Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective/Archive 1

Archive 1

Separate project?

What are the specific differences between this project and its parent project? --Tewy 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CSB focuses on all forms of systemic bias; this task force is focused on making sure global perspectives are integrated into relevant articles.Benzocane 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Might this imply there there should (eventually) be other similar branches of CSB that counter, for instance, gender-based bias? --Tewy 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think breaking CSB into such task forces will be more efficient, ultimately. Benzocane 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

We could use this tag (or some version of this tag) to indicate articles in need of cleanup/additions from the GP (global perspective):

Benzocane 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, It seems like we may just need a single template to mark articles that are flagged by this task force. Here's a first draft:

Globe icon

This article is within the scope of the Global Perspective Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia by ensuring that global perspective is accurately represented in articles when relevant. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. The Global Perspective Task Force is part of the Countering systemic bias WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the task force and project pages, where you can join and see lists of open tasks.

I also see that Wikipedia has a series of "globalize" templates, which are not owned by the parent project. Down the road a bit this task force may want to look into taking ownership of those and altering them to mention the task force explicitly, but I don't know the process around that and think it's probably too early in any case.

Articles marked by those existing "globalize" templates are added to the Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. We should take a look at the articles there (click the link) to help us determine how this task force relates to that existing category, and whether there is a clear way to differentiate the mission of this task force from that larger body of articles with limited geographic scope.

We may want to create a new category specifically for this task force, but we need to sort out the degree of overlap and differentiation before we can do that. Pladuk 10:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Pladuk! I'm not sure overlapping with the other globalize templates is much of a problem for now. Perhaps we can use our template to indicate articles we're working on or planning to attend to and just keep an eye out for other globalize templates to see if those articles are priorities for us? If the global scope banner indicates concern, our banner can be used to indicate active work. Does that make sense? I also think countering "limited geographic scope" is not identical to our project here. We're concerned with making sure the POV is global (and therefore NPOV in a genuine systemic sense), whereas "geographic scope" is concerned more with what is covered in an entry, not how it's covered.Benzocane 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That sits well with me. Yes, while I'm sure some of the articles that have been flagged with the existing "globalize" template are things that the task force might work on, there are also entries like "bus driver" that have been flagged to indicate narrow coverage rather than bias -- as you say, the what rather than the how. It makes sense then that the task force's template is an explicit indicator that the task force is on the job, working to counter biases in an article through the inclusion of global perspective. I want to update the template with a larger image and to add a category that makes it easy to track all the articles that the task force has adopted. I'll do that sometime today/tonight. Pladuk 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This all seems to make good sense to me. Just for the record, it seems like we would be putting this new template, which indicates that our task force is on the job, on the talk pages of articles that we are focusing in on. Is that right? Also, at some point we might want to post information about the template on the Wikipedia:Village pump. Does anyone have thoughts about that? Excited to get going on some articles! --Mackabean 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just created the actual template here.
To include this on an article's talk page just use this markup
{{Global perspective task force}}
That should produce the following:

{{WikiProject Global perspective task force}}

I'm about to test the category part of it... More in one sec... Pladuk 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When the template is added to a talk page, that page is added to Category:Global perspective task force. By visiting that link you can see all the pages that are currently displaying the template (currently it's 2 pages, this one and the Iraq study group article mentioned further down this page). Pladuk 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually removing it from Iraq study group until it's had more review here. Needed to test it somewhere, but want to wait until others to approve it before it's actually put into use. Pladuk 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the template looks great and the categorization strategies seem sound to me. One tiny thought: do we really need the word "truly" in the template? I think it sounds better without it. No big deal, but I thought I'd mention it.Benzocane 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and just made the change to the template. Thanks for the review! Pladuk 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks great. Thanks for your work on this Pladuk! I am going to do a bit more looking into the protocol for posting the template on the village pump and advertising our project on the community message board. I will report back here with a recommendation on how we proceed along those lines. In the meantime, I think we should start using the template on articles we want to target! --Mackabean 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles in need of review

I've started adding some articles to the "need review" section just to get us started. Some of these articles I feel just need pithy sections indicating international opinion/reaction. The articles relating to the U.S. are of course understandably focused on U.S. perspectives, but should nonetheless include sections indicating international response/opinion where relevant, as U.S. response/opinion is consistently noted, implicitly or explicitly, when the entries are "foreign" (relative to the U.S.). Benzocane 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I've started primarily with political/current event articles because that's what I've been paying most attention to of late, but obviously the scope of the task force is broader than that.Benzocane 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

As this task force gets underway, some discussion of if and how it will assess articles is warranted.  As mentioned on the main task force page, a traditional assessment scheme such as this one, may not be appropriate, as this task force might be more concerned with how well an article represents a worldwide perspective as opposed to the overall condition of the article (e.g., citations, formatting, style, etc.).  Please share your thoughts here as to what kind of assessment scheme might make sense.--Mackabean 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First completed article?

So I took a shot at adding global perspectives to an article.

Iraq_Study_Group_Report#Reactions_to_the_report

To summarize my edits, I added reactions from international media outlets and from Iraqis (neither of which were in there before) and also tried to clean up and expand the reactions from U.S. sources.

I've moved the article into the "completed articles" section, but I would love comments from anyone as to whether they think it belongs there. Since this task force is just getting underway, I think it would be a good idea to have some discussion of what it means to ensure a "global perspective," so I welcome any feedback on the edits I made! Cheers. --Mackabean 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the inclusion of Iraqi perspectives is important from an NPOV perspective. I'd like to see even more international responses eventually. But I think this is a good start. Benzocane 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also moved the War on Terrorism entry into completed, although the article is still in very uneven shape. What's "completed" is the inclusion of a subsection on international support for the WOT, which was formerly absent.Benzocane 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at my edits Benzocane. I agree that even more international responses would be worth including. I will see what more I can find with a little research. I think your additions to the WOT article are excellent, very much in line with what I think this project should be about. Nice work. --Mackabean 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising for project

FYI everyone, I posted the name of the task force on the community messageboard:

Wikipedia:Community Portal

And put a note about the new template on the village pump.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Anyone else know of good ways to publicize the task force?--Mackabean 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we could contact a few editors selectivly. Just a friendly notice. For instance, I contacted Tewy about the task force.
--Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Тλε Rαnδоm Eδι! Good idea. I have posted on the talk pages of a few editors who seemeed like this might be up their alley. I will continue to do so, and encourage others to do so as well. If you know of anyone else who might be interested, please bring them along! --Mackabean 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)