User talk:Apaugasma/No. We are not biased.

A big thank you, and some ideas

@Apaugasma: I love this essay, thank you for writing it. I do have a couple of friendly criticisms that I hope you'll take in the spirit that they are intended.

(1) I would maybe use the exact term from WP:SOURCETYPES, "high-quality mainstream" as opposed to "mainstream." Mainstream strikes me as misleading for a few reasons, one being that the best sources are typically not mainstream. I mean this in the sense that they are not mainstream in the general definition of being popular (widely read) or even widely accepted (there are maybe 30,000 scholarly journals, even if only 10% are worthwhile, I doubt even a librarian with a photographic memory could give you the top 3,000). You can't accept something you're unaware of. If you're going by the adfontesmedia chart there are, for sure, unreliable mainstream sources. In the latest version The Free Thought Project and Daily Mail stick out as examples.

(2) I would appreciate—and perhaps write if you agreed to it—a section along the lines of "It's not Wikipedia's place to be a moral arbitrator of a reader's or editor's interest in any given topic." (With more parsimonious phasing TBD). While WP:FRINGE does some good work, it's often done with incurious judgement. Anyone who has lived through the last decade or two can remember when, say, talking about using ketamine to treat depression was a crazy fringe idea, but it happened to pan out. The point should be made that, while Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, the probability that an idea that's fringe in the current year, becomes mainstream in 10-20 years later, is not zero. If readers and editors are passionate about such a topic, we should encourage healthy and rational investigation rather than the predominate ad hominem approach that's used now. Seriously examining any topic in a rational, Bayesian, way, has the chance to build someone's reasoning skills, even if what's being examined turns out to be bunk. If we, as Wikipedians, want to have a broader pro-social impact on the scientific discourse that occurs in society, we should encourage anyone who has a WP:FRINGE point-of-view that's removed from Wikipedia to create something as serious and deliberate as the Treatment Action Group, which started as a group of citizen scientists and had an enormous impact on the direction and pace of HIV/AIDS research. I almost picture something like a pamphlet, "Your Topic Got Kicked off Wikipedia, but Here’s a Roadmap to Have It Taken Seriously in Three Years (If There’s Really Something to It)." - Scarpy (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Scarpy! Thanks for coming here to comment. I very much like to get feedback, and I do think that this essay still needs some improvement. Unfortunately, however, I disagree with both of the points you raise.

(1) It's certainly true that mainstream is an ambiguous term. I've grappled with that for a bit, and the way it came out is perhaps not yet as clear as it could and should be. But I have tried to clarify that by 'mainstream knowledge', I mean knowledge as produced by academic scholars or by high-quality media resources, and by 'mainstream sources', those which have the very best reputation for fact-checking, or those which are recognized by scholars of the highest rank as contributing to the edifice of human knowledge. (this may need trimming!) It's true that such mainstream sources are often not the most widely read. But the important criterion here is that they are the most widely accepted. If I came up with some obscure paper published in a reputable journal, that paper would most probably not have been read by many, but claims based on it would still be accepted by most people, purely on the basis of the paper's scholarly authority. Or to give a more concrete example: people do not normally read Einstein's papers, but they do generally accept that what these papers say is true. As noted in the essay, individual fringe claims may find widespread acceptance, but typically proponents of one fringe claim will reject other fringe claims, because the fact that they are willing to engage in special pleading for one fringe claim doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to do so for others: on a broader level, authoritative sources are accepted by almost everyone. And rightly so: this may be contrary to the current Zeitgeist, but following authoritative sources of knowledge is and remains an essential human trait, and being able to accept what one is ignorant about is a keystone of human collaboration. As such, using the word 'mainstream' in the sense of 'widely accepted, authoritative and reliable' shouldn't present too much of a problem. Perhaps it's not immediately clear in the nutshell (which may initially mislead some people into thinking that low-quality mass media sources are also included), but then the term is clarified in the first paragraphs, and is used throughout in a specific and well-defined way.

(2) I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to disagree on two points. First, the most important quality in an essay is that it should be focused. This essay is meant to refute the very specific claim that WP is biased, and to show how that claim negatively impacts WP itself. There are many other things that can be said about WP:FRINGE, but they simply don't belong here. If anything, this essay needs trimming, not expansion. Perhaps there's room for a short paragraph on something that is directly relevant (e.g., a side-effect that I've missed), but not much else. What you propose is essentially a counterpoint essay to WP:Lunatic charlatans (as this one is to User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.), which would need to make a point all of its own, and should therefore have its own page. Second, although I think that WP:Lunatic charlatans is a horribly negative and unhelpful essay, I'm not sure if a counterpoint to it would be any more helpful. It seems to me that neither discouraging nor encouraging the pursuit of certain strands of original research is something that Wikipedia should be doing. In my view, both equally belong to what Wikipedia is not. We summarize well-established knowledge, nothing more and nothing less. That's already gargantuan enough as a task. Most importantly, we should not be trying to impact scientific discourse, because that goes against the grain of everything an encyclopedia should be. You can't both lead and follow. We follow, and therefore we can't lead. We shouldn't involve ourselves in original research in any way. Of course, that's just my view, and you are free to write an essay about it if you think it would be helpful.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. It's much appreciated! Please do feel free to copy-edit the essay, to suggest better wordings, to add an appropriate picture (?), and please do fix any typos, grammatical mistakes, etc. you may find! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks getting back to me. Will agree to disagree on (1) as it seems like we’re saying the same thing but mostly disagreeing on semantics. For (2) you are probably right that there should be a standalone response to the LC essay. Where I disagree, is the latter points. What this essay is saying, correctly, is that Wikipedia only accepts content reflected in WP:RS. If your idea isn’t reflected in WP:RS, we’re not biased against it, it just doesn’t happen to be in WP:RS at the moment. We’re saying it’s not about the merit of the idea, it’s about the merit of the sources. But, once that content is in WP:RS, it’s no longer “original research.”

I take your point that this is giving Wikipedia a presence on two ends of the pipeline here. But we’re kind of already there, we’re just not saying it explicitly anywhere (at least not that I know of).

It’s a bit like asking for feedback from a company where one was interviewed for a position, but not hired. A fair hiring process would say “had you met x, y and z requirements we would have offered you this position. If you can meet those in the future and this is position is open again, we would very likely hire you.”

That’s a win all around. If followed, there’s more people developing desirable aptitudes, generating scholarly work and/or reliable journalism, and that gives Wikipedia chance to coalesce that and efficiently disseminate it to the world. The more people have the information, the more ability they have to make better decisions, etc, etc… That very much is what Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia is. It’s just a more engaging framing of the “quiet part.” - Scarpy (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently?

Re: "though apparently an unwanted one", you certainly are reading a lot into the fact that I (not someone else) added a link to this page, a few days later removed the link because I wasn't happy with how it was worded, and the fact that the link is now on my WP:YWAB page with improved wording.

You could have simply asked me if it was unwanted instead of making assumptions. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I might have read too much into it. In my mind, just like this was related to this, this seemed related to this and this. Shutting down the discussion, then archiving it and at the same time removing the link to my essay without any explanation felt like you didn't want any discussion or dialogue. I distinctly remember considering contacting you about it at your talk, but ending up deciding that it would perhaps not be wise to bother someone about the fact that they don't want to be bothered.

But perhaps that was all a misunderstanding. Did you just forget about it afterwards? It was re-added by someone else just a few days ago. Anyway, since it's not really/not longer unwanted, I removed that bit from my essay. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant to get back to it, and it slipped my mind. I was glad to see it the link restored by another editor. I want the link there because I really like the idea of opposing essays. I have often noted that people link to WP:DTTR as if it was policy despite the fact that WP:TTR makes a much more compelling argument.

This is not to say that I think you are right. In particular, saying things like "But what if the user who is being told 'yes, we are biased' was actually pointing out a real and detrimental form of bias in an article?" appears to miss the point of my essay. I can't think of a way I could be more clear that I am talking about someone thinking that saying that "Wikipedia is biased" is a set of magic words that will stop us from saying mean things about Holocaust denial ("The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary") or Magnet therapy ("Practitioners claim that subjecting certain parts of the body to weak electric or magnetic fields has beneficial health effects. These physical and biological claims are unproven and no effects on health or healing have been established.") I even post links to discussions where the proponents of those things claim that we are baised against them. In my opinion, you ignored what I actually wrote and instead wrote a rebuttal to some imaginary straw man essay where I supposdly opposed pointing out real bias. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clear from my own essay that I don't believe you or anyone who cites your essay actually believes that Wikipedia is biased, that bias is a good thing, or that (real) bias should not be pointed out. I explicitly don't write against that straw. To quote my own words: It does not seem likely that those who argue that Wikipedia is biased as outlined above really believe that we are disproportionately in favor of or against some things in ways that are closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Rather, saying that we're biased seems to be meant as a quip in answering those editors who claim that Wikipedia is biased because it does not include something which they believe to be significant, but is not actually supported by mainstream sources.

What I do write against is the solid-brick belief that affirming 'yes, Wikipedia is biased' is not in any way harmful. I recognize why someone would say such a thing, that this answer may often be correct in spirit. But I also argue that it does more harm than good, because it can be and often is taken literally. What I do in this essay is to explore the consequences of such a literal interpretation, which indeed does lead to the reinforcement of actual bias, because those who really are biased against the things mentioned in your essay can and often do cite the essay to justify their real bias. Positively affirming that Wikipedia is biased works like a self-fulfilling prophecy: it ends up making Wikipedia more biased. It normalizes actual bias. Which is something no one really wants.

Where I believe the real disagreement between us lies is in how serious the consequences I talk about are. Perhaps you even believe they are non-existent. I, on the other hand, have experienced them while editing. To be really concrete, I'm an academic expert in (the history of) alchemy and esoteric natural philosophy more broadly, and have been treated like shit by editors around here with very real biases against alchemy and/or esotericism, simply because I study and write about something they despise. As far as my personal beliefs go I'm a 'hard' atheist and a skeptic (I believe that only science is productive of knowledge, and that all else is mere belief), but somehow on Wikipedia I find myself treated as if I were a religious zealot. An encyclopedia needs to have a thorough and sympathetic treatment of all its subjects, and needs to welcome expert editors who can contribute to this, but with regard to some subjects all too often exactly the opposite happens, because indeed it seems that we are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You raise some interesting issues. Please join the discussion here. There are several people who watch that page who help me to decide what to incluse and what to remove. Thanks! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)