Countering Systemic Bias

Your source for

WikiProject News

• The Guild of Copy Editors March Backlog Drive begins next week. Be sure to sign up, have fun, and earn a barnstar. All are welcome.
• As the 2014 Winter Olympics near the end, WikiProject Olympics has plenty of work that could use your help
• The Tyop Contest is underway, but you can still join and eliminate spelling and grammatical errors on Wikipedia

Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

When we invited WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias to an interview, nine passionate Wikipedians answered our call and offered greater insight than our admittedly inadequate questions would have prompted. WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias aims to combat imbalanced coverage while encouraging neglected cultural perspectives and points of view, both in articles and in the larger Wikipedia community. As you'll see from the varied experiences and motivations of our nine respondents, the biases that the folks at WP CSB tackle run the full gamut of human characteristics and dispositions. The interview that follows unveils many of Wikipedia's greatest shortcomings, and we're glad to be guided through it all by Johnny Au, Kosboot, Uyvsdi, Figureskatingfan, Carptrash, Hildanknight, Sionk, Groupuscule, and Djembayz.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias? What forms of bias do you encounter most often in Wikipedia's articles and community?

Johnny Au: There are many Wikipedia articles that read as if only one country exists (most often, the United States). I was motivated to add in examples from other countries.

Kosboot: I admire Sue Gardner greatly. For some years she has been talking about the lack of women and underrepresented editors and how the lack of their voices are limiting Wikipedia and threatens its long-term acceptance. This has begun to intersect with my work as a librarian as I see that more people are talking about how only certain people whose records are preserved create the image of history. Because I wanted to counteract that tendency and wanted to make "other" voices heard, I joined the group.

Uyvsdi: I come across Native American editors all the time; usually editing their own articles ;) or updating information about their tribes. I usually offer a welcome message. Native friends have requested that I work on certain articles, and I've helped friends from other tribes get their images uploaded to WikiMedia Commons.

Figureskatingfan: Ever since I started editing Wikipedia in 2007, I found myself drawn to articles that paralleled my interests, and found that they were severely under-served and were about topics that were seriously underrepresented. I found, for example, that articles about Maya Angelou were either in major disarray or were non-existent, and took it upon myself to do something about it. Shortly after bringing the article about Angelou's first autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, to FA, I discovered the project and began to learn about the gender gap here. Seven years later, six out of seven of Angelou's autobiographies are FAs, as is her bio article. I'm proud of this accomplishment, and for the small part I've played in countering the bias that caused the situation in the first place.

Carptrash: I believe that Wikipedia is largely edited by white, educated males, so perspectives from that group abound. I notice them when editing gender related articles, which I don't do so much anymore after being banned for (among things) suggesting that editors who were red linked were probably communists. Art articles frequently suffer from a male, western dominated POV too.

Hildanknight: I chanced upon the CSB WikiProject a few months into my editing career and, being from Singapore (often described as a microcosm of Asia), I realised I had found my calling. Naturally, geographical bias on Wikipedia is my main concern, having noticed that coverage of Asian (especially Chinese and Muslim) topics is full of glaring omissions and many articles are even slanted negatively.

Sionk: I've stumbled across various initiatives of SarahStierch which have concurred with my own interests, for example I created the List of female architects as part of Womens History Month, and joined WikiProject Women artists because I find myself creating and improving several articles in this area. I guess I consider myself older and wiser, with a broader world view than the typical young male US-centric demographic.

Groupuscule: "Countering Systemic Bias" is a life mission—and necessary for anyone seeking truth in this world. Wikipedia's biases reflect those of its male, Western, computer-literate, academically-trained user base. These biases are reinforced by a somewhat elitist atmosphere which tends to be dismissive of alternative viewpoints. Contrast the vehement labelling of Ayurvedic medicine as a "pseudoscience" (also see "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and "Wikipedia:Fringe theories") with the praise for string theory ("many theoretical physicists believe ... a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature"). The accumulated wisdom of generations versus today's hot topic; centuries of evidence versus virtually none; yet the former is policed and the latter extolled.

Are some topics more prone to systemic bias? What can be done to reduce the impact of systemic bias in Wikipedia's articles?

Johnny Au: They generally vary. Often, general articles that have place-specific examples are prone to systemic bias. Adding in examples from other countries helps reduces the impact of systemic bias.

Kosboot: With all due respect, the question itself is an example of systemic bias because it makes the assumption that it's only articles that are in need of revision. Articles in the press about editing conflicts in Wikipedia have described such discussions as typical of the aggressive tactics that one finds in male-oriented sports. The way Wikipedians debate hot topics is one example where, frequently, those that are the most loudest get their way. From the very first day I became an editor (in 2006), I have always felt that Wikipedians take an excessively aggressive stance to what constitutes notability--the process itself shuts out underrepresented voices. Many Wikipedians are not willing to accept that notability might be defined in ways other than reference books and world-famous newspapers. But to accept the voice of other cultures (particularly Native Americans in the United States), one has to accept non-standard sources for notability. So it's not just individual (or a mass of) articles but the way in which many aspects of Wikipedia is conceived and executed inherently contain systemic bias.

Carptrash: Identify it (bias) and deal with it. Although the talk pages can be very contentious on occasion, mostly they work very well in allowing editors to sort stuff out. The chance to do that is one of the wonders of Wikipedia. I favor making editors register in order to edit because I feel that even in a very small way this makes them more accountable.

Sionk: There's a strong (and deeply annoying) tendency towards recentism, reporting minutiae about the latest pop celebrity or album, or sports results. I often come across an American bias, for example an underlying "He's American so he must be notable" default reaction in AfD discussions. How to reduce this, well, maybe it's impossible on an English laguage Wikipedia dominated by American male editors. Wikipedia seems to lurch from one reactive initiative to the next, for example when the ghettoization of women authors was raised in the national press.

Hildanknight: 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.

Figureskatingfan: As editors, we tend to edit articles about topics that interest us. I'm a woman, so I tend to be attracted to articles that are female-oriented: women authors, children's television and music. There are a preponderance of articles about sports, games, and military history on WP because there are more men that edit articles than women. The solution, for me, is to recruit more women to edit, because they'll naturally be drawn to more female-oriented articles. I also think we need to retain the women editors we already have. How to do that? I have no idea, and am glad that smarter people than me are trying to figure that out. In the meantime, if you're a woman editor, work on articles that interest you, have fun with them, and you'll automatically help solve the bias and gender gap problem.

What steps can editors take to reduce the influence of their own biases when creating new articles or expanding existing ones?

Johnny Au: Learn about the perspectives of other countries. Tell those who live in countries not represented to add them in.

Djembayz: There is a saying, "Nothing about us, without us." Adding perspectives, cites, and direct links to materials published by underrepresented groups enables Wikipedia readers to locate authentic information.

You may be surprised how much immigrants who live near you have to say about Wikipedia. Try asking them about coverage of their hometown, and what needs to be improved.

Kosboot: You have to continuously listen to opposing or differing views particularly those you may not agree with. Even though you think you may be an expert, you have to hear what other people say and think about how their point of view makes a contribution. Outside of purely editing, one should find ways to engage people from underrepresented groups so that they can contribute.

Groupuscule: Cosigning on all of the above... Listen! Ask for help! Go to the source. And try to always push your boundaries: think, wait a minute, does this topic apply outside of the traditional realm(s) that first occur to me?

Have you ever needed to discuss systemic bias with an editor who contributed in an unhelpful or disruptive way? What is the best way to approach these editors and help them become a productive part of the Wikipedia community?

Johnny Au: No. I often tell them about being in another person's shoes.

Kosboot: With the exception of a few issues about which I feel passionate, I generally try to avoid fights. I often find that even though I feel I have the better point of view, it is overruled in favor of other choices. The option of being in the other person's shoes (as Johnny Au says) is a beginning, but if often requires a lot more: finding the right kind of language where the other person will listen to you, or finding issues that the other person will accept. Needless to say, it is very exhausting procedure and I see many people abandon discussions rather than try to have their voices and points of view heard.

Carptrash: I must confess that this is a weak area in my editing skills, particularly when I feel another editor is pushing an agenda rather then, say, "wrong" facts.

Djembayz: Yes, and I find I need to avoid the temptation to read too much into things. For example, the statement "Turn the red links on the Gender Gap red list blue!" is not a US political campaign slogan. WP:AGF means accepting that awkwardness and misunderstandings are part of the process.

Sionk: I've recently come across bitter arguments about bias in sports articles, for example. I've tried to find a practical way to move the discussion forward. These discussions seem to quickly resort to personal name-calling, quite probably out of frustration and cynicism. There's nowhere I know of that can mediate in these type of disputes, because Wikipedia, its projects and arbitrators seem to have biases of their own.

Hildanknight: To me, a far greater challenge is dealing with established editors in good standing who are not aware of, or even refuse to acknowledge, the problem of systemic bias or their own biases. For example, editors who nominate many articles about poorly represented topics for deletion, when a quick search for sources (in the right languages) would have revealed obvious notability. Having realised there is little point in arguing with such editors, I now stick to working in my little corner.

Groupuscule: **Sigh** Talk:White privilege

Does WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias collaborate with any other projects? What can other WikiProjects do to combat systemic bias?

Johnny Au: Not much. Other WikiProjects can chip in and add in more prespectives.

Djembayz: One of our functions is being a central message board for all the other WikiProjects working to counter systemic bias. Sometimes these projects don't have enough visitors to respond quickly when an article is proposed for deletion, or to other concerns, such as editor conduct. This is when posting a notice at the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias talk page can help locate interested editors.

Many of us work in other WikiProjects that create content about under-represented groups or topics, and check in with WP:CSB from time to time.

Hildanknight: Collaboration is needed to coordinate efforts to counter systemic bias, but there is hardly any. Other WikiProjects should conduct CSB drives. For example, WikiProject Films 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.

What are the most urgent needs of WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias?

Johnny Au: There needs to be more members, including those who update the open tasks there (often, I was the only one updating the open tasks for a few years), as well as more awareness of systemic bias. A new member can help by adding in a perspective from another country.

Djembayz: Yes, more members!

We need more coordination with the Wikipedia Education Program to work through our list of open tasks and improve some of these items.

We need a way to prioritize articles important for countering systematic bias for editors with language and translation skills.

Kosboot: More members, yes. My wish would be a 6th pillar to Wikipedia's WP:FIVE, so that everyone would be aware of the tendency to create systemic bias. Awareness would be the first step to fixing it.

Sionk: It is such a widespread and general problem/topic as to appear insummountable to people. Creating specific initiatives (such as WikiProject Women artists for example) is a tangible way to move things forward. Are these related initiatives coordinated in any way?

Hildanknight: 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.

How can a new member help today?

Djembayz: Make some improvements on an article about a country you do not live in. Find some reliable information from another language Wikipedia, or from another country, that you can add to an article written in your own language. If you can contribute to the non-English Wikipedias using non-English language sources, this is a great way to improve balance, because these articles can be translated into other languages.

Contributing to articles about women improves balance. If you want something easy, go for talk page assessment of women's biographies. For something more challenging, try adding infoboxes to women's biographies.

Pick a WikiProject about an unfamiliar nationality or ethnic group, and assess a few biographies. You don't need specialized knowledge to assess a biography as Stub, Start, or C Class.

One of the best ways to counter systemic bias is to pitch in at a WikiProject that works on an under-represented topic or group. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists are three of my favorites.

Uyvsdi: And Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Articles pertaining to Indigenous peoples south of the US border a woefully inadequate (with the exception of precontact Mesoamerican articles). My Spanish is subpar but it's easy to glean information from the Spanish-language and Portuguese-language Wikipedias using Google Translate.

Djembayz: If you live near a public library with a copy of Encyclopedia Africana, stop by and use it to write an article.

Kosboot: There are so many biographical articles about men where we know that their wives were just as important a contribution to their work. An easy beginning task would be to amplify (perhaps eventually forking) such articles. Writing articles on those neglected is one way to begin sensitizing oneself to systemic bias. The United States has a huge population of Latin-American people: How come there are not more of them on Wikipedia? What can we do as a community to engage them? Answering those questions should keep everyone busy for a few years. ;)

Djembayz: Getting Representations of Latinos in media out of Articles for Creation would be a good start!

Johnny Au: Here is the open tasks: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks. One person cannot eliminate systemic bias on Wikipedia. One person cannot update an entire list. It is best to help.

Figureskatingfan: If you're a woman editor, edit articles about topics that interest you, even if they're not female-oriented, because you'll bring a much-needed different perspective. And stand up for yourself if you feel slighted because of your gender; never back down.

Next week, we'll fire some of your neurons. Until then, travel the synaptic highway in the archive.

← Previous "WikiProject report"

Next "WikiProject report" →

In this issue

19 February 2014 (all comments)

News and notes

Technology report

WikiProject report

Featured content

Traffic report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Very interesting report Mabeenot. --Pine^✉ 07:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting project. Is it also the planning to do something about the systematic bias described as "US-Centrisme"? Too many people expect that everybody knows and wants to know everything about the USA, expecting that you know that Place A in County B is located in State C, USA. And other think that all schools in the USA are automatically notable as they consider that even when you can not find any sources, it is not that there are no (online) sources but that you just did not search hard enough... The Banner talk 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course the point that people expect you to know that "football" is nor soccer nor association football nor Gaelic football but American football that also can be named Canadian football. As I just discovered at Cal State Fullerton Titans... The Banner talk 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Systemic bias will only be completely eradicated when we are all the same. We are all different and have different perspectives, and we write and edit from those POVs, whether we are victims or perpetrators. The project tools that we use to try to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic are WP:NPOV and this truly awesome project. While we all should strive for less bias and more neutrality, at the same time we should also keep a positive outlook and celebrate the "spicy" concept of "Viva la difference!" – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The comments section on this recent article about the differences between the Wikipedias in various languages suggests that some aspects of "self-focus bias" may not necessarily be a bad thing: "Wikipedia's Secret Multilingual Workforce". MIT Technology Review. 2013-12-13. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Djembayz (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am concerned with the notion I'm reading from these interviews that somehow our policies hinder the study of women and minorities. I don't see any real evidence of that and I would caution the community about this claim that "Western sourcing standards" are an unreasonable expectation. Out of curiosity I took a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Representations of Latinos in media. It hasn't been accepted for good reason. I see that a more-experienced editor has taken the task on and perhaps can fix the most glaring errors. It's that combination of enthusiasm with a general lack of scholasticism that is dangerous for the project and must be rejected. (disclaimer: I am one of those educated white males that we hear from too often online.) Chris Troutman (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more redlink ... Whiter Shades of Pale ... ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}  :) Diversity has something for everyone. Djembayz (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, articles need to be based on reliable sources. What makes sources reliable may be different in other cultures, especially those lacking a Western academic tradition. Reliable sources that are not as accessible or not in English may be unfairly disregarded in favour of accessible English sources that are not as reliable or comprehensive. Moreover, specific notability guidelines (such as for sports or companies) may fail to consider poorly represented subtopics (such as female/disability sports or Chinese/Indian businesses). Hope you found this clarification useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't find that clarification useful and I wouldn't even call your statement a clarification. As a history major I've studied Africa and I've learned the importance of documenting African history through African voices. While accounts from European and Arab explorers are both fascinating and useful, the concept that the African people had no history helped encourage slavery. Our concepts of notability and reliability are not, however, culturally constructed rationalizations of privilege.

Wikipedia as a tertiary source needs to stay firmly grounded to academic secondary publications; hopefully ones that leverage previously ignored ethno-linguistics and material culture in order to better understand what actually happened. My dislike of subaltern studies stems from this enthusiasm from some to rewrite narratives to cater to specific ethno-political audiences. I think misunderstood populations deserve real academic rigor, not pandering screed.

If your accusation is that our notability or non-English sources guidelines need re-tooling then please provide specific examples. The discussion that I'm seeing reads like hinted indictments of the majority of historical literature from the hetero-normative imperialist bourgeoisie. Bias towards non-white, non-male, peasants is still bias. I hope that WikiProject Systemic Bias values provable fact over ahistorical feel-good "anybody but white men" propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we interpret the term "Western sourcing standards" differently. We both agree that minority groups should be documented through their own voices. If some indigenous communities have longstanding oral traditions which they deem the most reliable reporting of their history and culture, to what extent should we respect that? Then there are cultures with established academia that are very different from Western ones. For example, Islamic scholarship has its own methods of evaluating how reliable sources are, especially for Islamic theology. Can Wikipedians trying to determine whether a hadith is notable or researching on Middle Eastern history afford to ignore these methods?

For some sports, a player is deemed notable if he has played in a fully professional league. Hence a male English footballer who makes a couple of appearances in League Two is deemed notable, but a female English footballer who makes hundreds of FA WSL appearances is not. There is also a consensus that high schools are generally notable and middle schools usually are not. Then what is the Chinese equivalent of a high school and middle school? What about cram schools, which are common in many Asian countries?

Some policies that are not directly related to content may also hinder minority groups from contributing to Wikipedia. Blocking open proxies causes massive collateral damage in countries (especially China) where they are needed to bypass government censorship. In the past, refusal to censor Wikipedia was taken to extremes and our policy on offensive material had to be clarified to stop such behaviour, which alienated readers and editors from more conversative cultures.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildanknight: Ok, now I can understand what you're looking at. Taking the last part first, I support blocking all IPs from editing, as I'm far more concerned with policing editor behavior than I am hearing from the oppressed people living under a communist regime. It's a wider political problem not a scholastic problem.

In situations like the FA WSL league or cram schools, I can only assume notability criteria have been selected with reason. If our systemic bias led us to inadvertently slant our coverage then perhaps we should have new RfC's on those notability requirements. However, I question why Wikipedia should think any primary or secondary school is notable at all. It smacks of regional inclusionism, not academic study. I'm currently a student at Loyola Marymount University and I see no reason why there needs to be an article about it, either. Readers might be curious about Harvard or Yale because they've attracted study and so many politicians and academics graduated from them. Just because students go there doesn't make it notable.

Oral traditions and Hadith are primary sources and Wikipedia shouldn't be relying on them. I don't know if you would consider this a "western" concept, but a tertiary source has to take cues from academia. If scholars write secondary analyses of oral traditions then Wikipedians can cite those journal articles. Just recently, I replaced a self-published website that clearly fails WP:RS with two published anthologies of the same material. WP:RS helps protect our project from trusting random websites, even if it's in the guise of discussing Buddhist mythology in an English-language context. I want the "western" audience to know about these myths surrounding a future Buddha but that study has to be done responsibly. We cannot weaken our standards to include material outside Wikipedia's mainstream and I contend that we don't have to. Proper sourcing is just a little more work; it's not a biased policy. Thank you for providing specification, though, as this subject deserves real discussion and I'm happy to drill down on what I either support or oppose. I've served as a campus ambassador in our Education Program precisely because I'd like to bring the college audience with their access to academic sources and methods to Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I believe your initial comment was in response to the notion that "to accept the voice of other cultures...one has to accept non-standard sources for notability". @Kosboot: Could you clarify the notion and offer further input on this discussion?

@Hildanknight: My comment grew out of a online discussion (not in WP:CSB) in which people were arguing that for some populations a record of their history is not captured through words, but through oral history. A lot of Native American history was told through oral history and this is true for other cultures in Europe and Africa. I recognize that WP depends on the published words, but I also think that it's possible to incorporate information that comes down in non-traditional ways. -- kosboot (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that we need not hear "from the oppressed people living under a communist regime" is deeply troubling. The population of China is greater than the population of the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand combined. I hope you realise the historical and global significance of Chinese culture. Our terrible coverage of Chinese topics calls can only be addressed by an influx of Chinese voices. As an overseas Chinese, I can read Chinese-language sources, but cannot access offline publications by universities in China.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildanknight and Kosboot: I support inclusion of other topics from outside the anglophone world, including the PRC. The claim that our criteria should change because Mandarin- or Cantonese-language websites are easier to get to than academic publications is exactly the problem. As a history major, I assert that the quality of sources (even if only available centuries after the fact) make better study than use of unreliable sources in the here and now. What you're attempting to do isn't history, it's journalism. An encyclopedia cannot be cobbled together like so much sensationalism from TMZ. If you want to include Native-American voices then find academic work to back that up. You can't use a self-published website and then claim WikiProject Systemic Bias needs that source in order to "fight the man." Sometimes finding reliable sources is going to require stepping away from your keyboard and going to the library. I won't be sold on taking the easier, sloppy path to questionable output over taking the well-established path of empirical study. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I definitely agree that we should not cite random websites. My argument is that Wikipedia needs editors from mainland China because they would have easier access to the most reliable sources on Chinese topics, such as offline publications by universities in China. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a great report -- and so many participants, all with a different slant. Great job, in my humble opinion. There is only one demographic minority I can think of that has not been mentioned: older people. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more generally, people of any age subsisting on fixed incomes due to disability. I have been trying to help make our popular economics articles more consistent with what the peer-reviewed literature reviews say about social safety nets and progressive tax but it has been a hard slog. EllenCT (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic Income and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability deserve a mention. Djembayz (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point EllenCT. Also I think I have not seen mention of LGBT? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because LGBT topics are, on the whole, pretty well represented on Wikipedia (compared to other 'minority issues', at least). WikiProject LGBT is one of our most active WikiProjects. Robofish (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT topics are pretty well represented on Wikipedia?

Interesting comment above, User:Robofish. I am no expert, but my experience indicates differently. I vaguely remember coming across a Cuban transgender woman and having a category for her stub(?) article removed. Anyway, what I am really curious about is how one can measure representation/success? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert either, but certainly one should not draw inferences based on a single article. Take a look at the work of WP:LGBT. It seems to me that they should keep watch over such articles rather than WP:CSB. It's important to stay out of each other's backyards. -- kosboot (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT issues are very well covered and Chensiyuan previously stated on his userpage that Wikipedia had a pro-LGBT bias. Since this issue was brought up, I have decided to expand on my answer to the question about discussing systemic bias with disruptive editors. I once tried explaining to a white Wikipedian why most Singaporeans disapproved of homosexuality and he responded with a flood of racist comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.L.W.S. - where is your expansion (re: dealing with disruptive editors)? I'd like to read it. :) -- kosboot (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence above about the pro-LGBT, racist white editor is a brief expansion. I am unsure if we are supposed to edit our answers after the article has already been published. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias resulting from paywalled and inaccessible source materials?

As Chris troutman correctly points out above, we can't solve systemic bias simply by deciding we'll just work on anything besides articles about white males. His remarks bring us to an entirely different aspect of systemic bias that The Wikipedia Library seeks to address. This is the inherent and systemic bias on the Internet towards commercial materials and pop culture, which results from the fact that so much solid, scholarly content and hard data is out of print, hidden behind paywalls, or otherwise difficult to obtain.

I'm hopeful that The Wikipedia Library will help get solid data and information into the hands of editors who aren't connected to universities. Any insights or ideas on how to overcome the barriers for editors who lack access to high-quality source materials? Djembayz (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hope too, but Sionk's use of that word, "recentism" really struck me. There's quite a bit available through Google Books, but I believe people generally prefer to deal with recent times, and avoid historical background (like newspapers do). To me it suggests that The Wikipedia Library should prepare some document like "How to do research" so as to serve as a guide to those who should understand what they're getting involved in and what are the subject's needs. -- kosboot (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an underappreciated problem: in many areas where Wikipedia has substandard coverage, it is surprisingly difficult to find reliable sources to write articles with. (And yes, I do use print sources as well as websources such as persee.fr about, & am a frequent user of my public library's Interlibrary Loan department.) For example, I had to give up writing articles on the top-level ministers of Ethiopia practically before I began due to lack of accessible sources. (I was honestly surprised that bare-bones information -- place of birth, education, highlights of political career -- were not easily accessible. It was easier to write about politicians who lived before the Ethiopian Revolution than after. Maybe Ethiopian politicians are not as publicity hungry as the politicians of other nations?) -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do policies hinder the study of women and minorities?

@Chris troutman: You said above that you are concerned with the notion that our policies hinder the study of women and minorities. You say that you don't see any real evidence of that. I am just wondering if you have ever started an article about an notable woman / minority? Are you speaking from personal experience? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: I've only started a couple articles and none of them had anything to do with subaltern studies. My introduction to expanding historical knowledge into less-covered areas has been the study of Middle Ages Africa. I'm asking for examples of how Wikipedia policies stand in the way of article development because all I'm seeing are accusations. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

1. ^ Lander, Christian (2010). Whiter shades of pale: the stuff white people like, coast to coast, from Seattle's sweaters to Maine's microbrews. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. ISBN 9780812982060.
2. ^ Garner, Dwight. "Colorless, Tasteless but Not Dangerous: 'Whiter Shades of Pale' by Christian Lander". November 15, 2010. Retrieved 2014-02-23.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
3. ^ "'Whiter Shades of Pale' a hilarious read". The Lakeland Times. Minocqua, Wisc. 2010-12-24. Retrieved 2014-02-23.
4. ^ "Whiter Shades of Pale : NPR". Retrieved 2014-02-23.