Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Exploring the idea of distinguishing between countering systemic bias and POV-motivated false claims of bias

Latest comment: 10 years ago89 comments8 people in discussion

I've recently been involved in discussions about another WikiProject, not this one, possibly encouraging edits in a non-NPOV fashion while claiming that they were simply correcting systemic bias against a particular political point of view. Please understand, and I want to make it very clear, that I am not concerned about that being an issue with this WikiProject, and I agree with this Project's goals. However, I am worried about editors who are POV-pushers misusing the term "systemic bias" to camouflage other agendas. In the future, I might want to make a formal proposal to address that problem, but for now, I'm just exploring ideas informally. My specific reason for posting here is that I want to "do no harm" with respect to projects such as this one.

So I'd like to ask editors in this Project what ideas you might have about how to distinguish between legitimate countering of systemic bias, and disruptive insertion of bias under the claim that it's countering the opposite bias. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the focus here is "demographic groups," the question is, is the political issue relevant to that or not. For example, an ethnic group that had a separatist political agenda, or women addressing ovarian cancer, or African Americans interested in police racial profiling would have legitimate systemic bias issues. However, Marxist or libertarian or Green viewpoints may be held by members of a variety of demographic groups and therefore not really covered.

Of course, members of a demographic group may claim that a political view or ideology or goal represents that of most of the members of that group and be wrong or be misrepresenting their position. And they also may claim that some political grouping that only disagrees with them on political issues is biased against them as a demographic group. Specifics are what matters. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a very helpful answer. So having a particular political leaning and believing that the "mainstream media" are systemically biased against that political viewpoint is not necessarily the same thing as being concerned that Wikipedia fails to give adequate coverage to notable content that is of particular interest to a demographic group of people – and the distinction can be tested by evaluating whether or not the people who have the concern share a particular demographic identity other than the political belief itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm a little lost. You say in effect: Mainstream media bias does not equal Wikipedia failure to give adequate coverage. It's not the same, but obviously if the mainstream media isn't covering a topic there will be less RS to use to show it's notable. However, you'll have to explain the last section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not actually arguing for anything at this point. It's more like I'm feeling the subject out, and looking for other editors to point me to where my thinking is still unclear, which is exactly what you just did (thanks!). I agree with you about media and RS.

I came to this question from seeing editors arguing, not so much that mainstream media do not cover a topic or do not provide sources for a topic, but that mainstream media are biased about a topic. See, for example, how the term "mainstream media" is used by politically conservative commentators in the US. I'm trying to figure out how to differentiate between an editor who is pushing a POV (for example, arguing that Fox News and Breitbart.com are sources that need to be cited because the New York Times carries a systemic liberal bias), from editors who are doing what this WikiProject does. I've been seeing editors frame the conservative news source argument as countering Wikipedia's systemic liberal bias, and I've become concerned that this formulation may be becoming a misuse of the systemic bias issue.

Based upon your earlier comment, I was sounding out the possibility that advocates of conservative media in the US are not a single demographic group, outside of their shared advocacy of conservatism. Of course, my point isn't unilaterally about conservatism or liberalism, and anything that might eventually be part of a policy or guideline at Wikipedia should be generally applicable. I think it's similar to what you said above about Marxist or libertarian or Green viewpoints. My point would be the same if someone were insisting on emphasizing leftist sources in order to counter a supposed conservative systemic bias at Wikipedia.

Ultimately, I'm exploring whether it is possible to differentiate between POV pushers who claim that they are correcting Wikipedia's systemic biases (one editor's bias could be another editor's NPOV), from legitimate editing that is intended to counter real systemic bias – I don't want to argue for something that would interfere with the latter. Perhaps, if there is a demographic group of people, defined by something other than the specific belief that is the subject of an editing dispute, then providing content reflecting their experiences is genuine countering of systemic bias – whereas if there is a group of people whose only shared characteristic is a particular opinion, then they are not the basis for claiming systemic bias, and that particular opinion is just one POV? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In the end you have to go on a case by case basis and if there's a stalemate on talk page get a third opinion, do an RfC, go to the relevant noticeboard etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know how those things work. But in terms of setting guidance about such cases, before they arise, do any other editors active in this WikiProject have any thoughts about what differentiates genuine countering of systemic bias from someone who is simply pushing a POV and claiming that the opposing POV is a systemic bias? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Framing the question another way

I remain interested in this issue, so I'd like to ask what is pretty much the same question, but framed in a different manner.

Let's say that a hypothetical editor shows up at this WikiProject, and says something like the following on this talk page:

I believe that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against [insert here a political party, one that has an ideology that might be discussed as a matter of WP:NPOV, but one that is not populated by any particular group of people who might be considered to be under-represented in English-speaking culture; also a political party that has a talking point that the news media are biased in favor of its opponents]. I'm joining this WikiProject in order to correct this bias in Wikipedia articles.

Subsequently, the editor posts on this talk page, asking other editors in the WikiProject to join him/her in editing various pages, where the edits seem to be about making that political party look good, or the opposing party look bad.

How would editors in this WikiProject feel about that? How would you respond to that hypothetical editor, and what reasons would you give for your responses? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you are being sufficiently specific, I can (merely) opine. That's called old fashioned POV pushing. You'd have to see archives to see if people have done it here. I've complained about a couple of the categories in the Open Tasks list seeming to do just that and said I was going to clean them out. No one objected. But got too caught up in other things to do.

What pov pushers usually do is go to/create articles and just edit; maybe let a few others who agree know, including through subject oriented wikiprojects; or canvass like hell if they think they can get away with it; create meat and sock puppets; talk it up on their talk page if they have a lot of talk page followers (a trick I've noticed that seems to be quite successful for some!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for caring about this subject. I used to wonder about what would happen if people would gang up in a WikiProject or offline and try to influence an article. Fortunately, I didn't have to wonder long because it played out in real life. Over the course of three years or so, there was a big effort to create an article Jewish Bolshevism. Several people offline got together and tried to create it. it was based on propaganda in their part of the world that has been completely discredited everywhere else. I came in at the end of that fiasco and participated in deleting it. Eventually it was redirected to something much more acceptable. One of the original creators retired from Wikipedia as a result. The article had been created and deleted and recreated over a period of 3 years. The rest of us left over tried to decide what to do after it was deleted. Some people considered forming online groups, some people wanted to create offline vigilante groups, but we decided at the end that we would all watch this space and maybe a few other locations as a Bat-Signal and if anything unusual popped up, we could swarm in since we already knew the history. And that's what led me to this question. USchick (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another example that played out on a large scale [1] [2] [3] USchick (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

While Russian government employees editing is obviously a problem, it's also obvious they haven't gotten as good at it as US government employees who've learned to use untraceable IPs. In English-speaking Wikipedia, however, there is a systemic bias against Russian ethnic nationals/nation by a lot of rah rah US/British/etc. nationals, so in general getting more articles about Russia that are more NPOV is relevant here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for very interesting comments! I agree with you both that what I initially described is POV-pushing, as opposed to countering systemic bias. I also agree that having more complete coverage of, for example, Russian ethnic subjects would be a valid editing effort under this WikiProject, whereas the stuff about making a particular government look good, or a particular group of people look bad per propaganda, is instead disruptive. So that leads me in turn to ask how one can define what it is that makes the former different than the latter. (Obviously, the POV-pushers will deny that they are POV-pushing, and might well claim that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against the Russian government to which they are merely trying to restore NPOV.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If government was somehow separate, that would be great. Government employees are people with their own thoughts and opinions. If you want to be a fly on the wall and watch a real cluster#ck, I invite you to a talk page about a current event (a plane crash) that contains real life drama: ani-Russian sentiment, US propaganda, The New World Order, and lots of histrionics from editors who want to get their way. It got so bad, that an admin refused to enforce sanctions because he said he was afraid of what might happen to his kids. I am involved, so this is not an invitation to participate, only to watch. :) Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. USchick (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

With a description like that, I don't even want to look at it!

I think we all know intuitively how those kinds of things are not the same as countering systemic bias, but how can we define the difference? Although politics might be part of it, I don't think it's merely a matter of whether or not a government is involved. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the individual, who is a member of a household, that makes up a neighborhood, that's part of a city, that's part of a country, which has a set of rules completely different from the country next door with a totally different set of rules. So when I walk out of my household, with a certain set of rules already in my head, and walk across the street to my neighbor's house, where a different set of rules apply, I encounter systemic bias, because I like my towels folded differently, and I hate the colors they used, and I don't approve the way they raise their children, and they may hate me if I happen to be of a different race/sexual orientation/whatever. USchick (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so when a POV pusher says that their POV is like one of those houses, how are they getting it wrong? Is it that a particular set of opinions is different than a particular cultural identity? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

They're absolutely correct in their own mind. And if enough people agree with them, they can form a group. The guy who said the world is round became an outcast even though he was correct. Do you want to be right, or do you want to be accepted by your peers? There lies the question. USchick (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A POV pusher, and the group of POV pushers who agree with them, can genuinely believe that they are just like one "house" whose customs are different than the systemic norm at Wikipedia. I'm trying to figure out how to compose language that would define people doing that as disruptive, without creating problems for people who are genuinely countering systemic bias. There has to be some kind of way to express the difference, but what is it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a very noble effort! In my opinion that comes from experience. As soon as you walk outside and encounter other people doing things differently, you run into a conflict. What was helpful to me, was the idea where you and I are in a room, facing each other. You tell me the room is blue and I see a white room. I think you're crazy. So I walk over to your side and stand with you to look in my direction where i was standing before. It turns out someone painted the room in two different colors, and the wall behind me was blue. Maybe there's an essay or a visual representation of this somewhere? USchick (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm thinking out loud here (and truly, I am grateful for the way you are helping me through this thought process). That difference in having seen, or not having seen, the blue wall arises from a difference in previous experience. When those differences in previous experience are systemic, then that is what gives rise to systemic bias. On the other hand, when we both look at the same blue wall and one of us says "I like blue" and the other says "I dislike blue", those are differences in POV that are independent of any systemic differences in previous experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we assuming that the the systemic norm at Wikipedia and a group of POV pushers cannot be the same thing? Could it be that, in some areas, the majority of Wikipedia editors share a bias? Of course every POV pusher will say yes, they are biased against my POV, but is it really that inconceivable that there could be a real bias? It seems to me that the only reasonable solution is to neutrally report what is in reliable sources whether we like the results or not. This is rather hard to do, but editing in areas where you have no strong opinions helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon is wise. I agree completely. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that in many parts of the world, media is state owned. Editors on English language Wikipedia have made it a point to eliminate these sources from the RS list. That eliminates more than half of the population on earth and silences their opinion. Systemic bias. USchick (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

State-owned media, per se, do not attract so much attention by enwiki editors. However, where a state uses media to spread propaganda &c., it's quite right to avoid presenting those claims as fact. To the extent that half the world's population actually believes claims made by systematically unreliable sources, I have a lot of sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean that we should degrade our own content to match. bobrayner (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A case can be made for non-state owned media being just as unreliable. They chase ratings and advertising dollars. The conversion to a digital format caused a massive firing of reporters, so it's no longer profitable to get your own story. It's much cheaper to grab something off the internet, that someone else has already reported and to talk about that. Stories get pulled if they might upset a major advertiser, all the time. For the chance to be "the first" at reporting something, facts aren't being checked and contradictory reports are presented, but that's not a problem because it creates sensationalism and ratings go up. So media in general is not reliable, but over half the world's population is silenced never the less. USchick (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "even the poorest 5% of Americans are richer than two-thirds of the entire world. Something to think about." [4] USchick (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to see this discussion, and I agree that sources always matter more than editor opinions – so long as we look sufficiently widely for our sources. But I want to ask Guy and Bob about part of what you said. Are you saying that the systemic norm at Wikipedia could, itself, be a non-neutral POV? I think that you are saying that it's a possibility, and that the way to deal with it is to set aside editor opinions in favor of reliable sources. Do I understand that correctly?

If so, I'm OK with that. But what I'm concerned about is when somebody comes along and says yeah, the systemic norm is indeed a POV, and I'm here to correct it, when in fact that person is the one pushing a POV against consensus. For example, in one strain of present-day US politics, there's a talking point about the "lamestream media" (coined, I think, by Sarah Palin). An editor can show up here saying that Wikipedia is biased against the view of the world as Fox News sees it, and call that systemic bias that needs to be countered. Or, it could be someone making an analogous complaint from the left. I'm trying to see if we can draw a distinction between that, which I think is plain old POV pushing, and legitimate countering of systemic bias. I'm interested in picking up from what USchick and I had been discussing, about the room with blue and white walls. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment shut down the conversation! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been dealing with health issues (nothing life threatening, just really annoying) and may take a while to respond. Good thing we have no deadlines...

I think there are areas where Wikipedia has a systematic content bias. There are articles where there are reliable sources on both sides, editors have attempted to bring the article in line with WP:WEIGHT, they have been shot down, and an RFC has shown that the consensus to suppress a legitimate minority view is not just local. I have not bothered to express my concerns in any of these areas because I can see that someone else has already done so, and my only edits to those pages have been uncontroversial things like fixing dead references and reverting obvious vandalism. And no, I am not going to name the pages. If I see an RFC or arbcom case in these areas I will express my view, but I know that it will be a minority view and fail to achieve consensus.

My basic philosophy in these cases is "so what?". So there is a wikipedia page that isn't as good as it could be. Big deal. I can hit the random article button a few times and find an article that is far worse, not because of bias but because of neglect and apathy. Why go into a battle that I will not win, accomplishing nothing, when there is another article I can work on that hasn't had an edit or a talk page comment in years? It's a big encyclopedia and there is plenty of work to be done without getting sucked in to a bunch of drama. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I totally agree that editing should be a hobby and not a burden or source of aggravation. And I hope that you feel better soon! As for me personally, the reason I'm pursuing this particular discussion is because I want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Working hypothesis

Here is my working hypothesis at this moment, arising from the blue wall metaphor:

	People	Experience
Genuine systemic bias	A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience, that is different from the experiences of most Wikipedia editors (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation)	Shared past experiences are different from other editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.
POV dispute	A group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, but not by any other shared experience	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different than the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.

Does this seem correct? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I'm expanding it by an additional factor:

	People	Experience	Content
Genuine systemic bias	A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience, that is different from the experiences of most Wikipedia editors (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation)	Shared past experiences are different from other editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.	Argue primarily that content should not be neglected
POV dispute	A group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, but not by any other shared experience	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different than the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.	Argue primarily that opinions should be emphasized or minimized

I'm interested in whether this is accurate, and in whether there are any exceptions that contradict what it says. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Very nice chart. I would like to see a definition for "most Wikipedia editors." And thank you for liking the blue wall idea, I like it a lot also. USchick (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "most Wikipedia editors" is not the correct term. Most Wikipedia editors are not Chinese. Does that mean a group of Chinese editors can push a certain view about Chinese politics? Articles about Chinese politics, where the opposing view dominates, may be written by white editors, or may be written by Chinese editors who hold the dominant view. This would equally apply to Eastern Europe or any other region. Maybe "opposing view" would be a better term. --Hildanknight (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What happens when the dominant view and the opposing view is split right down the middle and editors are not willing to compromise? Wiki policy is so contradictory, it's not very helpful at all. Admins don't get involved in content disputes, and the only thing taken seriously around here is a legal threat. So at the end, it all comes down to personal opinion of individual editors with their own personal bias. And the loudest ones achieve "consensus" which may or may not have any basis in reality. If someone has any suggestions about what to do, I'm very interested. USchick (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! As for the last question, I don't know the answer, except to the extent that there is something to be said for consensus when it achieves editing peace, and my personal experience has been that "loudness" can be overcome through polite persistence.

What I was trying to convey with "most Wikipedia editors" was that most editors share some experiences and also share a lack of other experiences; that lack is what gives rise to systemic bias. I tend to think that I need to come up with an alternative phrase in its place, but that is going to take some thought. If it were simply something like "...a shared past experience, that is under-represented on Wikipedia", that opens the door for POV pushers to say "my POV is under-represented". I suppose one option might be to leave it out entirely: "A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation)". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia editors share a similar demographic: young males with Internet access. This is a very very limited population. Just for fun, see the discussion right below this one. USchick (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps then an alternative way to go would be: "A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation), that is different from the experiences of most English language Wikipedia editors (skewing young and male, from English-speaking countries and with Internet access)". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's much more descriptive and precise, and leaves out the ambiguity of "this is what it said, but what did that really mean?" USchick (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm leaning towards explaining more, rather than explaining less. Now that, in turn, leads me back to contemplating the issue that Hildanknight raised. Let's say that a group of editors from China, Eastern Europe, or wherever, show up to, perhaps, push a political POV. They have a shared national experience, and it's different than that definition of "most editors", so I wonder if this is the kind of contradicting exception that I was asking about above. Perhaps the fact that they would be arguing for an opinion, instead of against neglect of content, solves the problem via the third column of the table, but I'm concerned that it cuts it a little close. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what happens in real life, is that the loudest people wear out people with the dissenting opinion, simply because adults have responsibilities and a guy living in his mother's basement can argue indefinitely. When you have a situation where the majority of Wikipedians share a lot of characteristics with the stereotypical guy living in his mother's basement, well..... USchick (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: In some cultures, many working adults continue to live with their parents. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and they are working and contribute to the household and have responsibilities. They don't have time to be on the computer all the time and they don't have someone to bring them cooked food, while they play on the computer. Big difference. USchick (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If a group of Chinese editors promote a certain political ideology, but most Chinese people oppose that ideology, then that is not systemic bias. Another political ideology may be supported by most Chinese people but opposed by most white people. Then a group of Chinese editors promoting that ideology could be fighting systemic bias, if existing coverage of that ideology is negative, such negative coverage is due to systemic bias (such as editors not using Chinese-language sources) and the group of editors seek balanced coverage (not positive coverage). --Hildanknight (talk)

That's a very helpful explanation. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Version 3.0:

	People	Experience	Content	Argument
Genuine systemic bias	A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation), that is different from the experiences of most English-language Wikipedia editors (skewing young and male, from English-speaking countries and with Internet access)	Shared past experiences are different from other Wikipedia editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.	Material of interest relates to shared experiences of many people from that background, and not just a small group of people within that background having a particular opinion.	Argue primarily that content should not be neglected, and seek balanced, rather than positive, coverage
POV dispute	A group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, more so than by any other shared experience	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different than the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.	Material of interest relates to opinions, or to unrepresentative views within demographic groups.	Argue primarily that opinions should be emphasized or minimized

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is this going to be used? USchick (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm mostly thinking out loud. But, when/if I become more confident about whether it is actually a dependable distinction, I'm probably going to take it somewhere like the Village Pump, and seek community consensus that such a distinction is valid. If that happens, then I think that it will be useful to be able to point to such a consensus whenever some POV pusher tries to claim falsely that they are countering systemic bias, when they really are not. I came to this issue from seeing exactly that happen, and I'm trying to build a consensus-based way to deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally would need instructions about how to use this chart. If I was to self diagnose, if I fit one of the above criteria, do I have POV/Bias or I don't have it? USchick (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait, if I understand correctly, according to this chart, only the minority opinion different from regular "Wikipedia editors" can exhibit systemic bias. Regular editors are exempt? Surely that's not right??? USchick (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, a POV is created by shared experience. If we have a vastly different life experience, it's highly unlikely that we would share a common POV. Right? Just trying to understand, sorry. USchick (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nothing to say sorry for – this is exactly the kinds of pointing out of flaws in the formulation that I am looking for. I want to find it now, not later.

My intention is that the upper row should represent legitimate countering of systemic bias, something that would be regarded as a "good thing". And the bottom row would represent POV disputes. POV disputes can include POV pushers, who are disruptive, but of course for every POV pusher there could be another editor in the discussion who is helpfully trying to maintain NPOV. My hope is that, in the case of POV discussions, editors trying to maintain NPOV can tell the POV pusher who falsely claims "I'm just trying to correct Wikipedia's systemic bias!" – the phenomenon that I observed, and that brought me to this discussion here – that "No, that isn't really what systemic bias is about. You may be right or wrong, and we need to discuss this POV issue, but do not paint it falsely as systemic bias." To do that, I'm trying to find a way to distinguish between real systemic bias and non-systemic POV, and to do it in a way that will not cause unintentional harm to real countering of systemic bias.

I just realized from what you said that I shouldn't call that upper row "Genuine systemic bias", but rather, "Genuine countering of systemic bias". I meant it to be the latter, but now I realize that it sounded like I was saying that it was about editors who cause systemic bias instead of countering it. My wording about minority opinions was motivated by the example of "a group of Chinese editors promote a certain political ideology, but most Chinese people oppose that ideology, then that is not systemic bias" from above. I think I still don't have it right, however. About past experience, I'm trying for the difference between, to use examples, increasing coverage of women's issues (because those issues are systemically under-represented), versus increasing the weight given to the views of one political party versus another (because some people belong to one party, some to the other, but they both have been living in the same communities – they have different experiences to the extent of adhering to opposite political views, but those are basically differences in opinion). It's like the difference between saying "Oh, I never saw that blue wall until now" versus saying "I've been looking at that blue wall all this time, and I just don't like the color blue." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Version 4.0:

	People	Experience	Content	Argument
Genuine countering of systemic bias	A group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation), that is different from the experiences of most English-language Wikipedia editors (skewing young and male, from English-speaking countries and with Internet access)	Shared past experiences are different from other Wikipedia editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.	Material of interest relates to shared experiences of many people from that background, and not just a small group of people within that background having a particular opinion.	Argue primarily that content should not be neglected, and seek balanced, rather than positive, coverage
POV discussion	A group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, more so than by any other shared experience	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different than the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.	Material of interest relates to opinions.	Argue primarily that opinions should be emphasized or minimized

Still trying to make incremental improvements. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation! So before people can counter systemic bias, they have to understand what it is. Also, when giving instructions (according to psychologists), the instructions should tell people what to do, not what they shouldn't do. For example, "put your trash here and your plastic for recycling here" (with arrows). Even if they were not planning to put it anywhere, now they have been prompted to comply, and will be less likely to throw it on the floor, we hope! So if we're trying to encourage people to form a better argument, the instructions may need to prompt them in the right direction. We want them to self correct, so that no one needs to come back and counter their bias. lol USchick (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a page somewhere in Wiki policy about how to form a good argument, but I can't find it now. USchick (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Does what I have here need to be further revised in order to make the how-to clearer? I've tried to frame the upper row in terms of what is "good", but my goal here isn't really to provide an instruction guide about how to counter systemic bias (although that would be an excellent goal for a separate effort), but rather to explain to POV pushers how POV pushing isn't the same thing as countering systemic bias. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Just a few suggestions:

Change "group of people" to a phrase that includes a single editor from a minority group. POV pushers may work alone.
Disability should be included as an example of a "shared past experience".
Change the word "skewing" to another word (or term) that is easier to understand.
Delete (or change) "rather than positive", because the logic equally applies to pushing for negative coverage.
The table would look better with fewer columns and more rows.

Note that editors who are truly countering systemic bias are more likely to point out specific flaws. For example, only using English sources when the nature of the topic calls for the inclusion sources in another language.

--Hildanknight (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful advice, and I agree with all of your bullet points. About "specific flaws", I've seen many discussions where a POV pusher is concerned about something very specific on a page, so I'm not ready to say that yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Version 5.0 (albeit still in "beta"!):

How to distinguish countering systemic bias from POV discussions unrelated to systemic bias
	Genuine countering of systemic bias	POV discussion
People	Members of a group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age), that is different (per sources) from the experiences of most English-language Wikipedia editors (disproportionately young and male, from English-speaking countries and with Internet access)	Members of a group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, more so than by any other shared experience
Experience	Shared past experiences are different from other Wikipedia editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different from the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.
Content	Material of interest relates to shared experiences of many people from that background, and not just a small group of people within that background having a particular opinion.	Material of interest relates to opinions.
Argument	Argue primarily that content should not be neglected, and seek balanced, rather than positive or negative, coverage	Argue primarily that opinions should be emphasized or minimized

I'm still looking for flaws to be pointed out to me, and fixed. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Love it! USchick (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Argumentative people would say (and do) that shared experience has nothing to do with it because we only report what the sources say. What they don't say, is they already cherry picked sources to support their POV and any further discussion is not allowed. PLEASE include something about POV pushers don't allow further discussion. USchick (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! What happens when someone tells a POV pusher that they are mistaken to call what they are doing "countering systemic bias", pointing to this table, and the POV pusher complains "You aren't allowing me to continue my further discussion about systemic bias!"? I think that it can cut both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is not about what they think, there's already a rule about WP is not a Soapbox. Usually they try to shut down any further discussion about what sources say. Only their sources are allowed, and no further discussion is allowed. You don't have to include it, I'm just saying. USchick (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that there is an alternative solution to what you pointed out, and I added "per sources" to the left column on the "People" row. That way, we indicate that genuine countering of systemic bias does provide sources, and if other editors complain that other sources do not support the correction of bias, then the answer is to show them non-cherrypicked sources. I think that helps distinguish bias countering from POV pushing (but again, the purpose of this table is not to provide a "how-to" for countering bias). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: @USchick: @Jytdog: As a new editor (and not a native speaker of English), I saw subtle racism in articles like Asian values and Islamic terrorism (both articles are now less slanted). Hence I thought that is what systemic bias means, because of the word "bias". If native speakers of English have this misconception too, then more can be done to clarify what systemic bias is. For comparison, the term "free software" is confusing, so advocates use the phrase "free speech, not free beer". Clarification would be especially useful for some topics that suffer from both POV pushing and genuine systemic bias. Wikipedia needs better coverage of traditional Chinese medicine (beyond the main article), such as notable practitioners and institutions. Some editors use this genuine systemic bias to justify their promotion of quackery (such as acupuncture as a cure for cancer). This leads to a prolonged battle with other editors who are determined to keep quackery out of Wikipedia. The battle drives away the few editors who want to improve general coverage of TCM (which requires fluency in Mandarin and specialist knowledge). --Hildanknight (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue discussed in other threads here on this talk page, and it strikes me as an interesting one. I came to Wikipedia as someone with a background in (Western) medical research, so my potential bias is one of wanting to keep quackery out of our pages. I'm someone who would like to see medical content treated the way Wikipedia treats content about living persons. But I also recognize that there is important encyclopedic content that can be written about medical traditions in other countries and cultures, and I can appreciate how that can be an under-represented subject here. It seems to me that there is no violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS in saying that non-"traditional" medical practices have existed and have prominent roles in certain cultures. The problem comes with saying or implying that they are efficacious. The trick is to explain to medical editors (like me) that it is possible to do the former without doing the latter. Anyway, it's not clear to me where, if anywhere, such clarifications would go in the draft table above. My concern here, as I've said before, is having a way to tell certain kinds of POV pushers that their arguments are part of a POV discussion, but should not be mislabeled as countering systemic bias. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Your goal should be to "tell that" to all editors in these disputes, not only the POV pushers. Would the POV pushers stop their POV pushing, just because you tell them that their actions are POV pushing and not countering systemic bias? What matters is that if other editors are misled, they would offer less resistance against the POV pushers. Even if your table cannot include such clarifications, you are dealing with a specific manifestation of the more general problem, which is confusion over what systemic bias is and is not. How can we deal with this general problem? --Hildanknight (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my intention is to provide this information equally to everyone. I obviously don't want to provide an inaccurate definition of countering systemic bias, but I also don't expect or intend to provide a comprehensive and all-purpose exposition about what it is. No, nothing here will stop POV pushers from continuing to push POV. But, if successful, it will make it hard for them to claim that their POV pushing is countering systemic bias, and it will make it easier for other editors to explain to them that it is not countering systemic bias. That is the specific problem that I am trying to solve. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: @USchick: The general problem is that editors have the misconception that systemic bias means prejudiced coverage (due to the word "bias"). The specific problem is that this misconception is exploited by POV pushers. You cannot deal with the specific problem (exploitation of the misconception) without dealing with the general problem (the misconception). The table is an excellent idea, but would many editors use the table and would the table be effective, if the misconception is too prevalent? For topics that suffer from both POV pushing and systemic bias, the solution is for more moderate editors to get involved in genuine countering of systemic bias. For example, a group of editors adding information about the history and cultural impact of TCM could drown out the POV pushers who claim that promoting quackery counters systemic bias. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting to understand this issue better. Please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the essay systemic bias? It is not WP policy, but I do think that it helps clarify the term. – Herzen (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: That description of systemic bias used to be on the main WikiProject page. Moving the explanation to a separate page, marked as an essay, was a bad decision. Look at the current explanation of systemic bias on the main WikiProject page. --Hildanknight (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: When you write "The general problem is that editors have the misconception that systemic bias means..." you appear to be assuming that the term "systemic bias" is prescriptive, but the use of the term in Wikipedia:Systemic bias appears to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, that essay (I think it should be an essay unless there is evidence establishing that that it has broad support as a guideline or policy) accurately describes a problem and gives it a name, but there is no reason to assume that it accurately describes the problem, the only problem, or the main problem. In my opinion, the poorly named Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Distinguishing between selection bias and systemic bias contains a far better description of the kind of systemic bias that this Wikiproject attempts to address. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, in many cases, a significant bias appears because most contributors to subjects about culture or politics of country X (for example) came from the same country X. Therefore, all articles about country X reflect their ethnic/national bias, rather than the bias by "Western" contributors who contribute less to specific "ethnic/national" subjects an=bout other countries! This is different from "international" (for example, scientific) subjects. The POV-pushing by groups of people with similar ethnic or professional backgrounds is no more legitimate than any other POV-pushing. To the contrary, their common national background can make things much worse and therefore needs to be countered by people with "Western perspective". My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Section break 2

Version 6.0:

How to distinguish countering systemic bias from POV discussions unrelated to systemic bias
	Genuine countering of systemic bias	POV discussion
People	Members of a group of people who can be characterized by a shared past experience (including geographic, national, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age), that is different (per sources) from the experiences of most English-language Wikipedia editors (disproportionately young and male, from English-speaking countries and with Internet access)	Members of a group of people who can be characterized by sharing a particular opinion, more so than by any other shared experience
Experience	Shared past experiences are different from other Wikipedia editors, other than simply having differences of opinion.	Past experiences, other than just having a particular opinion, are not different from the experiences of other Wikipedia editors.
Content	Material of interest relates to shared experiences of many people from that background, and not just a small group of people within that background having a particular opinion. There may be an issue of selection bias.	Material of interest relates to opinions. Editors may be concerned that other editors are "biased" against certain opinions.
Argument	Argue primarily that content should not be neglected, and seek balanced, rather than positive or negative, coverage	Argue primarily that opinions should be emphasized or minimized

I've revised the row about Content, based on the most recent comments above. I'm still not confident that I really understand selection bias and systemic bias correctly, as they apply here, so please continue to tell me about corrections to make. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it ready to be published somewhere official? I'd like to use it as an example. :-) USchick (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! In my opinion, it's ready, and to some extent, I'm just waiting to hear whether anyone else here says "no, not yet". Partly because I'm soon going to be on a Wiki-break, I'm not going to take any action on it in the next two weeks, after which I'll probably start an RfC at WT:NPOV to establish whether there is community support for it. But if you want to make use of it sooner than that, that would be very nice. You can just link to it right here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for the RfC. Community consensus will add a lot of weight. This is really great, thanks!!! USchick (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! @Hildanknight: @Guy Macon: @My very best wishes: Each of you commented earlier on the "bias" issue, so I would like to check back with you about whether or not the most recent version here, especially the "Content" row, correctly addresses those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As for what you are trying to accomplish, I think the latest version accomplishes it, and i doubt that further tweaking is needed.

That being said, I still question what you are trying to accomplish, and I am particularly troubled by your use of the word "genuine" in the header. Consider an article about, say, Pakistan. Yes, young white males in Los Angeles with internet access have a bias on the topic of Pakistan because of their life experiences, but so do poor villagers living in Pakistan. The answer -- the only answer as far as I am concerned -- is to follow the sources, not to imply that one POV is "genuine" and another is not.

Furthermore, I still question the conflation of "this is the definition of systemic bias that this wikiproject chooses to address" and "this is the correct definition of systemic bias". Again, this entire conversation appears to assume that the term "systemic bias" is prescriptive, but the use of the term in Wikipedia:Systemic bias appears to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

I don't have an easy answer to these concerns, but I do think that they are legitimate concerns. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: The table looks good, but where will the table be posted if the proposal succeeds? On a specific policy page? Perhaps a summary would be even better.

@Guy Macon: Both young white males and poor Pakistani villagers have differently biased views on Pakistan. The problem is that our articles about Pakistan reflect the bias of the young white males. The views of the poor Pakistani villagers are not represented because they lack the Internet access, English fluency and free time needed to edit Wikipedia. How do we "follow the sources" when most of the best sources about Pakistani topics would be in Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto or Sindhi, which hardly any young white males have any fluency in?

--Hildanknight (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that even the sources in Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto or Sindhi properly represent poor Pakistani villagers. This is especially true of the sources in those languages that are available online. Nonetheless, we are an encyclopedia, and our only option is to accurately report what is in reliable sources. If the sources are biased, then Wikipedia should be exactly as biased -- no more and no less.

Likewise, we will never get anyone who doesn't have internet access to be fairly represented among Wikipedia editors. Or Britannica editors, for that matter.

These are unsolvable problems. All we can do is to describe the problem, try to make the editors we have be aware of it, attempt to recruit dual-language editors, and avoid biting ESL editors who have poor language skills.

We can't solve these unsolvable problems, but we can avoid making them worse, and using prescriptive language instead of descriptive language hurts instead of helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone. When I get back from my Wiki-break, I'll start the RfC. My tentative thinking about where the table will be posted is that it should not be added to a policy or guideline, per WP:CREEP. (Also, that will hopefully avoid some potential opposition.) Instead, I intend to create a shortcut to the discussion, that can be used to link to it and point it out even after archiving. (See WP:ASPERSIONS for an example of how that works.) As for Guy's concern, I actually agree with you about that, but one has to keep in mind that I have a very specific intended use. It's really only for situations where someone claims that they are "countering systemic bias" when they are not. An example similar to the observation that brought me here would be an editor who wants to see pages about US politics put more emphasis on the views of one political party relative to another, and says that Fox News is a source that says the "mainstream media" are "systemically biased", and the editor therefore claims that he is simply countering systemic bias and that it isn't a POV issue. I want to be able to redirect such discussions away from claims that Wikipedia is "biased" in that way, and back to examination of sources (just as you say) the way that POV disputes should generally be worked out. "Genuine" isn't exactly the same thing as "valid". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, not all. I haven't even read most of this but several points immediately come to mind nixing this as anything but a short paragraph in the main page generally discussing interrelations of POV and bias".

The above assumes that systemic bias and POV are totally two different things, whereas they can be highly interrelated.
It assumes bad faith, i.e. that someone is out to push a POV when they have a legitimate concern but it also is intertwined with a POV and discussion can unravel any significant difference between them.
It's just too darned complicated (bureaucratic even) and tries to cover all the issues, which it can't possibly do. I was getting a headache the first few rounds of discussion about this and I just stopped watching the page, but decided to be more responsible and respond.

I'm sure others have come up with other good concerns. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I'm interested in whether other editors share those concerns, and I'll be happy to listen. But, at the moment, I'm not seeing a good reason for me not to pursue this idea further. In case it wasn't clear, I am not proposing that the table be added to this project page, or to any policy or guideline page (see just above). I don't see any advantage to a paragraph-style discussion instead of a table, for the actual intended purpose. Although the two things can be interrelated, I believe there is a need for explaining the ways in which they differ. And, as for bad faith, well, every POV dispute has two sides. The side of a POV dispute that I am concerned with here, is the one that says that something is countering systemic bias when it really isn't. There's nothing wrong with an editor who is concerned with a systemic bias problem discussing the POV of some page content, in good faith. But when someone who is merely arguing for a POV complains that Wikipedia has a systemic bias (for example, against one political party in the US), they need someone to explain to them that that is not what "countering systemic bias" is about. And that isn't about good or bad faith. It's about not misusing terminology. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish wrote: But when someone who is merely arguing for a POV complains that Wikipedia has a systemic bias (for example, against one political party in the US), they need someone to explain to them that that is not what "countering systemic bias" is about. When you say it in those simple terms it is much more effective. I have had problems with several of the listed categories in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks that I don't think belong there. Do you see any that are problematic.

However, even in something like political parties, if a new mostly Latino party was established in the US which attracted millions of Latino participants and voters but the major media ignored it and that was used as an excuse for Wikipedia to label it fringe, that might be an example of systemic bias. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we actually agree, but we are talking about different things. In no way am I talking about something like a new Latino party. I've avoided pointing directly at the discussion that brought me here, but maybe I should just go ahead and point to it: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (see the first "keep" comment) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 2. Look at how the phrase "systemic bias" was used there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Concrete examples help. It's really a matter of how the project decides to define itself. Right now it is narrowly to demographic groups and does not include ideological groups which may in fact be victims of systemic bias from more powerful ideological media opponents and Wikipedia editors who sympathize with the "mainstream" view. (I've been insulted a number of times here for being "libertarian", based on whatever negative stereotypes of being libertarian different media outlets or editors hold.)

However, it's just not something that people in this group would be addressing. The Conservative or Libertarian or other ideology-related Wikiprojects can - and do - address it. The Anarchism project has been particularly active in the past, anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good, I really do think we actually agree about this. That's really my point: what editors were saying at the discussion to which I linked is not the same thing as what this WikiProject is addressing. These are two different things. It's not that one thing is good and the other is bad. It's that confounding the two gets in the way of useful discussions, and that confounding the two is bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)