Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Systemic bias page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
High	This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Countering systemic bias NA‑class

	This page is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page is to discuss the essay. Please go to the above WikiProject discussion board if you have a question about systemic bias in Wikipedia articles.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Having a gendered category only when there's an article behind it

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Revisiting gendered categories: Let's have a clear criterion of "has or can have a proper article"

It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to ships as "she"

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion was sort of spammed to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), so I'm notifying some other wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of commercial content

Put in a bullet point in the bias section on this topic. I think that it could be expanded to a new section, since it would imply a significant change in the number of articles on businesses and their products. I think this needs discussed before editing the project page.

Currently most WP:LISTED companies are not in Wikipedia. This equivalent to not having articles on most major cities (geography) or most universities (education). In a typical developed country for every 1 million businesses there will be about 250 listed businesses, the proportion of listed companies is much smaller in undeveloped countries. The number of listed companies is somewhere between the number of Cities and Towns within the country all of which have articles. One of the reasons for this is because of the need to battle against editing by persons with conflicts of interest means that a large number of editors had become biased against commercial topics because of the widespread abuse of the area. So that even in the case of WP:LISTED most are not on Wikipedia and the number of missing significant unlisted commercial organisations is even greater.

The outcome of this discussion, would need to also be discussed on WP:LISTED to look at making the policy clearer. RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in how you would overcome the inevitable COI problems, and how you would choose businesses for inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first stage would be put the global 1,000 companies in as Vital Articles. The move down to try and get coverage for all the companies in the major stock indexes, and eventually extend to all listed companies. Having covered off the listed companies, then look at the various categories of significant private companies. Listed company entries might be stubs, with just the company which market it is listed on and details of when it listed. All listed companies have to post an entry document which is normally 100's of pages that is verified by lawyers, both for the company and their brokers. They are really really boring documents so there is normally no COI puff about how absolutely wonderful the company is, more pages of risks to investors and detailed performance in the years before listing, that has all be verified since otherwise they are liable to investors for any errors or omissions.RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out systematic bias without getting personal

I'm trying to point out that some editors may inadvertently let preconceived notions of a particular topic play into content and deletion discussions, but when I do I get accused of being WP:PERSONAL or WP:UNCIVIL. Is there a better way to bring this up in discussions?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political Bias

Wikipedia editors seem to have a strong liberal skew, resulting in uneven moderation and evaluation of sources. Work is needed to correct this.