Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Countering systemic bias kit

Hello, I thought you all might be interested in the systemic bias kit development that I'm currently working on. A draft of the kit will be posted on Meta/Commons very soon, and results will be in the midpoint report that is being published now. I would love to involve the members of this project in tweaking the kit! Thanks for your attention, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Darlene Johnson

I happened to see this article is up for deletion and was wondering which systemic bias WikiProject would be appropriate for it? It is about Darlene Johnson, an Australian filmmaker and actress from the Dunghutti tribe. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Connecticut a country?

As a Singaporean reading Congress Street Bridge (Connecticut), I almost thought so. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess one has to know that in the US, states are given a lot of freedom to rule and express themselves as if they are independent countries (and Texas and Hawaii once were independent countries, and Puerto Rico seems as if it is). -- kosboot (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume special knowledge on the reader's part. I'm no fan of nationalism but a substantial article on a piece of infrastructure really ought to mention what country it's in. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is a global encyclopaedia. We should always include the country in the first mention of any location in an article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I informed the primary contributor and he added "United States" to the first sentence of the lead section. There seems to be consensus here that the first mention of a place name should mention its country. Is there any policy or guideline which states that? To avoid being a "no action, talk only" WikiProject (see above section), could we propose a policy change? Of course, there would be exceptions where the country is obvious from context. --Hildanknight (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm absolutely with you on this. One of my primary irritations here are biographies which have just the state/county and town in the infobox as birth and death places...Brigade Piron (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Then could we propose a policy change? How about identifying articles with this problem and going through them to add the country? --Hildanknight (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: In regards to policy I believe Wikipedia has naming conventions. Where they are hidden is another question, LOL. Maybe in wp:MOS? Or maybe contact User:B2C. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: The issue is not naming conventions, which deal with article titles. I am arguing that first mentions of places in the article itself (usually the first sentence of the lead section) should mention the country. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/History

A new page that not everyone here might have noticed. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'm a little disappointed that the discussion focusses on World War 2; of all conflicts, we already have most high-quality content on this one. Systemic bias? Hmmm. bobrayner (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bikini image for Wikipedia photo of the day.

Just letting ya'll know about this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Discussion_regarding_possible_picture_of_the_day:_Michele_Merkin. SarahStierch (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some are using the need to avoid the impact of our systemic bias as a reason to oppose the use of that image. I'm a massive opponent of systemic bias here, but support the use of that image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an issue here.I think this project is about countering systemic bias - not stopping it per se. We need to get more positive images and biographies on the main page. We cannot pretend that the world does not include glamour models and that there is a bias towards female models - and we have mostly male editors. What we can do is help to counter this. If we have a dozen glamour models queueing for the front page then that is a bias that this project should counter. One picture is not systemic. Victuallers (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

History of Malaysia

The image has been changed (thankfully) since I posted. The image shown here is not the one I originally referred to. Red Slash 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Hey all, could you have a looksee at File:History of Malaysia.png? I'm pretty sure it's inappropriate but would appreciate your feedback before I send up an RfC... Red Slash 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

maybe you can explain why it is inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.159 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm, because it uses the British flag as its primary visual motif, and it was a British colony for less than a tenth of its history? Red Slash 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a systemic problem on Commons, where people can create any picture they want without any references, and it's not considered OR. They even invent maps that never existed before and then claim it as a new reality. According to policy it's perfectly appropriate. This needs to be addressed at the policy level. USchick (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgetting the existence of the image for a minute, the real problem is the image's presence at Template:History of Malaysia, where I would support its removal. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both Samwalton9 and USchick. bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does it need a picture at all? Most countries (Indonesia is a notable exception) just use the flag. IMHO, it is just unnecessary.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The image may not be perfect, but I disagree that the image is as inappropriate as claimed. First of all, I'd like to ask where the estimation of % history is coming from. I assume the end of it is now, but at what point did history begin? Red Slash argues that having a Dutch flag for Indonesia is more acceptable because for "1/5 of the history of Indonesia, it was a Dutch colony". That gives history a beginning point of about AD300 (taking Dutch presence to be 1602-1949 , roughly 350 years), for which Britain controlled parts of Malaysia for just over a tenth (1786-1963, 177 years). I find two issues with this, firstly I don't understand why history here starts at AD300, or anywhere at all. I also don't see why 2/10 is somehow acceptable but 1/10 is cause for such "disgust".

As history doesn't really have a clear start date (start of human habitation perhaps, or the introduction of writing?), we should look at Malaysia. Malaysia's borders are defined by colonial borders. Its northern limits are where Britain established protection from Thailand, and its southern limits are where the British met the Dutch. The separation line east was where Spanish claims met British claims. The modern form of Malaysia (along with some of its legal systems, much of its Ethnic composition, the prevalence of English etc.) is a product of the history of British (and other) colonialism. That West and East Malaysia are united at all has a lot to do with British pressure for this to happen.

Does this justify a union jack background? It's clearly not a motif many like, but it doesn't entail the instant removal of the image just because it exists either. The picture was an attempt to emulate the (apparently acceptable) Indonesia template by creating an interesting header, and such attempts are positive and worthwhile. It's worth having a discussion about improvement and replacement if anything better exists of course, but that's different from just taking it out. I prefer it to a simple flag; it at least shows a bit of history (colonialism and independence), and a map. CMD (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it's highly inappropriate. If there is any flag in the background, it should be the flag of Malaysia. Malaysia is wonderfully multicultural, combining Malay, Chinese, Indian, Nyonya, indigenous Borneo, etc. cultures. Having a British flag in the background of that is an embarrassment. Good catch. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how the country being multicultural is directly relevant to a history template, but anyway, what would you suggest replace the flag map of Malaysia if the background was the Malaysian flag? What would a Malaysian flag in the back convey about history? CMD (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

All those are tangential questions. The fact is, the image is very inappropriate and should not be used and should be deleted. There is no real need for an image on the article(s) and template; a mere flag will do if someone wants something there at present. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

They're less tangential than multiculturalism. Can you elaborate on the reasons you feel it's so inappropriate it should be deleted? It is because, as Red Slash notes, the area was British for 1/10th of the time since AD300? CMD (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's that the topic is the history of Malaysia -- which as you can see from the History of Malaysia infobox on the right, stretches from 100 BC to the present -- not the history of the UK. If any flag should be in the background, it must be the flag of Malaysia. Compare History of Indonesia, History of India, History of Hong Kong, History of Kenya, History of Ghana, or history of other country or territory that was a protectorate, territory, or colony of the British Empire for some fraction of time. It's preposterous (and embarrassing to Wikipedia) to have the British flag as the background for this topic. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read the above, you would note that this picture is based on the Indonesian one which you bring up as an example. It just uses a forwards-in-time motif (colonisation --> independence --> modern Malaysia) rather than Indonesia's right-in-time motif. They both even use the same idea of colonial flags and modern flags, the difference being Malaysia places the modern flag on top of the colonial flag, whereas the Indonesian one places the modern flag around a central colonial flag. CMD (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

My error, strike that example, as Indonesia was for a time a Dutch colony, not a British one. That image needs to be changed as well; thank you for bringing it up. (However, the Indonesian one does not "place the modern flag around a central colonial flag".) Softlavender (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a more standardised position than expressed above. What do you mean by "the Indonesian one does not "place the modern flag around a central colonial flag" "? That's exactly what it does with the Dutch and Indonesian flags. CMD (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. There is some sort of synthesis between the two which is unclear except upon close and knowledgeable analysis ... the white "blending" or "airbrushing" or "cross-fade" effect at the lower corners just looks artistic; there is no specific indication that it is intended to be part of a flag and no distinct indication that there are two separate flags in the image. Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well that's what happens when you have a white flag. There definitely are two flags there, however airbrushed at the bottom, with the Dutch one in the middle around the VOC logo, and the Indonesian one surrounding it on both sides. That is why the red goes further down on the sides than in the middle. CMD (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is silly. Sure, the region has a history going back at least 10,000 years and the Malay people have been there for at least two thousand, but if we are talking about the history of Malaysia, that is a post-colonial nation with less than a hundred years of history. See the post above from User:Chipmunkdavis for a good summary on border questions. Much of the multiculturalism of which Malaysia is rightly proud was also created by migrations in colonial times. A Union Jack in a historical article is entirely appropriate. Pashley (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

additions to intro

Thanks for the additions to the intro but I have some concerns about them - wouldn't it be better to put such material in a mainspace article about systemic bias and let the larger group of editors hone them rather than having that exposition live here - and potentially exposed to the systemic bias of participants in this very project?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the WikiProject page used to have an explanation of systemic bias, which was later moved to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I would prefer the explanation be merged back. If that is not possible, then a summary of that explanation would be better than the introduction that was just added. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some of that content is problematic. It reads more like some POV article with cherrypicked examples, than a dispassionate discussion of what we can do to improve wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

These additions to the intro have just been trimmed by another editor who removed politics and big-business as two sources of possible bias. Separately, the difference between 'selection bias' and 'systemic bias' is an important one which is not presented on this project's page. The subsection just added on the topic of this difference is a short summary to add some referenced information about which one of these two forms of bias is more significant to this wikiproject. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Research idea of interest and a request for help

You may be interested in my idea at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Extracting_biographical_data_from_Wikipedia. Should be able to produce some nice graphs, illustrating the "gender inequality in country x" series, and more. I do need some help extracting data from Wikipedia dumps, however. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The mainstream press has been covering the gender-gap Wikipedia events over the last two or three months, publishing that the current gap is at about a ten to one ratio for English Wikipedia. If you need these url's then let me know. Do you know what the current variation is for the Wikipedia gender gap in Germany, Italy, etc? Could you list any of them here for reference. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, we don't know since nobody as far as I know did the breakdowns per country. Or century - both of those are what I am proposing to do, if someone can give me a data dump boiled down to relevant parameters in a csv file... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are some of the urls for the gender equality edit-a-thons[1] and the gender articles from the NY Times[2] which elsewhere mentioned a Maastrich University study on gender. I am assuming you are doing this as part of Susan's project to attain 25% female enrollment by 2015, which does not seem possible unless a pro-active plan is adopted at this point. The only active program being pursued now seems to be the "Mobile edits" program with similar demographic issues. Interwiki Language Projects may also have some data if you post on their messages board. Maybe this will give some sources. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias at Wikimania 2014

[[

File:Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png|thumb|right|550px]]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, requesting your input

Hello. Editors are welcome to comment on a discussion re: scope of a task force at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Keep_categorization_in_scope_for_this_project --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "she" for ships

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A much gentler proposal about changing the Manual of Style to deprecate the use of "she" for ships. As it concerns the intersection of grammatical gender with actual gender, I thought some of you might be interested. --John (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Signpost article: Indigenous Peoples of North America

Members might be interested in looking at the July 2 Signpost report on Indigenous Peoples of North America. --kosboot (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic Bias? Stoners allowing their articles to "go to pot"

I was reading the Marijuana article and see many issues with it. First off, it has multiple notice tags at the top and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. The article is critically lacking in many areas and is fraught with issue after issue. It appears that potheads are the only ones who care about the article, but are too stoned to do anything about it. When edits are made, it's non-drug users doing the editing, so, of course, they come at it from a completely different perspective. LesVegas (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually being serious, by the way. LesVegas (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may kindly suggest for the future, perhaps eliminating characterization of people ("potheads," "too stoned") might be appropriate. (Btw, I'm a virulent anti-smoker of any kind.) -- kosboot (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes LesVegas, your post is effectively a slander of everyone whose name appears in the editing history of this article. It could be deleted under WP:BLP. If you can make well sourced improvements yourself, please do so, but keep the commentary on other editors out of it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, come on, I have a joking style. Where's everyone's sense of humor? Perhaps, on Wikipedia, there's systemic bias against humor and sarcasm itself since all of our communications are text-based and devoid of inflection and tone! By the way, I smoke every now and then myself (always in licensed and purely legal situations) and have edited the article recently and, for the record, I'd never, ever insult or slander myself. But in all seriousness, I think it only stands to reason that many editors might be chronic chronic smokers. If there's conflicts and arguments about whether a sentence ought to end in an exclamation point or a period, there's probably an interesting and vociferous debate on the far reaching cosmic effects of punctuation, but I'd imagine the non-smokers would see their edits through, no matter how "right" they may actually be. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I'm a fool, but that's why I think there may be systemic bias. Anyway, I did make some edits, but it's has a long way to go, and there's only one of me and many pounds of Grade A Blueberry Yum Yum on my living room table...(calm down, only joking, only joking)....LesVegas (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias in Wikipedia guideline

I have illurstrated that WP:TITLE has WP:NPOV issue in Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography (this link will soon become Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 46#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography or there abouts) that consideration to minor view points is lacking in the guideline. I am convinced that a change to WP:Title will not succeed through a proposal because of systemic bias coming from Wikipedia editor demography, so am not proceeding. This is just to call your attention to the matter for the record. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible v Tanakh

Can I encourage interested parties to weigh in on this merge discussion. Personally, I can't see that the term "Hebrew Bible" implies anything other than a Christian spin on a Hebrew field of study, which already has a perfectly good name. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

in the scholarly world, it is called "Hebrew Bible" which i understand evolved as a way to a) avoid any religion's name for the field and b) avoid limiting the field to any particular canon. It's an entirely appropriate title for an encyclopedia article. "Tanakh" is a particular canon of books for Judaism, just as the Roman Catholic "Old Testament" is, and just as the mainline protestant "Old Testament" is. I don't know why you post this here but I am glad you did or I wouldn't have seen it.Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of Gender Gap Task Force

We're just getting organized and already having problems at WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force with individuals who obviously don't like the project and/or some of the individuals involved.

One participant had known Mens rights issues and he and others have been warned that Community Sanctions on that topic does apply narrowly. But the admin who warned them said it did not necessarily apply to others who have not been involved in that issue previously and/or may have other disruptive agendas. Any help encouraging them to cut it out appreciated.

Also, is there some sort of guideline applying to this sort of thing? Upon a quick skim, Wikipedia:General sanctions doesn't seem to have anything that applies. Or should it just be taken to WP:ANI for community sanctions and pray the community doesn't OK disruption of Wikiprojects in general and this one in particular. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After discussions there about disruption and our options, which some of you may have got involved in, and Admin input, things have calmed down, thankfully!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Women Scientists Worklist

Hi all, I'd love some help clearing the worklist of possibly notable women scientists without articles! I'm getting through it slowly but some help would be great. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are links to several different lists which contain sometimes overlapping names of women scientists, fyi. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove non-demographic ideological/etc. listings from Open Tasks

First, this is a bloated page with questionable entries, outdated tags and probably lots of out dated links to articles that have been fixed up quite a bit since.

Moreover, the purpose of this task force is "systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups." So I'm wondering if ideological and just hodge podge groupings should be in there. I know further wording on the main page tends to water down the meaning from just demographics, and thus these other areas have been entered. But some seem way afield of purpose here and more relevant to the specific Wikiprojects covering them. (And I say this as a libertarian; but if you think a "Libertarianism" open tasks section is appropriate, I'll be glad to put it in. ;-)

I'd propose we remove from Open Tasks these sections: Art and Design, Agriculture and horticultural studies, Limited geographic scope (a hodge podge of dozens of articles), Non-neoclassical economics, Giving undue weight to heterodox economics and pseudoeconomics, Merging overrepresented content, Nature (biology, chemistry, physics and related), Perspective biases (another hodgepodge), and and Soviet history. Articles that belong in the remaining categories - and many are bios of women - can be moved there.

Thus remaining would be these sections and all relevant articles under them: Geography, Developing World, Labor issues, Women and women's studies, Non-English language literature, Linguistics, Ethnic minorities or majorities, Religion, People with disabilities/disability studies, Underrepresented occupations. (I'm going to merge "Women and non-English-speaking Scientists" with existing women's section.)

I'll be glad to do this myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Need "Wikproject Minority views"??

Per above, it looks like this wikiproject's goal of dealing with minority representation of demographic groups has shifted to dealing with mistreatment of minority positions on a variety of issues, mostly scientific/medical in this thread. I seriously do think there is a place for a "Wikproject Minority views" that would deal with topics that are not the majority views in any field (including libertarianism, as I mention below). I'm pretty sick of people screaming "Fringe" and removing perfectly NPOV sentences, paragraphs, sections with WP:RS sources because it offends their mainstream views.

IF "minority topics" is a perview of this wikiproject then let's make it far more explicit because at some point I will want to clean up the Open Tasks list. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

When editors take "systemic bias" personally

And editor at an AfD took my comment about systemic bias personally and I answered him thusly. I wonder if we need language to make this point more explicitly. (I have been meaning to go through main page and check it out but haven't had a chance.)

Mentioning a factoid about bias, is not to say that a person is consciously biased vs. women or Africans. Their only bias may be that they hate bios without 15 solid WP:RS. However, in the overall scheme of the project, it tends to reinforce a systemic bias to remove articles about minorities and women when generally articles about white males will not receive as much scrutiny. Systemic bias is not necessarily a personal charge against a particular editor, unless one fully investigates their AfD history and finds it, which I'm not interested in doing. (Though I'm not against someone doing an across the board study of such a thing, and the Wikimedia Foundation has been funding all sorts of projects like that.)

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)

Some Wikipedians argue that something isn't sexist without a sexist intention. This overlooks that most sexism and racism is functional, not intentional, which speaks to the issue you've raised, Carol. Maybe an essay on functional v. intentional would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such arguments don't merit much weight, as there is no 'affirmative action' for AfD. You're more than welcome to start the RfC to change that, so I had to !vote in accordance to policy. Tutelary (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your point isn't exactly clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically you can't talk about systemic bias without defining the system. If there is a systemic bias in the Fields Medal committee, then we cannot render our coverage of Fields Medal winners gender neutral (without deleting all but two articles about Fields Medal winners, which would present a distorted view of the world). If, on the other hand, there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, we can address that by increasing coverage of the under-represented portion, by robustly defending all AfD's to the same standard, and so forth.

There are ancillary questions, though. This article I created on an Australian female author, which, without extra references (which probably exist on paper) fails WP:Notability, achieved almost no page views other than those related to the deletion. Once our coverage of any subject is down to this level, there is little to be gained in terms of advocacy goals in going any further. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

• To Carol: Note that systemic bias is not about individuals, it's about numbers. There are far less editors on Wikipedia who are females, minorities, and of certain age, income, or nationality groups. That's why its "systemic" rather than individual. It's important not to confuse the two. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess these two comments are addressed to my comment above "Systemic bias is not necessarily a personal charge against a particular editor, unless one fully investigates their AfD history and finds it, which I'm not interested in doing."

If so, remember systems are made of individual parts, in this case individual editors. And if a large number of editors are hostile to any group/class (women, disabled, people of color, Asian medical practitioners, etc.) to the extent they add negative material to articles while removing evidence of notability/credibilty from articles, call for AfDing articles, and act in hostile ways towards individual editors who they perceive as being part of that group/class on any or all articles, those individuals are creating a systemic problem. And dealing with those individuals on a one by one basis is one way of solving the problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, we have to deal with specific editors who intentionally discriminate against certain groups, but more often, we have to deal with editors who hold equally damaging subconscious prejudices. Making personal accusations would not help us educate the latter group about their prejudices (this is a lesson I learnt the hard way). --Hildanknight (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, sometimes people don't realize that they appear prejudiced to others (no matter what's going on consciously or unconsciously) unless it is pointed out to them. It's really a matter of how you do it. Plus there may be legit issues raised by the discussion. For example I've had problems with people yelling antisemitism just by wanting NPOV in BLPs about critics of Israel and transphobia for wanting NPOV in BLP on "gender critical" feminists (i.e., the accusors didn't raise the issue diplomatically). Many people would be scared away from opining at a noticeboard or talk page by such; but even when done non-diplomatically some will look at both sides of the argument and thus realize they themselves were prejudiced against the critics in a knee jerk fashion. Discussion of issues should not be forbidden because some people might take offense, especially when there is none personal is intended. (As in the original topic of this thread, general discussion of systemic bias or even more specifically sexism.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Difference Between Cultural Exchange and Cultural Appropriation"

"The Difference Between Cultural Exchange and Cultural Appropriation" is an interesting article in the online magazine Everyday Feminism. I thought some members might want to read it. -- kosboot (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI on “disruption of Wikiproject”

Here is an ANI posting regarding problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wife of Prime Minister of India

Hello. I re-started an article on the wife of the Prime Minister of India. There is some question about the sources I am using as references, but I wonder a bit if there is a bias about her not being well liked and about her husband not wishing to acknowledge her. I would appreciate any comment about the extent to which this person meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Article_on_Modi.27s_wife.2C_Jashodaben_Chimanlal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

IEG Renewal Request - Feedback?

Hi everyone! I just wanted to let you know that I've started a request to renew my IEG project over on Meta. You can read about the original project here and see the renewal request here. It's been pretty successful and I'm planning some big things to help with systemic bias on a larger scale - I would love any feedback! Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Americans

At the top of this article there is a gallery with images of 24 Americans. Only one woman, Marilyn Monroe. Input would be useful at Talk:Americans#Women?. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Very unfortunate. I also notice that every African-American other than Martin Luther King is a late 20th century entertainer, and that none of the images depict native Americans. Some suggestions off-the-cuff include Jane Addams, Sacagawea, Billie Holiday, Margaret Fuller, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickinson, Mary Cassatt, and Louisa May Alcott. Many of the current choices seem arbitrary or worse; why Cobain and not George Gershwin or Scott Joplin? Why Spielberg and not Groucho Marx or Charlie Chaplin? Why Henry Ford and not Booker T.Washington, Henry Ozawa Tanner, Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall? Why Ronald Reagan and not Teddy Rooselvelt? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Those "pictures of famous people that represent country X" are a systemic bias nightmare, I think we should do away with them completely, or use a randomized algorithm that would look at articles of people from country X with page views greater than Y. They are a constant topic of dispute and it's frankly time-wasting, especially since we're trying to sum up Americans with 20 photos.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

While visually attractive, I also lean towards removing all images of people from the head of that article. The vast majority of Americans are neither famous nor as affluent as the people depicted. -- kosboot (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

While the above conversation occurred during my wikibreak, I don't recall seeing a notice in the article's talk page which was the subject of this discussion, that the above discussion was taking place. Although it is not required. It'd be nice to inform editors of the articles being discussed here, that a discussion about the article is going on in that article's talk page. It is a courtesy normally extended if an article is discussed in a noticeboard, and it'd be nice if this wikiproject were to extend it as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)