated at Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The nature of Wikipedia's bias, the importance given to government sources, etc. But as this discussion is drifting ever further away from its initial aim, I suggest we conclude at this point. Perhaps it would cheer you up to know that at WikiProject Architecture good work has been done to counter gender bias by creating and improving articles on women architects, some of the articles being showcased on Portal:Architecture. Thanks for your interest and concerns, and again I apologise if this posting lead to confusions. Wish you happy editing. --ELEKHH^T 06:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Processes that recognise quality content also influence editor motivation to produce quality content. If three short paragraphs about Delaware Route 17 (an American road) are sufficient for broadness, while twice-as-long articles about MINDS (a Singaporean disability organisation) and Xiaxue (a Singaporean celebrity blogger) are not deemed broad, that discourages editors from writing about Singapore-related topics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that your experience? Do you have evidence that people who would otherwise edit articles about under represented groups and geographic areas instead write articles about topics such as USA roads because of systematic bias against those topics at GA? I'm genuinely curious because I write short articles about areas that face systematic bias and do not have the same problems described here and have not been in the least bit discouraged as what goes on with roads is not very relevant to articles about women's sport or people with disabilities. Can you cite additional examples or point to surveys supporting the idea that people are leaving the project because of GAN being easier for USA roads and harder for topics connected to this project? --LauraHale (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Good Faith Effort among Contributors to Communicate

	Good Faith Contributors
	Awarded for Good Faith Communicating Effort among Contributors

}

KSRolph (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Date pages

This has probably been discussed here before, but I notice that the date pages (January 1, January 2, etc.) are absolutely loaded with Yanks and Brits, with very few birth dates and death dates for non-EuroAmerican figures. If these were regular pages, I'd slap them with a globalization tag, but that seems too aggressive to do here.

For example, I just went through the list of Presidents and Prime Ministers of Mali, and not one had been logged into the date pages (though they are now). It seems to a shame to let those hub pages be so Eurocentric when they're meant to sum up the world. I don't know that it's worth investing a lot of effort in fixing all at once, but perhaps the editors here could start making it a point to include birth, death, and event dates on the date pages when writing about non-EuroAmerican topics? That way the problem might start to balance out over time. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A bot could probably resolve that, working against a category of articles like the list of P&PM of Mali which you mention, if not the whole encyclopedia. Try asking for help on WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I might bounce that off some people at the date pages first and see what they think. Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

SB in footballer notability criteria?

I've raised an issue of potential SB on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Bailey (footballer): In short, we consider footballers to be notable if they play for a fully-professional league, but (in the UK at least) men's leagues are, and the equivalent women's leagues are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning behind the notability guidance. Fully professional leagues will have more resources at their disposal and generally have a higher profile (i.e. TV/news coverage), as will their players. Wikipedia selects its content based on WP:GNG, which measures how well-known the subject is, or is likely to be. It's a 'chicken-and-egg' situation - if UK women's football gains a greater following it will attract more sponsorship and funding and be able to take on fully professional status, therefore becoming better known etc. Anecdotally, several of my football obsessed friends went to see the Women's GB football team play, but beforehand they couldn't name a single national player! It has a loyal but relatively tiny following in the UK. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the situation at the moment is far from ideal - we have elite female athletes deemed "non notable" while fourth or fifth rate male footballers get a free pass! The WP:FPL list is controversial because, by admission, some favoured (male) leagues remain there which are not "fully professional" at all. This gets debated every few months but it seems nothing gets done about it. The football project at French Wikipedia has a much less sexist notability guideline [7]. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The notion that playing in one particular league rather than another will automatically make a player notable is symptomatic, I think, of one of the downsides of wikiprojects setting their own notability guidelines. I would encourage the creation of articles on female athletes if they pass the GNG, regardless of whether or not they play in a league shortlisted by a small subset of wikipedians. Unfortunately, past experience with a different sports project makes me concerned that an article on a sportsperson who passes the GNG, but does not meet one of the project's own guidelines, would still get delete votes at an AFD when the project decides to have a spring-clean. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

CSB edit-a-thon @ UMass Amherst

Hi -- One announcement and a question: Announcement: An enterprising Wikipedia reader has initiated an edit-a-thon here @ UMass Amherst; we'll be holding it during Open Access Week at the UMass Du Bois Library, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2012, Eastern time. More info at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/UMassAmherst/1 . The focus will be on underrepresented minorities and women in the arts, culture, science. Question: Have any other CSB-ers done meet-ups / so-fix-its / edit-a-thons, and have templates or other material that we could re-use? Thanks! --Lquilter (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This might serve as a model [8]. I believe User:SarahStierch had a hand in organizing it if you want to ask how it went. Khazar2 (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Tx. --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it, you might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Ada Lovelace Day 2012 Dsp13 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in science

Sarah Stierch (talk) and Keilana|^{Parlez ici} have started a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. If you have any questions, feel free to ask one of us on our talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cambodia's increasing economic prosperity

Hi

CamGSM has neutrality, notability and advertisement issues I'm questioning the validity of.

Neutrality: the sole data potentially perceived as non-neutral is that "CamGSM operates Cambodia’s leading mobile telecommunications network". My dispute's that this is factual information supported by a sourced scientific report on the Telecom, Mobile & Internet elements of Cambodia's economy, and is objective fact not subjective conjecture.

Notability: That the content details what's indisputably the largest commercial contract dealt in Cambodia's history, I think makes the content noteworthy.

Advertisement: I fail to see the advertising, opposed to the historical, nature of the content.

Appreciate any & all feedback,

Thanks

Adding a reply with a date stamp so this will archive. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Third World Traveler: cleanup project

Dear WP:CSB; recently, the site "Third World Traveler" was identified as a potential source of copyright violations, and many citations that included URLs to Third World Traveler were deleted. This left many pages that pertain to the Third World, already a neglected bunch, with fewer citations. To help resolve the resulting issues, I created this page that lists all of the affected articles. Now you can help by checking out a few of these articles and maybe restoring a citation or better yet adding newer/better/fresher citations for some of these claims. Thanks! groupuscule (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Bob for your work on this. I'll try to tackle some of those on your list tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that many of these articles will need a bit of attention, although not limited to repairing/replacing citations, as thirdworldtraveler sometimes seems to have been a source for controversial or fringey topics. Alas, this kind of attention is a lot more labour-intensive than just removing some links.

On another point, I would agree that much of our "third world" coverage is lacking, but not across the board. Relative to other aspects of the "third world", we already have a great deal of coverage of American/NATO intervention in other countries, israel-versus-palestine, controversial CIA activities, the Puerto Rican independence movement, various positions taken by Chomsky &c - the kind of areas where thirdworldtraveler was most cited. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Eve

On Eve (disambiguation) User:Adjwilley made a revert that makes it sound as if Eve is only a Biblical figure. However she is also an Islamic and Baha'i figure. I would appreciate any feedback. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our article Eve starts with "according to the creation myth of Abrahamic religions", and otherwise includes Islamic and Baha'i. Simplest seems to be to use that sentence. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IEG proposal aimed at addressing certain systemic biases in our coverage of philosophy

Hi all - I recently posted a draft of an individual engagement grant proposal aimed at improving the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy through targeted academic outreach. If it's approved, I would be conducting the project along with Alex Madva and Katie Gasdaglis. I think the project has significant potential to go a long way towards addressing Wikipedia's under-representation of our targeted topic areas, and would create a scalable model of educational outreach to underrepresented disciplines that can be used in other fields. (It'd also have some direct effect on our demographic imbalances.)

A lot more details about our proposal are available on the meta page. If you would like to endorse the idea, comment, express concerns, &c, please do so on the page on meta. The public comment period for IEG proposals ends on February 22nd, three days from now. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions (clergy)

WP:Naming conventions (clergy) has been requested to be renamed, see WT:Naming conventions (clergy) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please offer an opinion?

About the Bill of Rights. Thanks. [9] USchick (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is BIAS winning in 2013?

Folks, we need to rekindle the fine spirit that existed a few years ago of wanting to oppose BIAS vigilantly wherever it rears its ugly head, and wanting to keep articles even-handed and free of BIAS.

How could BIAS be winning in 2013? What does it take for BIAS to win? Well, all it takes is for those who are not narrow-minded to stop caring, give up, do nothing, and just let BIASES promote themselves as acceptable. With the current attitude going the direction it is, pretty soon it will become unacceptable to COMPLAIN about bias - and in fact this is already becoming the case. But it doesn't have to be. Sometimes it only takes a spark to accomplish a revolution in peoples' minds. BIAS is something Wikipedia can do without!

Unlike the bias of just a few years ago, which tried harder to disguise itself, the bias of 2013 parades openly. WMF and Jimbo very clearly set NPOV and "neutrality" as the non-negotiable goal posts in the beginning. So, the agents of BIAS have gradually realized this means they must "move the Mountain to Mohammed", i.e. they must now work on trying to redefine the English word "neutrality" until it means exactly what they want it to mean. They try endlessly to delude people that "neutrality" doesn't mean allowing both sides to be told evenly, no, they have spent years writing little paragraphs and rigging the system so that now "neutrality" means only allowing one side of the story to be told - the very antithesis of its actual meaning - and they can triumphantly crow and thump their little paragraphs that they wrote themselves that explain why "BIAS IS NEUTRAL" and nobody can argue.

Almost everything they touch, if it was neutral before, when they leave it reflects only the biases of the editors who do this. It becomes a hack piece telling you who is right, who is wrong, and what you are supposed to think about it. The wikipedia I remember from the past had beautiful articles where you could really learn something about the other guy's point of view - without having it crammed down your throat, along with a pile of smarmy legalese to explain why it has to be crammed down your throat.

I am seeing more and more articles fall by the wayside in this way. Is it because fair-minded people are just giving up? I am seeing more and more articles that gave insight on crucial points of view being deleted by deletionists who don't think you need to know about that, so they have taken it on themselves to regulate what subjects you are allowed to learn about. The resulting lack of coverage is the definition of SYSTEMIC BIAS, and wikipedia is now getting plagued by it. The straw that broke the camels back for me was when I saw this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment This deletion nomination is a pure example of Systemic bias in action. No pretense of neutrality being made here, everyone let's just vote on whether the Serbs deserve to have such an article like everyone else has, and hurry up before too many non-deletionists show up and ruin the fun. This isn't to complain about one case, I have already seen many things of this type, and many "non-favored" ethnic groups being targeted spitefully, and in the discussions, it's like they don't even have to account for promoting BIAS, on the contrary, you are expected to account for and apologize for NOT sharing their biases.

I really don't know what else could be suggested to better combat this trend. The only thing I can think of now is to try to reinvigorate this project, and I propose we rename it to Countering systemic bias noticeboard which is only slightly sexier than "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias". Well I've let off enough steam here, thanks for reading my rant, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm no way experienced enough to suggest a solution. However, a major bias that is beginning to annoy me considerably is 'recentism', towards topics and people that have been covered online in the age of t'internet (i.e. last 10 years). While the average age of Wikipedeans is very low, it will be difficult to convince the majority to get a perspective on the pre-internet era. Sionk (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I adapted my text above for use on my new User Page under construction. Here is another example I saw last week. It may be a minor issue, but I still believe it is a good example of exactly what WP:BIAS talks about regarding 'lack of coverage by omission', etc. As you can see at Talk:Fried fish, I was quickly and easily able to demonstrate with sources, that a certain variety added by an anon IP, known as "Lahori fish" or "Darul maha", is actually a regional style known all across Southern Asia, that happens to be named after Lahore, Pakistan where the recipe originates. However, it was removed anyway, because I was unable to demonstrate that anybody important had ever heard of Lahori fish. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with Indigenous peoples page

Help, please? This page is a mess, and I need a little technical help that will not end up closing off editing entirely. The first paragraph, for example, currently contains the sentence, "Please don't fall for the crap on this page" -- but I cannot even find the phrase while in editing mode, in order to delete it. There are numerous other issues as well -- some technical, some just plain messy from what looks like edit war fallout. The page is going to take a lot of work, and any help is appreciated. Mahalo! --Laualoha 19:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure out what the issue is here, either. I also see the sentence displaying but also don't see it in editable text. I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and at the help desk inquiring. Thanks for raising the issue on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Cluebot had fixed this error but needed a manual purge. I still don't fully understand what happened, but it's resolved now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Systemic bias, lack of coverage of scholarship on oral cultural traditions

There is a new article Moon-eyed people about a legendary people in Cherokee folklore that has received extensive coverage by academic scholars, however none of this is good enough for skeptics who lacking any sources at all backing up their skepticism, now want the article deleted as "non notable". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon-eyed people. I believe if successful this precedent will result in significant systemic bias, resulting from the lack of coverage and lack of ability to cover Native American topics -- because no amount of sources all saying the same thing is too much to be deemed as "suspect" in origin and therefore deletable by these editors. given the general difficulty in faithfully representing oral traditions and cultures in writing resulting in a lack of coverage and systemic bias, this one is quite well attested, yet it is facing the axe due to the unrelenting bias of some. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential systemic bias in Turkey-related content?

It seems that there are way more active Greek editors in Wikipedia. This may result in systemic bias in various Turkey-related content, especially when it comes to bi-lateral issues. We need uninvolved, neutral editors to take a look at issues such as the following:

• 1)Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Requested_move
• 2)Talk:Istanbul#RFC

Cavann (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. In both of these discussions editors of other ethnicities also disagree with you and you are the only one arguing your points despite no one agreeing with you. Now you have resorted to bigoted remarks against Greek editors. Resorting to ethnic-baiting goes two ways unfortunately. You being a Turkish editor should not be editing Turkey-related articles either according to your own logic. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Observe WP:NPA. And note the scope of this project: "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups." Cavann (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And just a few sentences later, "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is "What haven't we covered yet?", rather than "how should we change the existing coverage?"" A better place to post for additional opinions would probably be WikiProject Greece and WikiProject Turkey. As a side note, you should probably make your invitation more neutral to avoid the appearance of canvassing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the issues are about "What haven't we covered yet" to me. And these issues attract few editors, that's why I came here for a wider input. Cavann (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to move "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" to "Turkish intervention in Cyprus", at least, is quite clearly "trying to remedy issues of how material is presented" rather than "what we haven't covered yet". No harm done, but again, I'd think the Greece and Turkey noticeboards would be better spots to request more input. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cavann You have some gall, to call my comments personal attacks when you use your bigoted comments against editors of Greek ethnicity. Is everyone opposing you a Greek? For example an editor reverts your WP:CRYSTAL prediction to the year 2060 from the lead of Turkey. I am sure he is not Greek. Is he part of the systemic bias too? Is everyone opposed to your edits also systemically biased? Perhaps we should all leave Wikipedia and then you can write it free of any bias-that's according to your own bias of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors, Dr.K. I did not say Greek editors should not edit. Cavann (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop insinuating that I commented personally on you. I did not. I have commented on your comments which refer to the ethnicity of other editors and are therefore bigoted by definition. Also in the discussions quoted above you have many editors opposing your edits: Armenians, Italians, Americans, others. Why did you pick specifically on the Greek editors? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus or Byzantine period of Istanbul are bilateral Greek-Turkish issues and -in my opinion- need input from neutral editors. Cavann (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not try to sidestep my question. I asked you why did you pick on the Greek ethnicity as indicative of systemic bias? You are being opposed by multiple editors yet you did not pick on their ethnicity. You only picked on the ethnicity of the Greek editors. What makes non-Greek editors free of systemic bias while the Greek editors are isolated by you as being systemically biased? Is it their ethnicity? Do you judge them based on their ethnicity? Why? Please refrain from using the ethnicity of other editors and concentrate on logic instead of ethnicity in your future endeavours here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So, if the next important question for this board is agreed by everyone to be "What haven't we covered yet?" or "What is being omitted?", Cavann, what then is your answer? And let's all stay neutral and try to discuss this in a detached manner insofar as possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with your expert opinion and Khazar2's as well. Thank you both for your advice. I only came here because I do not like seeing ethnicity-based arguments anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to Istanbul, it's pre-Byzantine history (not sufficiently). When it comes to Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus, it's other perspectives besides the Greek perspective implicit in the title. The latter is also about how matter is presented, but a title has implications about what is being covered. Cavann (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the discussion at the talkpage of the article that everyone, except you, agrees that "Turkish invasion of Cyprus" is the COMMONNAME. This is not the place to ask for more help using ethnicity-based arguments. Exactly the same goes for Istanbul. Judging by the record-number of your RFCs which went nowhere, and your failed DRN attempt this is just another example of forum-shopping. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest people just dedicate a few hours at a time exclusively to testing it out because if you are busy editing and don't want to use it, you will find yourself accidentally clicking on it, cursing and becoming frustrated. It's easy to turn on and off in preferences. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up. These are exciting changes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender bias task force

Further information: WP:GBTF

Hi, I'd like to set up a gender bias task force under the auspicies of CSB at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force. I was advised that the first step is to gain consensus from other CSB members, and to ask who would want to be involved. We currently don't have a body that's dedicated to countering gender bias. WikiProject Feminism is devoted to articles about feminism, and WikiProject Gender Studies is likewise focused on articles within its topic area. The idea here is to create a task force to deal with gender bias in all its forms, wherever it appears on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A number of us participated in the Wikipedia Women's History Month project for 2012 and 2013 (unfortunately I can't find the link to the page on Wikipedia - SarahStierch was centrally involved, I'm sure). Creating a number of "List of women... " articles was very useful in identifying overlooked women in male dominated circles, such as architects and sculptors, for example. I'm not a particpant in CSB project, but will be interested to see how this idea progresses ...to be honest I'm quite surprised there isn't already a gender bias group! Sionk (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to project: Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. I'm also not really involved with CSB but would be interested in this topic. czar · · 01:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support the idea. You certainly wouldn't have a shortage of work to do :) Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As it happens I had one of those days where I remember what a big issue it is; worse if one actually does lose ones temper from time to time and therefore can't claim to be an innocent angel. sigh. I was wondering what the proper response would have been to one comment and didn't want to go on the list and ask; of course if this was a notice or advice type board, it would be more open to public view. But if it at least has a good list of "canned" responses to typical insulting/condescending remarks, it would be helpful for improving womens' confidance in general, both writing and reading them! That at least I could try and help with. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The page could offer advice like that, and a list of problematic pages that would benefit from input. The advantage of a task force that it's open to everyone so people can see what's happening. I think that would counter the feeling we sometimes have on the list that we ought not to recommend certain actions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• it's a good idea - those interested in the particular challenges of gendered/ethnic/sexuality/religion categorization may be interested in this prototype, visible at Category:Singaporean poets which could go a long way to getting rid of gender/ethnic/sexuality -ghettoization in our category system - at least while waiting for full wikidata solution to come about (which may take another year or two). Comments/ideas welcome. I realize there are major issues beyond the cat system, but this one could be fixed without too much trouble...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Having seen the dozens of articles about the media coverage of questionable gender categorization in wikipedia (which I haven't even started reading yet) that definitely would be a whole big project itself! CarolMooreDC🗽 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. I've gone ahead and started creating the page at WP:GBTF. Anyone should feel free to jump in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The following paragraph appears exactly as shown on our main page WP:BIAS, and may be a useful starting point? Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Women are under-represented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of contributors. A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that 8.5% of editors are women. The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors. Research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length. Women typically perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men do.
• I have been trying to crate and categorize articles that fall into Caegory:American women judges. There is still a lot of work, although I do not think our articles on judges intentionally under-represent women. It is more just that historically there were way more men judges, and our judge categories are not all that presentist, and actually due to higher movement between judicial and elected offices in the past, may skew a bit too much away from the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian college

Christian college suffers from bias, being Protestant skewed, and US skewed, can someone help with this? (It claims "North America", but the text of the article is only applicable to the US, so assumes that the US is North America. The title makes no distinction between NorthAmerica and the rest of the world, so is skewed by assuming North America is the world. It says that most are Protestant, and focuses on Protestant ones, but in much of the world, they would be Catholic or Orthodox, so is factually incorrect and skewed to a Protestant-world setting. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers

International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers has been up for deletion (I just found out). All of the articles for individual members have just been added to the list. The arguments for deletion seem based on a typical type of Systemic Bias thinking, that things the nominators and deletionists do not themselves find notable, must therefore be notable to nobody else's culture either and removed from wikipedia, resulting in further exacerbated lack of coverage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there an alternate culture where canvassing, and misrepresenting people who disagree with you, is acceptable? bobrayner (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a neutral notification per WP:CANVASS - feel free to notify, but don't express your judgement when doing so. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Read what the purpose of this project and this board is for. It is for expressing concerns about cases of Systemic Bias resulting in exacerbating the problem of skewed coverage, and lack of coverage in some areas based on the Systemic Bias of editors. That's exactly what I'm doing, and I'm not doing anything wrong by raising this issue here. I would be wrong NOT to raise the issue. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I just took someone to WP:ANI for posting to 10 wikiprojects with nonneutral title and only one person complained, which I found annoying. (Seeing one person get away with it encourages others, of course.) Project pages probably need to remind people of that sort of thing.

Anyway, this does seem like one of the places one actually can discuss problematic deletions according to systemic bias, but perhaps it needs a separate more general discussion section from the AfD announcment. So perhaps strike comments and start separate topic section on ageism and/or anti-indiginous editing or something, including what needs inclusion in this project page. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd suggest *not* really doing that, at least not while the discussion is ongoing - that could lead to questions of collusion. Better to have the discussion at the AFD. Having a discussion post-facto, or a more general discussion, is of course fine. Just MHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit of an edge case, because this board is itself about bias - but you can still inform neutrally. How many other projects did you inform? In any case, if your notification was "There's an AFD, please join and provide your comments", and you put the same message on 4 or 5 other boards (like indigenous people's project, for example), that would have been ok - but above you biased it by saying from the start that the deletionists are wrong and you are right. Look up WP:CANVASS. I'm sympathetic to your POV, but we have to follow the rules here. I'd suggest striking, apologizing, and moving on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This was intended as a general discussion more than a "notification". But the bots that are supposed to notify relevant boards failed in this case. The original AfD was posted on the 30th, but the indigenous topics deletion board didn't get notified by the bot until today after the sub-articles were nominated. The only boards to have been notified of the AfD from the 30th, were California topics, and Organizations topics (by bot). I raised this general discussion here, and I think Carol notified another list after that, but other than here, I haven't mentioned it anywhere else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as systematic bias is concerned: when this article was first come across, it was a typical breathless piece of new age press flackery, sourced entirely from a book of pronouncements from the group which is prefaced by adoring bios of each of the members and buttressed— slightly— by new articles that all appear to be either press releases announcing events, or the occasional guest column from one of the members. It still uses the same sourcing, but because the old version was too baldly credulous and unencyclopedic, it has been brutally beaten back into something that looks like a sober encyclopedia article, albeit with all the sourcing (and therefore notability) issues intact. If there is a systematic bias problem here, it's that (a) the group seems to exist out of a classic "white people have lost touch with the Deeper Truth" new age bias, that (b) the subject makes it very easy to see the problems with the original text and its sourcing, and that (c) there is bad blood between Til and FT/N over his refusal to accept the problems with sources he has pressed upon us. From my personal perspective, the ageism and anti-indigenous accusations are groundless. Indeed, my big personal problem with this council is that I look at the staff of the Center for Sacred Studies and see a lot of smiling very white faces; this council looks like a fringey upper-white co-option of genuinely non-white people to serve the center's very much upper-white ends. But be that as it may, my issue with the article is with the sourcing. The older version of the article was terrible precisely because the major source is also terrible as an encyclopedia source. The newspaper material is not enough to make up for it, especially when all the material originating from the council or its sponsor is excluded. I find it strange that it could go on for six or seven years and and attract essentially no outside response; my impression is of a publicity-hungry group which is not successful in that wise. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The international name, or the American name? (discussion) The article's lead should give you an idea of the naming differences. Useful to get more outside editors involved, Wikiproject Video Games already notified. The highlight of the discussion so far is User:McDoobAU93's arguments that "Mega Drive" is merely Japanese in Roman script, and that these are "English-based words", but not actually English words. - hahnchen 02:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:LAME#Names. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you both think it's amusing. The entire RfC has been a farce of rehashing the same arguments OVER and OVER again, arguments that were settled by consensus nearly two years ago. Yet another anon IP decides they don't like the name, becomes disruptive, gets blocked, IP-hops, launches into an RfC with the same worn-out arguments and no new facts or updated sources, and canvasses potentially sympathetic editors to aid their cause. So how do we deal with the situation? We ridicule an editor who brings up a novel point (no more supportable than the entire RfC, but novel) for amusement. Thanks. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitresses! --McDoobAU93 03:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Since video games get massively disproportionate attention on en.wiki compared to other realms of human endeavour, I'm skeptical that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is the best place for this. There are plenty of other pages where this could be discussed with other affluent young male anglophone technophiles - who only represent a tiny proportion of the world's population but are massively overrepresented in our content. bobrayner (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know it's poor form to comment on an archived discussion - but the reason this was posted here, was to get input from those outside of the "affluent young male anglophone technophiles" bubble. - hahnchen 00:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. Djembayz (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

arienggo.com

https://ww38.arienggo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arienggo (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Crown copyright" licensing on Wikipedia

See Category:Crown copyright files and Template talk:Non-free_Crown_copyright concerning renaming. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Beatrice Kozera for deletion

Beatrice Kozera was the Mexican farmworker girlfriend who inspired one of Jack Kerouac's characters, and the subject of a film and an upcoming fictional biography. Djembayz (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Help requested at Myriad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's been a bit of a fracas over at myriad. Long story short, I could use some help from people Til doesn't assume are fire-breathing, Eurocentric bigots that:

(a) He needs to assume good faith of his fellow contributors. BRD involves responding to the points being made and the policies discussed, not falling in on ad homs and personal threats (all the moreso when confronted with Wikipedia policies he is forgetting.)

(b) Requiring reliable sources for information on Wikipedia is not a conspiracy of bias and bad faith, but a necessity. Systemic bias specifically means that we can't assume our average editor has a knowledge of, e.g., Urdu or Telagu and it may be necessary to source them in articles unlikely to draw the attention of native speakers. Fighting systemic bias doesn't mean failing to check our info; and failing to check our info is not a "win" for fighting bias.

(c) Wikipedia is not all things and, specifically, it is not a dictionary. Laundry lists of translations belong on the left side as interwiki links and at wiktionary, not in the encyclopedia articles. That has nothing to do with systemic bias but with the simple project of running an encyclopedia. People who support that idea are not bigots but simply rational about what encyclopedia articles are and aren't.

I've been over it (looks like for several hours now) and don't seem to have made any headway, but maybe one of you guys can have better luck. Regarding his specific issues with myriad, there was a laundry list of translations of the word. Like I've told him since he started reverting, (1) there's no info being lost, since I ported everything over to wiktionary; (2) the list definitely needs sourcing if it's going to stay here, esp. since wiktionary suggests that several of the entries are wrong or misspelled; and (3) it could really use more detail and needs to stay on topic. The treatment of "myriad" in Europe is obviously on topic; East Asia's "万" is closely connected, often translated as myriad, and well-sourced; but none of the other translations can say the same thing. They need someone to give them some sourced cultural background and connection to the article's topic, even if only via common translation.

Til has been busy yelling at me but, if someone interested in including the content could address those concerns, that'd be great. I'd like to see a longer, more inclusive, and accurate article, too. — LlywelynII 15:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoah there tiger. Please read WP:CANVASS, I'm going to administer a trout for that massive violation. If you ask for help, please do so neutrally, and you can lay out your concerns there - but the above just screams "non-neutral notification".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "User:Til Eulenspiegel" is not an acceptable subject header for this CSB board. Welcome to the CSB board. The systemic bias, as I tried to explain to our friend here, involves the EXCLUSION of valid information by the biased parties. He is excluding information on foreign language equivalents for the word "myriad" because he said he finds them "too obscure". He apparently doesn't find the Chinese equivalent "too obscure" and has a whole section dedicated to it, but the Hebrew, Albanian, Mongolian, Telugu, Afrikaans equivalents - well, Llywllyn doesn't know so much about them, so he edit wars to remove them because to him these languages are "too obscure" and require PROOF that they really are what they say they are. Does anyone see the SYSTEMIC BIAS here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• By the way it is quite normal for articles on "terms" to have sections giving the equivalent in other languages that have that same concept, and I intend to replace it, because that's exactly the sort of information I look for in an article when I use wikipedia. Two examples that come to mind are Tomato and Pomegranate. Now we have someone who finds it "obscure", so he doesn't want YOU to see it there, either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing-from-Wikipedia script

I just wrote a script that takes a file of pagenames, finds out which names do NOT have Wikipedia entries, and then spits out that resultant set to a file. It's optimized for people's names right now. Feel free to use it and to let me know what other features/improvements you want, although I cannot make promises. Sumana Harihareswara 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(I suspect that this duplicates existing functionality someone has already written! But it was fun to write. Sumana Harihareswara 13:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC))

There are no East-European Roma

Consensus has been reached on Talk:Roma (Romani subgroup) that East-European Roma do not exist and therefore there should not be an article about them. I realize I will probably be accused of canvassing and "whacked with a trout" for posting this here. But I actually realize that the decision has been made and there is nothing to do about it at this point. I'm asking for advice about how to deal with similar situations in the future. (I tried asking for advice at Teahouse as well, but got no response.) Namnagar (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest

There is a move discussion at Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Suggested_move about renaming the article to include the name men in the title to better reflect WP:NPOV and WP:V. This may be of interest to some participants. --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming conflict: Australia national association football team

Due to no consensus on the previous discussion, there is a second discussion open here: Talk:Australia national association football team#Suggested move discussion #2. Any contributions are much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cunt

I'm not sure there's much you gals can do, but the page is currently suffering from a profound case of WP:BIAS, imposing the American term's vulgarity on the rest of the world. (Not that it's 'clean' or something you'd call your mum, mind, but it's hardly "...widely considered to be extremely vulgar" outside of the States.) That point, btw, is cited to an editor at Wiktionary.

There are genuine citations, which is what will make this a slog for you to fix. They've got one by "Scholar Germaine Greer" who said "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock". I'm sure that is something this person said and that it's true among women in the US. Putting it into the lead of this article and waiting halfway through the page to get to "...caveat...qualifier...the word has an informal use, even being used as a term of endearment" is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. The later is its normal sense for wide swaths of the English-speaking world.

Anyway, something to keep an eye on. — LlywelynII 10:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of citations in the article testifying that it is extremely vulgar, including the UK's Guardian newspaper. I'd be interested to see your proof that it isn't! Sionk (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And the article also acknowledges the "positive" meanings in the second para. I can't see a big problem here. Germaine Greer is an Australian who has mostly worked in Britain, by the way. Barnabypage (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Native American languages with mobile apps

Category:Native American languages with mobile apps has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Djembayz (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty comments on African Americans ignored

I'm sure they were a reason for the firing and some, including CNN's Don Lemon has commented on that, but it seems to be another article where it's not considered a big deal. Just in case someone wants to deal with before I get around to it. Duck_Dynasty#Phil_Robertson.27s_GQ_Interview Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBigotry

Based on recent experiences and my impressions of this project, I was inspired to write this essay. Your comments (good, bad, or indifferent) are welcomed. I will admit to borrowing some passages (in support of this project), but substantial portions are mine. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good job, I can endorse that! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to add something like "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified" I have seen that on some other comparable essays Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Excellent idea, disclaimers never hurt. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to systemic bias (mentioned in the above linked essay), I see it more as a WP:Due weight matter...which is a part of WP:Neutral. Too many editors forget (and too many don't know) that with regard to sourcing a topic, Wikipedia gives priority to the majority (how a topic is generally reported in WP:Reliable sources). But I suppose one can state that the sources are an aspect of systemic bias. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your observation. My example of source based "WikiB" refers to how the source is used, abused, or if its diligently avoided or bashed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page about bigotry against people with certain ideas and against women, leading to the gendergap in Wikipedia. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference given to a reference that doesn't apparently exist

In the second paragraph of the lead, a reference is given to <ref name="Simonite-2013" />. However, there appears to be no such reference name within the page, and no link or other bibliographic information is given for this essay. I mention this as I was interested in reading the essay, only to find that the reference contains no actual reference information. Can someone update this by providing a proper reference, or a link to the essay instead of the reference? Or, if I'm completely blind and somehow missed it (entirely possible), please point it out to me? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Representations of Latinos in media ?

The comment below is reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latinos. Djembayz (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a great idea, something we're really missing (unless there is such an article I'm just overlooking) but the submitter has written more an essay than an article. If anyone is willing to drop in and help him out, it'd be great to get this article up and running rather than let it fall due to a novice writer's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I would like to invite members of this group to this discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Plymouth"

The usage of Plymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling African history wikipedians

Dear all,

I have recently come across what I believe to be the worst, high-importance article in WP:Africa - the History of Liberia. Not only is it badly sourced, but much of the prose is extremely poor and it does not cover the topics it should. I have hacked away at the section on the period 1847-1980, but that it where my sources and expertise run out. The rest is pretty much as-was. Can everyone have a look and see if they can do anything to improve it? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Anthropic Bias}}

Template:Anthropic Bias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; this appears to be for discussion and not articles? -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a completely different use of the word 'bias', isn't it? Sionk (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on whether countering bias based on being human versus non-human is something needing countering. (ie. the current discussion occurring at talk:overpopulation (biology) is a human v non-human bias consideration) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This Wikiproject is concerned with human (i.e. Wikipedia editors) bias. No non-humans or inanimate objects edit Wikipedia, as far as I'm aware. Sionk (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but that does lead to bias, as is a "femur" a bone in animals, or a specific human anatomy article on the human version? And should articles be structured to present the general form first, before delving in depth into human forms, or should human forms, where much more information is present, become subarticles of a more generalized form? And other such issues dealing with a human-first world view versus a human-agnostic world view. (The Earth is the only world for humans, but the Universe is not centered on Earth. Thus the scientific debate with geocentric views of the universe and bias resulting from such.) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This topic was discussed in a WP:RfC at WP:Anatomy; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 5, though, as that Close discussion shows, I'm not in complete agreement with that close. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Misnomer "St. Patty's Day" in article infobox

As this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia... Could use some more eyes on this: Talk:Saint Patrick's Day#St. Patty's Day. - CorbieV^☊ 16:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurse scheduling problem

Can somebody that a look at this debate, and add some input? Bearian (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

James Arthur Ray

Could use more eyes on James Arthur Ray. I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV^☊ 19:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we a "no action, talk only" WikiProject?

When this WikiProject was featured in the SignPost, my answers to the interview questions included the following:

Reading the WikiProject talk page may give the impression that this WikiProject is a NATO (Singlish for "no action, talk only") that only exists for people to rant. That the explanation of systemic bias was moved to a subpage makes the main WikiProject page far less helpful. Of course, we want more editors to get involved in countering systemic bias, but the WikiProject already has four hundred members. To me, the most urgent need is meaningful communication between the four hundred members, to set concrete directions and goals that can be worked towards.

Collaboration is needed to coordinate efforts to counter systemic bias, but there is hardly any. Other WikiProjects should conduct CSB drives. For example, WikiProject Film could compile a list of 100 historically significant movies from Asian countries, or WikiProject Schools could identify 50 highly notable special education schools, then aim to bring at least 10 of their articles to GA status within a year.

Perhaps you should ask, and we should discuss, which policies are more prone to systemic bias. One obvious example is the policy against open proxies, which hinders editors living in countries where such proxies are needed to circumvent government censorship. That the policy on the use of sources in languages other than English is also unclear may lead to uneven notability guidelines and unfair deletions. In addition, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored has been interpreted in a manner that deters participation by editors from more conservative Asian cultures. Policy pages should also be rewritten to be more understandable by contributors for whom English is a second language.

I hope that members of this WikiProject would act on the above feedback. --Hildanknight (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Start with Admins. I had to point this out to an admin:

"Seriously? You took part in a discussion here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. Did you happen to notice the irony of condoning "Branding individuals as bigots" on a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard?" USchick (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC) --USchick (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this discussion [10] USchick (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One question which I feel this project should wrestle with is how far should it go. Is it enough to identify problematic articles/policies, or should it go further and suggest recommendations, or even further and become a major player when issues arise? My personal feeling is that as a start, it would be nice if the project could formulate a checklist where editors could do a self-check to examine whether their (or others') points of view might contain bias. Other ideas? -- kosboot (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we start by cleaning up the key pages of our WikiProject. As mentioned above, moving the explanation of systemic bias to a subpage made the main WikiProject page much less helpful. Some key subpages are horrendously outdated. With our policy against open proxies colluding with the Great Firewall of China, I highly doubt that Wikipedia covers East Asian topics better than Latin American topics. The idea of a checklist to examine views for bias is an excellent one and could be included in the cleanup of key WikiProject pages.

In the long run, I would like our WikiProject to make policy recommendations and coordinate article writing drives. For that to happen, we need to foster meaningful communication and collaboration between our members. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If nobody objects within a few days, I will readd a summary of the explanation of systemic bias to the main WikiProject page. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also intend to create two pages for developing the proposed article writing drives and policy reviews. Should I place them in my user space, as subpages of this WikiProject or as regular Wikipedia space pages? --Hildanknight (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All Action No Talk?

Contradicting my own point: The editors who are taking action are not in discussion here ... they are out stopping systemic bias. On Saturday you will see only females mentioned on the main page Did You Know section. All the way through March you will find that there are slightly more females than usual for Women's History Month. I'm off to do some more editing .... could you help those who are taking action? Talk to me or @Rosiestep, @Ipigott or @Mandarax and others. If you dont have time then at least have a look on Saturday and this month and hand out some barnstars. Someone could give a barnstar to every female based hook on the main page this month??? Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Well done and keep up the excellent work! I am also out there, writing Singapore-related good articles and polishing potential Singapore-related GAs written by others. In fact, I believe editors from the Lion City have done an excellent job of countering systemic bias against our little red dot and in future, may share about how we do so. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hildanknight, please forgive my ignorance but is Singapore actually badly covered? Compared to its neighbours for instance? Brigade Piron (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Singapore is certainly better covered than other countries in the Malay Archipelago and the rest of Southeast Asia, but badly covered when compared to Western countries where English is the dominant language. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Hildanknight "Little dots" are a good way of spreading the good news. When the volunteers wrote 1,000 new articles about everything? notable near Gibraltar they also did the nearby "red dot" of Ceuta, the north coast of Africa and the southern tip of Spain. IN the same way WMAU's Freopedia has spread to two nearby towns. Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Just to clarify, "little red dot" is a nickname for Singapore. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hilda - the vidence of the hundreds of articles this month is here Victuallers (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: You deserve a hundred barnstars! I hope effort has been made to include Chinese, Indian, Muslim and African women (in short, women from all over the world, not just the Anglosphere). --Hildanknight (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh there are quite a few of us, but thank you. You will see lots of unusual countries - I use this list but there are lots of international dancers. If you are familar with DYK then have a go at approving some hooks or maybe someone reading this will dish out some barnstars to the main editors. Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)