Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Requesting attention on an article

Coming here from /r/taiwan subreddit, there are a couple of editors who want to rewrite a biographical article because in their opinion, contains "cruft" content, as you can see below:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyber_Anakin#A_mountain_out_of_molehill?

However, concerns were abound that the hypothetical re-write will cause systematic bias to the detriment of the hacking subculture and non-anglophone perspectives especially when they questioned the reliability of Taiwan News, kind of like a Bangkok Post in Taiwan being one of the biggest few English dailies there.

The debacle went further into behavioral conduct as the defending editor either gone rogue or his proxy IP was taken over by a vandal who impersonated them. Even though that is inexcusable that doesn't in any way diminish the editor's concerns that significant bias concerns and WP:OVERSIMPLIFY would have occurred if they went through their rewrite. Therefore please keep an eye on it.

Pinging @Matthewvetter: and others from Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion here since it's somehow related. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Taiwan News was described as "marginally reliable" according to this RfC, however the SOPs for such cases involves in-text citation and sometimes extra-citation with more reliable source. Little to no indication on awareness to such middle ground solutions except the defending IP user. Besides that other Anonymous and cybersecurity related articles are worthy of attention given their intention to "clean up" those contents. Consider reporting to the admins if malicious intentions are proven, although assume good faith still applies as of this time. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging also admin @Oshwah: just in case. 92.118.112.116 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-contradiction on project page

The wikiproject page gives a good description of systemic bias about coverage and selection. But then just below that, there's another section labeled "Distinguishing between selection bias and systemic bias" that says this isn't actually systemic bias and gives a completely different definition that has little to do with this project. Is there any reason why this section has been kept? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien I also thought this section was confusing. It looks like an IP tried to remove much of that section a few months ago, but it was reverted. I support you in removing it unless someone chimes in with an objection.Larataguera (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Goals and scope

I added a section about goals to the Project page. Most WikiProjects have a section on goals and scope. I think it helps to guide the efforts of contributors. ("what are we doing here?"). The first goal was already mentioned on the page. I am proposing the second goal. I think it's nice to have something a little more contained than "eliminate bias on wikipedia", which is so immense as to be almost inactionable.

Goals

1. Eliminate the gaps caused by the systemic bias in editors' cultural perspective, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole.
2. Improve the editing community's understanding of the systemic bias in Wikipedia by reviewing existing scholarship and ensuring that recent studies about Wikipedia's systemic bias are included as sources in various articles about Wikipedia itself. Ensure that sections about systemic bias in these articles are clear, complete, and concise.

Scope: The first goal is extremely broad, as under-represented POVs may affect almost any article. It may be effective to prioritise WP:Featured articles, WP:Good articles, and WP:Vital articles. The second goal is limited to articles about Wikipedia itself.

Just thought I'd post this here as well to invite comment. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Larataguera, I think it's great that someone is trying to keep this wikiproject alive, and I think the project page is much better off than it was before. I think this project is much-needed on Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem there's much activity, and many of the project subpages haven't been edited in years. It would be great to see this project further updated to keep track of major systemic bias issues and organize collaboration on underrepresented subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Systemic bias in deletion nominations of transportation articles

I am concerned about systemic bias in the efforts to have several road articles and am concerned that this is extending to other areas of transportation such as trains. Compare these outcomes:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 325 - 25 mile state highway in the US. Outcome: Keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 328 - 22 mile state highway in the US. Outcome: Keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91 (2nd nomination) - 61 mile state highway in the US. Outcome: Keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 (Durban) - 16 mile metro road (at times a freeway) in the third-largest city in South Africa, considered to be in the Global South but still speaking English. (Admittedly this is technically not a state highway and does not fall under GEOROAD). Outcome: keep after 1 relist.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Highway 93 (Karnataka) - ~120 mile road in the state of Karnataka, India, considered a developing country. The primary language is Kannada, not a major world language, so sources were much more difficult to find. Has likely existed since the 19th century. Outcome: no consensus after 1 relist but could have easily ended in deletion depending on who showed up.

For context, WP:GEOROAD states that all state highways are typically notable, which helps even the playing field in cases like this. I am concerned that systemic bias and difficulties in finding sources (language, affinity for familiar pages, different countries, digital newspaper archives) are eventually going to result in different outcomes, and articles from underrepresented areas are being nominated more frequently. Looking at trains I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiyaling station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kengzi station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silian station (China), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doirani railway station (Greece), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingshanwei station (China). Thoughts? Rschen7754 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this issue. This is one reason my contributions on Wikipedia have tailed off. Articles are deleted because someone decides it is not notable or not enough references etc. It is not as easy finding sources for certain types of articles especially from Africa. Rather than see many hours of effort deleted from Wikipedia, I have simply curtailed my contributions. There are articles from certain parts of the world that are surprisingly notable. I shall remain in semi-hybernation and hope for the day that there is an equal playing field. Natsubee (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is an issue. I always try to help look for sources when it comes to China-related articles, but in general it's a hard problem to solve unless there are people who can read the language and are willing to help find sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)