Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:15, 13 March 2008 editWhisperToMe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users662,851 edits →Non-biased presentation of locations← Previous edit Revision as of 09:07, 15 March 2008 edit undoBlackworm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,646 edits →What is systemic bias?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 292: Line 292:


I got photos for Kenyan ] and Nigerian ] easily because both are already dead. Maryam Abacha is still alive. ] (]) 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I got photos for Kenyan ] and Nigerian ] easily because both are already dead. Maryam Abacha is still alive. ] (]) 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

== What is ]? ==

I'm trying to understand if this Wikiproject is something I want to be a part of, but the ] article is a disambiguation page with the following entries:

* ''Any body system in general, usually the nervous system.''
* ''An insecticide whose mode of action is via uptake into a plant, entering the pest when the plant is consumed.''
* ''Systemic circulation (as opposed to pulmonary circulation).''
* ''Systemic (amateur extrasolar planet search project)''

I do not know which of these meanings is intended here. I apologize in advance if this question is better suited to ], but I figure since this WikiProject is ''countering'' it, its members would be well placed to clear up my confusion. Thank you. ] (]) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:07, 15 March 2008

Shortcut
  • ]

White privelege (sociology)...

has been listed for deletion absurdly enough. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology) Murderbike 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian violence/civil war in Iraq

There is a discussion over whether English sources carry more weight than foreign language ones in deciding what the name of the article should be. Any thought? Please reply on the talk page. Thank you.--victor falk 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at commons

Please check out Commons:Deletion requests/Kolkata Red Light photos, and comment. --Soman 09:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

liberal fanatics ridicule conservative ideology in editing articles

it happens all the time and they always get away with it, gunning down their opponents like bats out of hell. now, why is liberal ideology such a large force to be reckoned with, in an npov project? how come tendentious editing and userboxes are mostly tailored according to liberal ideologies, while conservatives are actively shunned by liberals gaming the system in collaborative edit wars, with the conservatives outnumbered? wikipedia's not supposed to survive on mob rule and democratic principles. how come undue weight is given to credibility for liberal ideologies and their proponents? this is the internet's conservative talk radio. liberal rush limbaughs and michael savages run wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblastfromthewikipast (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar things are said about conservative, ultra-nationalist, and other ideologies overrunning parts of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is about neutrality (WP:NPOV). If more editors fully understood it, there would be less problems. If more people allowed all significant viewpoints to be shown (from reliable sources), then there would be less complaints, because people could not say that their POVs were not being expressed.
People who insist that ONLY their particular POV be expressed will not be happy, and should leave or be banned from wikipedia, if they try to impose their POV exclusively in any article. It is against a core wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). WikiProject "Countering systemic bias" is about expanding wikipedia's expression of all significant viewpoints. Especially, those viewpoints suppressed by institutionalized bias, racism, bigotry, ignorance, culture, etc..--Timeshifter 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the real problem in politically charged articles is with consistency. There are good editors who rightly and rigourously challenge unencyclopedic material in subjects they're sympathetic to but then do nothing when it's a subject they might not agree with in a similar situation. MrMurph101 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That is true if good editors say nothing at all on a page section they happen to be editing. I don't waste time fighting other people's battles in page sections I am not editing. There are so many sections of articles with unbalanced POVs that I am interested in balancing. I don't have time to work on sections I am not interested in. But I try to say something against all unbalanced POVs (even ones I agree with) when it is brought up concerning parts of articles I have worked on. I try to be intellectually honest and fair. I don't just do this out of charity. I want my edits to be treated the same way by others. When I point out some unbalanced POV that an editor has inserted, I want them to be intellectually honest too. Fair is fair. It is common-sense fair play.--Timeshifter 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a kernel of truth in what Wikiblastfromthewikipast says, but his statement about "liberal fanatics" seems to suggest he's a POV-pusher who believes Misplaced Pages is a part of the Liberal media. That's not systemic bias. That's preventing vandalism per WP:FRINGE.

However, I am a "Liberal fanatic" and I will say that there is systemic bias against "American Conservatism" on Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages is international. The only people who like American Conservatives are American Conservatives. Both European Liberals and European Conservatives alike have a very low opinion of Americans, particularly Conservative Americans like George W. Bush. See the article on anti-Americanism. Whether this is warranted or not -- whether it's motivated by American Conservatives being religious extremists or the Iraq war as some American Liberals suggest, or whether "Europeans are just envious, America-haters" as American Conservatives suggest -- it remains a widely accepted social trend that can be substantiated by opinion polls and statements by certain political leaders (such as Jacques Chirac and Ahmadinejad, both Conservatives but viciously anti-American) and is likely to lead to systemic bias, although I can't think of any specific examples. Zenwhat (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Countering Systemic Bias Barnstar.

I have proposed a Countering Systemic Bias barnstar, to be awarded to Wikipedians who go the extra mile to fight systemic bias. Your input is most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I ahve already posted a comment there but I think it's also a good idea to write about it it here, in the CSB project. Please go ahead: make a nice design (challenging) and make that barnstar a reality. Excellent idea. --Sugaar (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias due to patterns of media ownership and control

Could the source requirements of the closely-intertwined WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V contribute to systemic bias? The media are increasingly being owned and controlled by a small number of corporations. In the U.S., for instance, newspaper ownership is being increasingly concentrated as local papers are bought out by large companies. The effect of this could be counteracted by the growth of blogs (which negates the effect of that old problem, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one") but our policies discourage using blogs as sources. So the situation now is that if the media fail to cover a particular topic (e.g. due to that topic making the advertisers who comprise much of their revenue base look bad), then an article on that subject could wind up being deleted. I cite Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Health Ranger as a possible example. What do you think? Stayman Apple (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... a complex case. I'd agree in principle with your concern about the increasing concentration of the major media in few hands and so on. But the article itself mentions a magazine and books of his authorship that could be used as sources and aren't.
Also I don't think it's appropiate at all to project the internal debate of Misplaced Pages (or an opinion on it) in the article itself. It should be in the talk page or the RFD. (Im undoing your last edit because it's abusive and in breach of policy).
This is a encyclopedia and, well, we are not expected to write about our neighbour's love stories, if you know what I mean (it's an extreme example). But, on the other hand, notability requirements are problematic sometimes (I have already found myself in such situation).
I'd suggest you to ponder seriously if that person is really notable and why. Personally I don't have that very clear: I would think about the local hygienist association rather than in this Health Ranger would I be asked about this issue.
Personally, I have just had the idea of googling for "Health Ranger" and it gives 51,900 hits ("Health Ranger" "Mike Adams" gives 43,800 hits), so probably it's the fault of the people interested in this article not to have been able to shown independent sources, as it's obvious that many of these hits must be something more than blogs and obscure sites (though I haven't been able to find any yet, that's your job). --Sugaar (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


women / minorities in occupations

In part as a result of the discussion on a recent WP:CFD for Category:Female models, I have begun a project to write articles on women in various professions. The first such article to discuss the topic generally and link to the sub-articles is Occupations, gender roles, and women's history - I drafted this much-needed article and it was promptly tagged original research (6 minutes after posting the item, tagged stub). I've been adding some of the numerous cites available on the topic. Please feel free to help out.

The larger context is that although these are all well-studied topics, some editors in wikipedia feel that categorizing female professionals (or ethnic professionals) as such is overcategorization. Consequently there have been numerous deletion discussions on Category:Female models, Women in science, Category:Women writers, and so on. Some categories (Category:African American scientists) have been deleted; others have survived. WP:CATGRS is the general guideline on the topic and it states that an intersectional category is appropriate where an article can be written about that topic. As I suspect most people involved in this project know, the history of women in various occupations (and the history of gendering of occupations generally) is a significant topic in women's history, gender studies, and women's studies. Help on this project would be greatly appreciated.

One problem that we face is that editors with little experience in or knowledge of the field tend to see this interdisciplinary topic as original research, and tend to police it rather heavily (I'm feeling uncharitable at the moment so I'm going to allude to the differences in levels of policing of fictional topics and academic topics especially those pertaining to gender and ethnicity.) So basically any stub has to have (1) a topic sentence that explains it; and (2) an extensive list of references from the start to justify and explain to people that this is a well-studied topic. Anything more, or less, is likely to get slapped with tags, AFDs, and so on.

I would also like to make a high priority to write an article on African Americans in the sciences, so that we can revisit the category deletion for Category:African American scientists. We had, as I recall, hundreds of articles appropriately categorized, and the deletion of that category was a travesty. I take blame, because I didn't at the time challenge it at deletion review; I had personal issues going on and couldn't take responsibility for it. So it will be a recuperation process.

--Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Defenders of slavery

This category is very US-centric. Slavery existed in other places. 72.83.236.152 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC) and still does. It was the European money and the African organisation that made "US" slavery possible. Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Banners

I 100% support this project but wish that you could resist putting your banners at the start of an article. Misplaced Pages is primarily for reading I hope. You are quickly evaluating an article and seeing that it is all about the UK or the USA etc.... thats a useful thing to do. However we can all do it... might be nice to be reminded after we've read it that it may not be a world-view... but does it have to be in the readers/my face and more prominent than the title. And I know ... lots of well meaning projects do this. Still not a great idea. Thank you for listening Victuallers (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Systemic Bias on disputing canons - Ethiopian vs. Roman Catholic, etc.

I urgently need help with another editor, User:Leadwind, who has been pushing a Roman Catholic POV, particularly with regard to what texts are to be considered canonical. I have pointed out many times that Misplaced Pages cannot assume the role of the Council of Nicea and simply declare a certain disputed text to be either canonical or uncanonical or "pseudepigrapha" (false writing), but only state neutrally which groups consider it so. But he remains impervious to the NPOV policy requiring him to attribute disputed POVs, and insists on writing that the Book of Jubilees (the canonical, Holy Book of the Ethiopian Church) simply "is Pseudepigrapha written from a Pharisee perspective", because his cited scholar says so - instead of admitting that there are other points of views, and that it is only considered so by European churches and European Bible scholars. The most bizarre thing is, he has chosen as his platform to edit war this point, the article Tower of Babel, which merely contains a quote from Jubilees - making a whole discussion about its canonicity in that article rather off-topic anyway.

I have pointed out that this is equivalent to writing a note in the section that quotes the Book of Mormon, to the effect that it is "a forgery written by Joseph Smith" - no matter how many might consider it so, it would not be neutral to take sides like that, and hardly germane to the article anyway. But he refuses to listen. Please come to Talk:Tower of Babel and help me restore NPOV. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to this page

WP:BIAS is coming up as a redlink. Is that supposed to be happening? Chubbles (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I (re?)created the redirects, I don't know what happened before.--Cúchullain /c 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The average wikipedian is Asian according to quantcast.com. This reflects in the bias you see. The pages related Asians are always pro Asian and sources that are pro Asian are used regardless of whether they are racist against whites, blacks, ir hispanics. I think this worth mention.YVNP (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what Quantcast says at all. According to its statistics, the average user of Misplaced Pages within the U.S. is slightly more likely to be Asian that the internet average. Warofdreams talk 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Figures also support that Asian US families are more likely to have a computer with internet access. This expains the slightly higher frequency for wikipedians. (Whenever you investigate a conspiracy you find its not the big clever plot you thought it was!) Victuallers (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A minor point, but if Quantcast's figures are as they say, then the comparison shown is against the average user of the internet from the U.S., so if Asian U.S. families are more likely to have a computer with internet access, it should have no effect on the statistics. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It says whites 94, blacks 112, hispanics 114, and asians 136 for the english wikipedia. That is definitely indicative of a mainly asian user base.YVNP (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That conclusion is incorrect. Please read what we have written above. You may also need to read our articles on statistics. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, it says wikipedia is mostly white and Asians are the smallest demographic. I apologize.YVNP (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

might I point out that the term "Asian" is itself an example of the sort of bias this project is supposed to be countering? In America it means "East Asian", ie Chinese, Japanese etc. In Britain it means "South Asian", ie Indian, Pakistani etc. Peter jackson (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA helps fight systemic bias

Some of you may be aware of the constant bickering between FA regulars and GA regulars. FA regulars believe that the GA process is broken and lacks accountability. Any attempts by GA regulars to help the GA process gain more official recognition, such as placing the green plus sign at the top-right corner of GAs (similar to the FA star), are vehemently opposed by FA regulars.

Members of this WikiProject should support the GA process, as GA helps fight systemic bias. Several aspects of the FA and GA criteria lead to systemic bias in the selection of FAs and GAs, but in those aspects, the GA criteria is far lower than the corresponding FA criteria, making it easier for articles on typically under-represented topics (such as Singaporean topics) to achieve GA status. Using Singaporean topics as an example:

  • FA demands that "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". GA demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". As most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, it would be nearly impossible for them to write FA-standard prose. However, with a little help, some of them (like myself) can write GA-standard pros.e.
  • FA requires that an article be "comprehensive", GA requires that an article be "broad in its coverage". FA standards of referencing are also higher than GA standards of referencing. Referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce, making it nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to meet FA standards of referencing and be comprehensive. Broadness is easier to achieve, and with lower standards of referencing, GA standards are a more reasonable goal for most Singapore-related articles.
  • FAs require images; GAs do not. Finding images for articles on Singaporean topics is difficult. To compound the problem, semi-free images (such as "for educational use only" or "for non-commercial use only") images are prohibited, and the policies governing the use of fair use images are far too restrictive. For many Singapore-related articles, there are simply no appropriate images to illustrate the topic. This would disqualify those articles from FA status, but they can still achieve GA status.

I must stress that there is nothing wrong with the FA criteria being systemically biased. Articles that represent the best of Misplaced Pages should have prose that is of a professional standard, be comprehensive and well-referenced, and contain images. However, it is simply unrealistic to expect certain articles to meet the FA criteria.

Therefore, we (and the GA regulars) should encourage more Wikipedians to become prolific writers of GAs on typically under-represented topics. Perhaps we could have monthly collaborations, aiming to push at least one article on a typically under-represented topic to GA status per month. We could also post "write a Singapore-related (or any typically under-represented topic) GA" assignments at the Award Center.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have had such a positive experience with GAs. In my experience, the main problem with the GA review procedure is that having just one reviewer who typically has no specialist knowledge of the topic of the article often leads to demands for changes which are simply not possible to implement, or would require an enormous amount of work more in line with what might be expected for an FA. The FA review procedure encourages discussion; specialists can explore how the article utilises the sources available in the field, while non-specialists can examine whether it is accessible to the typical Misplaced Pages user. If one user raises objections which are impossible to implement, they can be reasoned with through discussion.
Finally, I'm doubtful about your last two points on FA requirements. FA reviewers should expect the article to utilise the sources which are available; if there are few sources, these should be fully utilised. Provided, of course, that an article of reasonable length can be written, there being few sources in existence should never be an objection. FAs do not require images, but if images are available, they should be used. If it is genuinely impossible to find an image which can be used, then that is not a reasonable objection in a FA candidacy. If Wikipedians can produce more GAs on typically under-represented topics, that's great, but I would hate anyone to be put off working towards an FA. Warofdreams talk 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many experienced GA reviews (The Rambling Man, LaraLove and Dihydrogen Monoxide, to name a few) who give excellent reviews. However, some GA reviewers are inexperienced or not very familiar with the GA criteria; they tend to do a bad job. I share your concern that luck determines who reviews a nomination and hence the quality of the review.
Nobody wants to discourage FA writing. Although prolific writers of FAs (on typically over-represented topics) worsen systemic bias, they are our most valuable editors and should be encouraged to keep up the good work. To counter systemic bias, we need prolific writers of GAs on typically under-represented topics. With 5 GAs to his name, Aldwinteo has greatly improved Misplaced Pages's coverage of Singaporean historical sites. Similarly, Jacklee helps fight systemic bias by writing Singapore-related GAs.
We should also support attempts by GA regulars to help the GA process get more official recognition, as it would encourage GA writing and countering of systemic bias. After saving Xiaxue from deletion, I contacted the subject of the article through e-mail, hoping that she would send me several newspaper articles about her (remember, referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce). In my e-mail, I mentioned that an article I wrote had won a "Misplaced Pages award" (remember, she knows hardly anything about Misplaced Pages). A green plus at the top-right corner of the article (similar to the FA star) would lend authenticity to my claim. If GAs appeared on the Main Page, it would be less USA-centric. Readers of Misplaced Pages would probably find a Singaporean movie that prompted the government to reform the country's education system fascinating.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible bias at work in AfDs

The biography article Naresh Sonee and the associated article about his book have both been nominated for deletion. They undoubtedly need major cleanup and rewriting. However, a lack of notability is the basis for the AfDs. The author of these articles has posted a number of translations of reviews and articles from Hindi, establishing, I think, notability. I think it may be an example of systemic bias that that it continues to look as if they will be deleted. Would some editors from this project take a look, and post your opinions, whatever they may be? Aleta (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been raised several times in the past, mostly by me, a young Singaporean who hates to see articles on notable Singaporean celebrities, buildings, etc. nominated for deletion (or even speedy deleted). It was at my suggestion that "Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations." was added to "Why it matters and what to do" section. More Wikipedians, especially deletionists, should be made aware of this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO {{afd}} is so deeply broken it should be abandoned, and replaced with a better mechanism for clearing cruft. Currently violations of the wikipedia's policies on civility, assume good faith policy, no personal attack policy, and don't bite the newbies are so routine in the deletion fora they pass without notice.
IMO the reliance on "notability" has been a failed experiment, which should be abandoned. It seems to me that for controversial topics notability really devolves to either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems to me that {{afd}} nominators routinely discount the "so-called" notability of articles based on credible they personally find some aspect of the topic.
For example, in the work I have done on articles related to war on terror, it has been my experience that the more willing wikipedians are to accept the spin of Bush Presidency spin doctors at face value, the more likely they are to want to suppress material a reader who wants to reach their own informated conclusion would need. Notability is a common argument they try to use.
Anyone else fed up with these claims of notability?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


I am not against notability per se, I just believe that it is currently being determined incorrectly (and am not sure if a reliable metre for it can ever be designed). Take a look at Category:Wikipedians against notability, it seems that you're not the only one who feels that way. There are of course userboxes to express this, User:DanielZimmerman/Template AntiNotable, and User:Chris is me/Notability hurts. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting My Feet Wet

Howdy. New user here with a strong interest in this project and the issue of bias in historiography. Thus far I've done approximately nothing but intend to contribute a lot at some point in the undefined future. Anyway. I just stumbled across the Crimean_Tatar_diaspora article. It needs help. I just added the sourcing template but am really not sure where to go from here or even if that was the right thing to do. My main concern is to see that a historically repressed minority group is able to have it's history told on wikipedia. Due to the lack of sourcing and blatant POV in an article that ties in to a contemporary political situation, it would be really easy for someone acting in bad faith to wikilawyer the article out of existence. My thinking is that it's best for sympathetic parties to raise the issue now rather than wait for someone to start a politically motivated edit war on down the line. While this isn't systemic bias on wikipedia in the strictest sense, it's closely related enough that I figured this to be the best place to raise the issue.--Vlvtelvis (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Political Bias at Misplaced Pages

The article on the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union was recently deleted based on the claim it wasn't notable. I'm an organizer with the union, and since I've given literally dozens of interviews, had live, hour-long debates with representatives of business interests on the air, and people produced numerous citations in the media, this is a ridiculous claim. Furthermore, those people who voted in favour of deletion mostly used the argument "I've never heard of it," but when people who were familiar with anti-poverty activism were asked to show up and voice their opinion, those who had worked on the article were accused of sockpuppetry.

To make matters worse, we have (or rather, *had* -- the article and logs are of course now deleted) proof that Ottawa City Hall had been vandalizing the article, and that one of the people involved in the discussion was engaged in a false flag campaign, pretending to be one of the members of the union while claiming he had voted numerous times. The personal details given by the member (his arrest record, his hepatitis status) could only have been known by someone with access to his personal records (ie/ the police). When one of the main contributors to the article tried to find someone who would listen to what had been done to us, he was permanently banned from Misplaced Pages.

This might sound paranoid, but since the Panhandlers' Union started a copwatch program six months ago, I personally have been the target of harassment ranging from having my Internet account hacked by someone who stole my identity to having posters put up around the city which featured me with a gun in my mouth and the legend "panhandlers follow your leader."

Since the deletion of this article actually interferes with our ability to organize (media usually show up to interviews with a copy of the Misplaced Pages article in hand), we have to take some sort of action. Unless anyone here can recommend a better course of action, we're going to have to see if we can find some activists in Florida willing to help us put a picket line in front of the Wikimedia Foundation offices. SmashTheState (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. delldot talk 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Does "international" mean every country except the USA and Canada?

Talk:2007 in film#"International" box office totals. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t17:44z

bias related to the basic notion of providing knowledge

Isn't Misplaced Pages itself necessarily biased against e.g. certain methods of information suppression as employed by e.g. religions/cults or governments? Not necessarily talking U.S. homeland security issues, but e.g. Straussian neoconservatism with its idea of noble lies (think Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq) or anything Scientology (and the Abrahamic religions as far as e.g. evolution is concerned). Misplaced Pages's basic idea of providing knowledge necessarily includes the notion of promoting intellectual self-direction of individuals, which is directly and inevitable opposed to methods of keeping people underinformed as continually employed by many governments and religions/cults. Personally, I think that's the exact reason why so many intellectual people contribute to WP in the first place, and I wouldn't want to see this bias being countered. I dorfbaer I talk I 17:00, December 31, 2007


Inequality in S E Asia coverage

I just managed to sort out locator maps for the cities in Cambodia and in checking the articles on the cities -they are even worse than I thought. Provincial capitals like Pursat etc which have tens even hundreds of thousands of inhabitants as yet don't even have basic facts and are still one liners, yet places on provincial capitals in the UK and America etc would have hundreds , even thousands of articles on that place alone and an oversized article to boot. What you see on the Pursat article is the product of nearly two years work. Few people have even attempted to actively try to develop some of the major cities and towns in places like cambodia, vietnam, Laos etc let alone the smaller settlements. At best there are only three or four people working on articles on countries like this and even then this isn't particularly consistent . I can't attempt to sort out places like this alone!!! Basically if you compare it to a developed country such as the UK - with Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Laos etc only places like London, Birmingham and Manchester are covered and have half decent articles -the rest of the country - 99% isn't even really covered except a few minor stubs here and there. It is a huge problem gaining access to a decent and reliable amount of information. Could somebody please make a note that countries like those cited above have very poor geography related articles. I need a hand. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TFD

Template:Recentism has just been nominated for deletion - see discussion - 52 Pickup (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The "secret cabal"

Have anybody attempted to address this yet? Zenwhat (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian ethnicity in lead sections

Discussion at Talk:Alan Hovhaness has indicated that the ethnicity of Armenian and Armenian-Americans is being added or deleted from the lead sections of the subjects articles against MOSBIO policy. Ethnicity has been added to lead sections without demonstration of relevance, indicating either a pro-Armenian agenda or an unfamiliarity with policy and pracice. Worse yet, ethnicity has been removed from articles entirely, not simply moved from the lead to the body of the article, indicating an anti-Armenian agenda. Either way the quality of articles covering topics related to Armenia need improvement. See also discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Armenia#Armenian ethnicity in lead sections. Hyacinth (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of most common surnames

I wanted to point out that my recent reorganization of List of most common surnames exposes an unsurprising but glaring example of systematic bias ... no African country and few countries of Oceania are represented. It would be useful to have some people with experience in familial naming in those regions of the world join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy to help to fill these gaping holes. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

Can I ask for some advice, or possibly even help? This article (& probably most other articles on Buddhist topics) has been largely put together by Western(ized) Buddhists, & is heavily biased by their versions of Buddhism. This manifests in (at least) 3 ways:

  • Much more space for forms of Buddhism that are popular in the West than for those popular mainly in the East
  • Much less space for aspects of Buddhism that are played down in the West but much more important in the East
  • Interpretations given as fact that might well be different from those/some found in the East (This can be very difficult to sort out, involving a lot of research)

User:Gimme_danger produced an attempted revision, to which I contributed, on a subpage. Despite a number of notices on the talk page, there were virtually no comments, & nobody other than the 2 of us contributed. I decided to try to get something done by simply putting the revision in place & inviting people to change anything they didn't like, in the usual way. Instead, they simply kept reverting it & ignoring all my attempts to discuss the issues properly on the talk page. Eventually I suggested a neutrality tag, & someone put in a pov-check.

I then posted on the talk page a detailed analysis of many of the issues, which nobody seemed particularly disposed to disagree with, but, apart from some contributions by User:TonyMPNS, little has been done. A major problem is the chaotic way the article is arranged. Buddhist teachings, those that are included at all, are randomly scattered through several different sections of the article. This probably constitutes bias in its own right, and at any rate makes it difficult to say where the omitted material should go. Unfortunately, having repeatedly reverted our attempt to give the article a coherent structure, they have ignored repeated requests to suggest one of their own.

I just noticed today that the tag has been removed. I'm not even sure whether it's the right one for the situation. Can someone advise on that, & what's the correct way to proceed? Peter jackson (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On using official Sources

"propaganda" was a loaded term which has been deleted, also I have been of the opinion that wikipedians treat official sources especially of third world countries with more disdain than necessary, it can be very useful, to take a random example the Nigerian giv website offers good info not only on their foreign relations (the NIgerian POV)

http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/exeres/8D44B602-C2A5-4478-B216-0DF74EE9CDD1.htm


but also some interesting info on the country and its leaders which could improve our articles on them

Nigerian Defence Minister http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/rdonlyres/7813232F-EDDD-417A-853A-6F9508EE5193/1077/MinofDefenceAhmed.pdf


or on Government agenda http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/NR/exeres/59AA73E9-CEC6-43B3-B153-27D568A56B7D.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation suggestion

I don't think this has been mentioned anywhere here, so: if there is a deficient article on the English wiki that has a far more expanded version in a different language, make a translation request over at Misplaced Pages:Translation. That way, your desire to have a decent english-language article becomes known to a lot more people, particularly those who are unaware of WP:CSD. - 52 Pickup 09:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One-hit wonders

I've been vaguely aware of this page for a long time, but never paid much attention to it. Not long ago, looking at the page titled one-hit wonder, I was struck by the incongruity of classifying Nena as a one-hit wonder. She's had dozens of hit songs and now 30 years into her career she still keeps turning them out, and she's still doing four or five concerts every month and they sell out weeks in advance. Her name is a household word in Germany. In a TV commercial the narrator says "Today Nena tests the new Outlander from Mitsubishi" and we see her testing the sound system, listening to music in the car. The public knows who she is when the narrator mentions her name—otherwise the commercial would fail to accomplish its purpose. Only one of her songs was a major hit in English-speaking countries, so she's in a list of one-hit wonders.

So I put a parenthetical remark after her name in a list, saying that in her own country she's had a long successful career and it's only and she's listed only because in England and the USA she's had only one hit. Someone deleted my parenthesis on the grounds that the same is true of several of the other musicians listed there.

It is certainly appropriate for Misplaced Pages to record the fact that Nena is a one-hit wonder among English-speaking people, but the statement should not be just an unqualified assertion that she's a one-hit wonder.

I'm not sure what the best way is to organize this information. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What you said absolutely makes sense. did you take it to the talk page? Murderbike (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Several glaring omissions in the essay

"The origins of bias" fails to mention that the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Misplaced Pages, is an American charitable organisation that advocates freedom of content. Misplaced Pages is thus dominated by supporters of free software/content. Consequently, certain groups of articles often suffer from uneven coverage and are written from a pro-free software/content point of view. While the free software/content movement has a substantial following in some countries (and their governments release lots of content into the public domain), it is completely unheard of in others. Finding or creating free images of (for example) a Singaporean actress is thus very difficult, if not impossible.

Attempts by governments to restrict access to Misplaced Pages, such as the Great Firewall of China, also worsen systemic bias. Although such censorship is easily circumvented through open proxies such as Tor, Misplaced Pages has a policy against editing through open proxies. Why does the "The origins of bias" section not touch on this?

In the "Why it matters and what we do" section, consider adding a bullet point encouraging Wikipedians to contribute to articles on under-represented topics that they are unfamiliar with. For example, as a Singaporean, I can fight systemic bias by contributing to Singapore-related articles. This may be the most effective way to counter systemic bias.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources

We're debating the wording of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Requirement of direct quotation for use of non-English sources. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a discussion, not a straw poll. We don't need "Support"/"Oppose" votes, we need positive alternatives as to how this policy should be worded. cab (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-biased presentation of locations

This appears to be a major problem for people from the US and Canada: all locations around the world are described either in terms of what US state, Canadian province, or country they are in. From experience, I know that this is what many North Americans do in real life, but it has absolutely no place here.

For example, February 21, 2008 lunar eclipse. Look at the gallery of images under "Observations" and note how the locations are described. Here are the first few:

  • Halton Hills, Ontario
  • West Hartford, Connecticut
  • Rostock, Germany
  • Nashville, TN
  • Sasolburg, South Africa

Now should we look at this and conclude that Ontario, Connecticut, Germany, TN and South Africa are all countries? And the use of TN here is even worse (yes, i know it means Tennessee).

Which is the right way to present this information? I can only see two alternatives:

1) Just countries

  • Halton Hills, Canada
  • West Hartford, United States
  • Rostock, Germany
  • Nashville, United States
  • Sasolburg, South Africa

2) Include state and country information for all locations

  • Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada
  • West Hartford, Connecticut, United States
  • Rostock, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, Germany
  • Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Sasolburg, Free State, South Africa

It MUST be one or the other. - 52 Pickup 08:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the second choice is the way to go. I try to do that when I remember. Murderbike (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Obvious just country wouldn't work, as there's something like 39 Springfields in the US...even even some names like Paris have more than one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It has to be two. Otherwise you get things like "Springfield, USA" or "Cochrane, Canada" where there are more than one. This is also necessary at times in the UK, which has numerous repeated names as well. --NellieBly (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we distinguish between places of the same name according to how well known they are in an unbiased way, at least in some cases? It really shouldn't be necessary to say Paris, France to distinguish it from all the Parises in the USA. Peter jackson (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The second option seems to fit me best. However, I'd only like to see it for federations. So definitely not: Kladno, Středočeský kraj, Czech Republic, just Kladno, Czech Republic. We should probably propose this to be included in the MOS if we want people to know about it and abide by it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good idea Puchiko. Murderbike (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That won't work consistently. The UK is not a federation, but there are numerous duplicates. Peter jackson (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Allright. But, I mean, nobody in his right mind would write: Kladno, Středočeský kraj, Czech Republic. It just isn't done, not in English sources nor in Czech ones. There are hundreds of towns named "Lhota" in the Czech Republic, but nobody puts what kraj they're in anyway. If it is necessary to distinguish them, the nearest large city is listed. So we shouldn't list the kraj either.
Only include the state/province/other administrative region when it is common to do so. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a database. It would be nice if there was one rule, but its not whats done. The article New York City is a nice example. It could just say "New York" because its so famous. Annoyingly there is a state of new york so it has to be called New York City. It could be called New York, New York, USA .... but its not going to work. Sorry to mess up the perfection of a rule. It has to be a compromise Victuallers (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Free image of Maryam Abacha?

Does anyone know where I can find a free image of Maryam Abacha? She was a first lady of Nigeria and a staunch defender of the Abacha regime - she needs a photo posted...

I got photos for Kenyan Mohamed Amin and Nigerian Bimbo Odukoya easily because both are already dead. Maryam Abacha is still alive. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is systemic bias?

I'm trying to understand if this Wikiproject is something I want to be a part of, but the systemic article is a disambiguation page with the following entries:

  • Any body system in general, usually the nervous system.
  • An insecticide whose mode of action is via uptake into a plant, entering the pest when the plant is consumed.
  • Systemic circulation (as opposed to pulmonary circulation).
  • Systemic (amateur extrasolar planet search project)

I do not know which of these meanings is intended here. I apologize in advance if this question is better suited to Talk:Systemic bias, but I figure since this WikiProject is countering it, its members would be well placed to clear up my confusion. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)