Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xed (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 19 October 2004 (→Template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Limited geographic scope

This section's name has already been changed once today, for the better (substituting "limited" for "overly narrow"). However, in my opinion, having "geographic" in the title might lead readers to believe that the only problem with these articles are that they don't mention enough countries. As I've explained in the case of Adoption, the problem I'm having with it is not at all the lack of information on practices in specific countries, but rather just the general perspective, which is limited to a developed world viewpoint. Adding information about lawyers in twenty different African countries might not be the best way to deal with Lawyer either (although surprising and very refreshing...)

I do know that this is reasonably well explained by the text under the headline. It's just that if the headline points you in a certain direction you might miss that. My best suggestion for the moment is to call the section just "Limited scope" or maybe "Limited scope and/or perspective", and to change the reference in other parts of the text accordingly. Alarm 15:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title "Limited scope/perspective", given the systemic bias, may lead people to think that, for instance, Adoption does not have enough on either US liberal or US conservative views of adoption — so I think some mention of geography might be needed. I agree the current title is not quite right though. --Xed 16:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You've got a point there. Do you think that "Limited geographic scope and/or cultural perspective" covers it? (Although, in principle, I'd like something shorter.) Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing while we're on the subject. Under "6.6 Topics to add" above, we seemed to reach consensus on creating two templates, one for limited geographic scope and one for limited cultural perspective. Ideally, they should in some way refer to the CSB page, which might be an excellent way to attract attention to this project and the need for it. Considering the controversy around the Important Stub template mentioned above, I'd like to ask those of you who've been around the Wikipedia longer than I if it would be OK to create those templates and start slapping them on articles en masse, or if we should initiate some kind of discussion about this, e.g. on Village Pump. Also, since I have no experience in creating and handling templates, if someone else could assist with this task, I'd really appreciate it! Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've created the template {{Limitedgeographicscope}} . What do people think? Can you think of a better wording?
Do we need more specific templates? Is it worth seperating out in American, Anglo-American, Developed world limitation of scope. Are there any more significant ones? It would be easy enough to create three or more templates and it would mean the category system wouldn't get overloaded. I could easily see that using these templates would lead to thousands of articles being rightly tagged.We have to be careful about this or any templates will be used as part of the NPOV debates from partizans. I think we are fine with geographical or cultural scope; but we must avoid any suggestion of political or religious bias. A question is there a difference between geographical and cultural scope?
To amend the template click [1] and edit as normal. To create another template just copy that template content to another template page, e.g. [2] and paste, then amend the wording as normala and save.
We also need to consider the category system. I've created the category Wikiproject Countering systemic bias as the top category with limited geographic scope below. Any change in number of templates implies a number of sub categories.
We should announce it on village pump once we are happy with the wording and have decided on the number of templates, before we use it in a widespread way. :ChrisG 21:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Have you noticed that this one is already listed on the Templates for deletion page? I don't know what to say there, since I don't know how that process works, but it seems to me that they are moving a little too fast. - Strangeloop (talk) 23:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The limited geographic scope template has accidently ended up on votes for deletion. One comment they made was that it was a bit too wordy. So any suggestions for reducing it to two lines would be appreciated. There are also a few other issues that that need to be decided. See below and give answers

Template issues

One general template or a few more specific ones for geographic/cultural bias

Wording

One comment in Votes for deletion is that it is a bit wordy. Any suggestions for reducing it to two lines? Currently the limited geographical scope template is very general. However do we want to split it up into more specific templates?

  • Americo-centric
  • Anglo-american centric
  • Developed world centric

This subdivision would provide more information and would mean we would have three categories of articles rather than just one, which might be useful if as I expect we tag lots of articles.

I don't really see the value of further division into geographic subcategories, but if anyone can explain the benefits I surely won't veto. There will be quite a number of borderline cases (e.g. most of the article talks about the U.S. only, but someone has added a single sentence on the situation in Poland).
On the other hand, I would say it is often possible to distinguish two slightly different types of internal bias: 1. The article talks about a general term and pretends to deal with it from a general perspective, without giving any geographical references at all, but it is obvious that it is written from a Western cultural perspective (e.g. Adoption). 2. The article deals with the situation in specific countries, but examples are limited to a few countries, normally in the developing world (e.g. Freedom of speech). (There will be some cases where both 1. and 2. applies, i.e. where there is a general definitition written from a Western perspective, followed by examples from the U.S. and the UK only.) I propose the following two template texts, based on this distinction:
1. This article needs attention: it currently deals with its topic mainly from a developed world perspective. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.
2. This article needs attention: the examples currently provided represent a limited number of countries in the developed world only. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.
The proposed texts have the benefit that they are both slightly shorter than the original template text. I've added "See the talk page for further explanation" since my opinion is that we should strongly encourage anyone adding the template to an article to further explain the reasons for doing so on the article's talk page, to prevent misunderstandings. Such talk page comments could also refer to our project page for further information. This would have the added benefit of being an excellent way to advertise the CSB project. Alarm 13:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amended the template to version 2 while adding mention of need for global perspective. Couldn't see the point of two templates which differ so little in content. :ChrisG 18:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for creating the template. You're probably right in advocating using a single one. However, with the hope of not seeming overly stubborn, I would like to conserve a bit more of the wording from version 1 in the merged version. I think that only mentioning examples in the first sentence might give a casual readers the impression that the best, or even the only, way to give the article a "more global perspective" is to add country-specific examples from the developing world. In several cases this would be a misunderstanding, since the main problem is that the general definition is written from a Western perspective assumed by the author to be globally applicable. Although it might seem a minor change, I still would think it to be an improvement to say This article needs attention: the general perspective and/or specific examples represent a limited number of countries in the developed world only. Alarm 16:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias important article template

Template:Importantstub Do we need a template to say this article is important because it represents systemic bias within Wikipedia. Some variation on the {{importantstub}} template. i.e to the right.

This particularly template is controversial; because it says something is important without saying why; but can we think of a more acceptable wording that adds our concern that it is a poor article because of systemic bias within Wikipedia?

Would it be acceptable to refer to the CSB project and just say we've chosen to target it, instead of expressing the value judgement that it is important? Hence, something like:
This is an article targeted by the WikiProject Countering systemic bias as in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. If you know anything about X, please consider editing the article.
With this wording, it will also be possible to apply the template to non-stubs. Alarm 13:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The wording seems OK. Would this potentially go on all articles where there is bias (95% of Wikipedia)? Or just on the weeks chosen articles? Also, in regard to the Limited Geographic template above, would it not be better to have an template for each of the sections in systemic bias (Developing, female, agriculture, limited geographic etc), all having a standard 'systemic bias' template design? That might make it easier to understand. --- Xed 15:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by standard design - text content or style attributes (color etc.)? Regarding the latter, I agree, but that seems more or less to be the case already. As for the former, I have no problem amending the "in need of expansion" template with categories, e.g. "This is an article dealing with the developing world, targeted ... etc. However, I think the "limited scope" category is of quite a different art, calling for a different text (and referring to the corresponding talk page for further explanation) in both the "developed world perspective" and the "limited number of countries" case. Does this make sense to anybody else? Alarm 20:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The text you proposed ('This is an article targeted by the CSB...') looks fine to me. It is put nicely and avoids the chance of being misused. And I agree with you on the fact that the (important) limited scope category is something different entirely. However, I don't know about reusing the old importantstub template. And I think there's something in what Xed is saying too. Maybe there should be a set of systemic bias templates: one template for articles that simply need expansion, another template for articles with limited scope, etcetera. In that case, I wouldn't build upon the old importantstub but create a brand-new consistent set of systemic bias templates (of which your still adequate wording would form a part). - Strangeloop (talk) 20:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be a rough consensus. Could some template wizard put together a template for the CSM collaboration of the week, to put at the top of Congo Civil War, using the following wording (adapted from Alarms suggestion): This article is the WikiProject Countering systemic bias Collaboration of the Week, and has been targeted as being in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. Please consider editing the article.? The other articles in the To Do list need Alarms exact wording. - Xed 12:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added template for CSBArticles and CSBCollaboration. Do people like the image that goes with it or should we remove it? :ChrisG 18:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On my browsers (IE and Safari, Mac OS X), the image has an unsightly white border on the top, left and bottom (but not right) for some reason. I tried fiddling with the markup (using preview not save), but I couldn't get it to work. I originally threw the image together for the Limited Geographic Scope section, but if it's suitable as a general CSM badge that's fine. - Xed 22:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I get the white border too, and it doesn't look at all good. But if it is possible to fix that, it would look good in the template. Alarm 16:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really like the symbolism of the image and suggest we adopt it as the emblem of the project. :ChrisG 17:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Templates ready for announcement?

I notice the wording on the Limited geographic scope template has now been changed according to my suggestion. I think all the templates are fine now. If there is consensus on this, maybe they should be announced on Village Pump, as was previously suggested, before we start using them widely? Alarm 18:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've given them a new lick of paint and think they're ready. A couple of questions below though--Xed 20:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like the new look - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I might make the logo a little larger later, about the size of the logo here: Template:PD-USGov-NASA, but I think it's ready to go live now. - Xed 08:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Limitedgeographicscope

Does this go on all articles which match this description, or just ones on the to-do template, or all articles in Limited Geo section?

I think it should go on all the articles that are in the limited geographic section. This template is particularly good for pointing out to existing contributors that it has limited perspectives, and involving them. It is also a good advert. :ChrisG

I agree with ChrisG. Alarm 07:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you two - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:CSBArticles

All CSB articles, or just ones being targeted by the To-Do template?

All CSB articles other than Limited geographic which is more specific. :ChrisG 00:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, I agree with ChrisG. Alarm 07:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisG and Alarm - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:CSBCollaboration

Template:CSBCollaboration


WikiProject Countering systemic bias template SPAM

I posted the following onto the village pump on the 19th Oct: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias appears to have decided 1 to plaster templates 2 on any page which the small number of participants on that project feel come within their remit. Example 3. Which is, presumably, anything which might fall into the categories listed on the project page 4. I cannot say I'm teriffically thrilled about this for the following reasons:

  • I deplore wholscale annexation of pages by single issue groups. I recall the Alternative Medicine project used to do this srt of thing.
  • I supsect that these templates, once placed on a page, may well remain there forever, as a form of spam which serves more to advertise the project than to promote editing of the page.
  • I'm unhappy that a single small goup has taken it upon itself to be the judge of pages.
  • Where the community has decided that such notices are of use - e.g. Collaboration of the Week - the template used is discreet and temporary; in contrast the CSB template is relatively large and imo sinister looking.

I wonder if the community has thoughts about the matter. --Tagishsimon

Agreed, if these templates are to be used they must be placed on the talk page. - SimonP 17:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I assume the complaint is directed at the three-lineTemplate:Limitedgeographicscope, Template:CSBArticles and/or Template:CSBCollaboration templates and not the gigantic Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks? The latter is used only on this project page and various user pages.
I don't think the three lines are excessive, but that's pretty much purely an aesthetic preference, isn't it?
What if we agreed that the rotating weekly articles should have the appropriate template at the top of the article itself, but that the template should be moved to the Talk page or removed entirely when the article rotates off the list? This way it is more like COTW and less like perma-spam.
Jill Ker Conway has never been a weekly featured item as far as I know, but has Template:CSBArticles at the bottom because it's on our general list. If we were to agree to put it on the Talk page instead in these cases, and if we were to <broken_record> come up with a policy for doneness and template removal </broken_record> would that address proliferation concerns? —Bsktcase 18:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Humble Man's Advice

It is wonderful that the community is doing something about this problem, and believe me, this is a big problem. I myself attempted to define the Rubinomics article but I believe the outcome of the article was disappointing and I got disenfranchised, but the solution of the problem is not adding more views that are varied. The solution is not to add or recruit more contributors who are from different backgrounds. Not even to read more brick and mortar works. These may all help but it is not the solution to the problem, for the problem is a fundamental characteristic of the community. You see, the community (in my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong) is mostly composed of enthusiasts (tech maybe?). This is a big problem. Your goal is to build a collection of all human knowledge - encyclopedia. But in order to collect this knowledge, you need to have the best and the wisest in all possible fields that humanity has to offer from all over the world. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not just a Star Wars factbook, its a contribution to the world for generations to come. There are great men and women out there who have decades of hardwork and wisdom who are willing to share their wisdom. You should pursue them and ask them to join and share. They have proven their greatness in their given fields even before the Internet existed, so in my opinion, they should be part of the article writing process. Talk to them. Listen to them. Learn from them. Attend their classes if you are fortunate to be their student, even though they have flaws. (I'm sure you guys have watched 'A Beautiful Mind')Better yet, let them write themselves and then go into an intellectual discourse with them. Many of them will enjoy talking and debating about what they know for curious minds contribute as much as the pioneer if all are together discoursing like Socrates' garden school. And this applies in everything not only Philosophy. Don't let them become writers exclusively for the big publishing companies. Just recently, a great mind by the name of Jacques Derrida died. He is one of the greatest minds of his field in the last century. He began the Deconstructionalist school of criticism. He is gone now, but has he ever contributed to the noble cause of building the greatest collection of human knowledge? I doubt. Even in his own work? Great minds like him are disappearing one by one and they are the best prospective contributers in the many fields like the Humanities, the Social Sciences, the Natural Sciences, etc. that the world has to offer. It will be a complete waste if they do not contribute to the wikis themselves. Their hard untainted work will be gone forever after their books (or their unpublished dissertations) turn to dust and this digital medium remains composed of reinterpretations of another man's great ideas and views. What is left will not necessarily represent the ideas or views of the pioneer. How could one be objective if one does not recognize that there is validity in the different sides of the coin? It is not fair and just to not involve them in the writing process after they pursue post-graduate studies and a lifetime of research. We have it easy for they will just feed you their conclusions filled with their sweat, blood, and dead brain cells but you will just throw it away preferring your interpretation of an objective assessment of their work. Terrible. Credibility goes to someone who didn't work as hard. Thats the reason why the many good writers are those who read alot. Let them take part, if not....Shame....

And if you are a skeptic, I will try to make my advice clear. Look for the best in people in their field no matter what their background and ask them to contribute, at least interview. And if they do not know how to use the Internet, teach them! There are so many great historians, economists, doctors, mathematicians, sociologists, psychologists, natural scientists (all branches), philosophers, etc. out there who want to contribute to the world for free before they are dead. Even university professors will be ok. SO let them join! Your noble cause will only grow in greatness if you do this. THEN you can discourse and edit mercilessly for you know that you are sharing ideas with the expert, who will also try see it your way as well. Knowledge is truly shared and the world will move forward.....
23:16, 10 Oct 2004 203.76.241.215


Good stuff, Humble Man. But what this subproject is about does not preclude anyone from approaching more experts to encourage them to contribute. (I've been doing that for the Wikipedia Maori while writing articles for it.) We can each do as much or as little as we choose along each path or just one. Robin Patterson 01:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Female oriented" or "Womens studies"

I prefer "Female oriented", since "Womens studies" sounds dry and academic, and doesn't sound like it encompasses professions with high proportion of women --- Xed 15:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And as a male who is interested in working in the area (I have created lots of articles on women writers in the past), I would argue strongly against 'Female orientated' as being almost segregationist, a bit like 'Women's magazines' or something. These articles are about women, not for them! Filiocht 15:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

'Women's magazines' and 'Women's studies' - both sound segregationist. 'Female orientated' has a broader meaning, one which includes 'Woman's studies'. Like you imply, 'Woman's studies' sounds like it's just about Women writers --- Xed 16:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Women's studies" seems to suggest only academic subjects. I find "Female oriented" to be aesthetically just awful (sorry!) and not any clearer. How about "Women and feminism"? If "feminism" is too divisive or otherwise undesirable, then just "Women"? "Women's issues" (or "Women and women's issues", too repetitive?) could work, don't know if it has the same problem as above ("for women" vs. "about women"). We do have a "Labor issues", but also simply "Ethnic minorities". —Bsktcase 21:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think dividing it up helps to keep it simple. The page is already far too complicated. --- Xed 22:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not on the title of the Wikiproject, but a related issue is that "gender studies" is becoming more common. An increasingly-popular view in the "post-feminist" era of liberal thought on gender is that gender is a fuzzy concept (rather than binary men/women), and there are some issues that apply across genders, at the intersection of genders, and so on. For example, it's now widely held that gender stereotypes for children are more detrimental to women's career progress (anti-science/math/etc.), but may also be detrimental to men's psychological progress (violence/anti-empathy/etc.). But this is also a very controversial area, and "women's studies" versus "gender studies" itself is a holy war on both sides. --Delirium 17:51, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Doneness

I've added a bunch to Smith College, and other wonderful people have filled in Spelman College and Bennett College. They originally got listed here because they were either missing or so stubby as to be embarrassments to wikipedia, which they definitely aren't any more. I guess my thinking is, if women's (and historically black) colleges are written at a level comparable to existing co-ed (etc.) colleges in wikipedia, then even if there's more to say about them, they're no longer examples of "systemic bias". I think these three have reached that point.

This was discussed back in the Archived talk page, but no consensus was reached.

I would seriously suggest that we consider removing these three from our list so we can focus attention on more needy candidates. We don't necessarily need to remove every article that grows beyond a stub—I'm sure some articles will merit our ongoing attention—but I don't think these three college entries necessarily need to be monitored and maintained at such a high level. Opinions? —Bsktcase 22:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I think we need a mechanism for this sort of things; otherwise we won't be able to keep track of improvements and achievements due to WP:Bias. Filiocht proposed a 'Requesting review' category, along with some others (see above). I think his is a good idea. Is that what you mean and what we need? - Strangeloop (talk) 22:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I'm quite amazed at how far those articles reached. Review is definitely the next stage. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I added an article to requesting review in the women bit (whatever we call it) yesterday and suggest that the same be done with these. Filiocht 07:33, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the three (moved, rather than copied) to the Review section. This seems like a good first step. Thanks for the responses! —Bsktcase 15:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The next step is for these articles to be reviewed. This is vital to get more project input. I'd suggest that comments be made on the article talk page. Filiocht 08:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Now this is interesting

While scouring old Wikipedia project pages, I found this little gem: Wikipedia:Topics_where_Wikipedia_is_weak, which predates this project by three months. Do you think there's anything we can incorporate into here? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

He's right on the book/movie angle. Wikipedia is does read sometimes like a guide to popular culture rather than a broad knowledge resourse. Also, the part about information the various provinces and towns of countries strikes a chord. The UK and US have particularly detailed information in this regard. So it might be worth encouraging people to create articles for the main towns and provinces in the weekly country carousel countries. The creator of the page (Danny) is a member of this project --- Xed 23:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the page, and for taking up--far more effectively, I might add--my original effort to expand the scope of Wikipedia to include far more than pop culture and U.S.-based references but to be a truly global project. Danny 04:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism

This is what administrator Jayjg believes this project is all about. Anyone agree? --- Xed 17:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me talk with him. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Re: your comment on his talk page - I certainly don't agree with him, I was just wondering if anybody did. --- Xed 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg was referring to the way you are pitching the systemic bias problem to others, and not to this project, which he greatly supports. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's not at all what I believe this project is all about. While I strongly support the project itself, I also understand its history, and Xed's motivation for promoting it. It grew out of Xed's attacks on Jimbo and his attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks. Viewing the development of this project in context reveals much about Xed's motivations. Xed, of course, disagrees with my characteriztion of his motives, as is Xed's right. Xed also deliberately mischaracterizes my statements as being about the project itself, rather than about Xed's motivations, which is not Xed's right, but which is unsurprising knowing Xed. Jayjg 19:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're talking shit as usual. It grew out of my realisation that there's more on Babylon 5 than Congo Civil War - but that would be anti-American to you! Where did I minimize the importance the importance of the 9/11 attacks? What does Jimbo have to do with Babylon 5? You are full of bizarre conspiracies --- Xed 19:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget, Xed, that I was there when you attacked Jimbo in more than one way (including a rather amusing Request for abitration), then attempted to insert Congo Civil War information into the 9/11 article against the will of all other editors, and then (after a 1 week ban for trolling) came up with your Systemic Bias project. That said, I commend the project itself, and recommend you spend your time working on it, rather than various other destructive activities such as inserting irrelevant and poorly substantiated trivia into the John Kerry page. Jayjg 19:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How can you commend a project which you believe was formed as a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" (which you have provided no evidence for)? Show me where in the Systemic Bias project I have tried to make it into a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks". --- Xed 20:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The project is a good one regardless of your motivations for proposing it. As for the rest, see previous comment. By the way, a week or two ago didn't you say you were leaving Wikipedia? Jayjg 20:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again. "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Show me the evidence. Xed 20:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Who is India Oxenberg's father? Enquiring minds want to know. ;-) Jayjg 20:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again. "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Show me the evidence. --- Xed 20:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See comments above. By the way, she has a very strong chin, don't you think? ;-) Jayjg 01:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again. "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Show me the evidence, or withdraw the statement. If you don't I'll take the matter to mediation or arbitration. --- Xed 08:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey you lot, take this outside. This project, as I see it, is not anti-anything. It's for the inclusion of those things being currently ignored or undervlaued here. If you two have problems with each other, sort them out elsewhere and let the rest of us get on with it. I'm taking the 'socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism' bit off the project page as having nothing to do with the actual project as I, and I feel sure most participants, understand it. Filiocht 09:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I concur. This is not the proper place for this discussion. - Strangeloop (talk) 09:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg's claim that the project was formed as a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" is now part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation - Xed 11:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not just let it go? Filiocht 11:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Because his claims are deeply insulting and belittle the project. Would you like it if he accused you of being part of the project as a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks? - Xed 11:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, but I'd ignore it and get on with the real work. Filiocht 12:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Can't really be ignored since it's so defamatory. Also, he is an admin, and unfortunately admin's views have weight - though by coming out with these sickening accusations he's shown himself to be unworthy of being an admin - Xed 13:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm an admin too, by the way, and I've never known my views to carry much weight. Frankly, you're over-reacting. Filiocht 14:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Same here. Take it to your personal talk pages. Also, everyone use less bold please, it makes reading these pages hard. I may refactor this section to remove the bold if it isn't moved somewhere instead, as it's detrimental to the discussions here. --Delirium 19:14, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Expanding the to-do list here

It seems that most of the articles that have been put forward, with a few exceptions, are done with some form of COTW in mind. It'd be nice to have a longer list of many articles that need doing in sparse areas (as several of the national notice boards have done) to then choose from. That way, we might end up getting a lot more done. Ambi 10:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do these national notice board cope with page size? My fear is that the page becomes too heavy if all sections keep long lists. Maybe subpages for each section, with only some 10 top-priority tasks advertised on the main page, could be a working solution? Alarm 11:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Simply have a "complete to-do list" subpage, supplementing the main one, which actually sits on the main page. The page size issues would also be helped by moving the COTW discussions to a seperate page, per everywhere else that does this. Ambi 11:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It looks to me that the talk page is going to fill up very fast as well. Should we adopt the village pump method of making it a virtual page. We could split the talk page up into project policy, topics and articles, COTW, Templates etc. :ChrisG 12:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just think it needn't have to do so. Move the stuff that shouldn't be here, like to-do lists and COTW-related stuff to subpages. That's half the problem - having all that stuff here is just creating unnecessary page lag, not to mention being confusing. Then archive lots. And suggest that people get on with working on these articles rather than arguing over who's in charge. Ambi 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with some of Alarm and Ambis suggestions, and would advocate 10 items for each section -with the breadth of the the items chosen covering the whole spectrum (for instance, the ethnic minority section doesn't have much on Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian etc issues) . And a link to 1 subpage which has a large list of subjects from all the sections. Xed 14:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean just on the main to-do list. What I'm suggesting is have a complete list on a subpage, with even subpages of that if necessary. That's what we've done for the Aussie notice board, and it ensures there's always something to work on. When there's potentially hundreds of articles to choose from, it also results in a lot more action. Ambi 11:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page size reduction vote

Please vote yay or nay below on this proposal. ---Xed 18:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Each section in Open Tasks (apart from the country carousel) should contain 10 items representing a broad cross section of the sections potential articles. Furthermore, there should be a separate page (with links to it in the Open task section) that contains all of the CSB articles which have been identified

nay - moving it completely to a linked page would make sense, but dual maintenance will be a headache and will be particularly confusing for any marginally involved people who want to make suggestions. -- Jmabel 21:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The 10 items would simply illustrate the idea behind the section. Only the the items on the separate page would change.--Xed 21:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yay- I can't speak about the technical side, but the suggested improvements should make it much easier to add and identity tasks. It also offers the opportunity to have the big lists subdivided with respect to completion --nixie 04:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requesting review

Can I also suggest a Requesting review section where articles that have been improved can be listed for the rest of us to look at? Filiocht 10:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about if we divide each topic in open tasks into sections:
  • Requested article
  • Request for expansion
  • Request for attention
  • Request for review
  • Good articles (i.e those we work on and get to a good standard)
This would make it easier to decide what to work, see that status of each article, and to see progress :ChrisG 13:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, with this part. Ambi 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Me too. Filiocht 13:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. Alarm 14:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, although I'm worried the page is already too long. Xed 14:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It needn't be, if we just cut it back to the articles that need doing and cut out the "join us" and "recruit people" blather. Ambi 11:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can certainly cut "join us", but I believe the key to the success of this project will be recruiting people outside the usual pool of Wikipedians. Quite simply, if a group consisting mostly of white men starts writing about Africa, women, African-Americans, etc. Wikipedia won't be a lot better off for it. Some articles will be written, but the systemic bias will remain essentially the same. None of this needs to be on the to-do list, but all of it belongs on the project page.
Right now, as you know, I've pulled back my level of participation in this, so I guess you don't particularly have to listen to me, but I really believe that over the course of time recruitment to Wikipedia is more important than having the current crew work on articles. -- Jmabel 19:06, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Of course recruitment is important. We know if this is to work we need to recruit people. But we don't need a reminder of that taking up space on the to-do list. Ambi 22:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also agree with the different categories. But is this a suggestion for the Open Tasks pane only? The list of problematic articles is already growing pretty big; I think we need a similar division there if we want to keep track of what we are achieving. - Strangeloop (talk) 22:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this worth adding? I mean there are proportionately less computer-literate old folks. Anyone for knitting?---Xed 22:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Speaking as someone almost certainly among the oldest 20% off Wikipedians, and possibly the oldest 10%, that example of subject matter is pretty condescending. There are legitimate issues here, although my suspicion is that right now we have bigger fish to fry. Still, for the record:
    • Yes, we probably do under-represent issues of specific concern to older people. For example, our article on the Gray Panthers is four paragraphs, and our article on American Association of Retired Persons is a stub; yes, I could imagine adding old age and aging to the list of concerns of this project.
    • The other is trickier and is generational rather than age-related as such. Take a look, for example, at an article like slide guitar. You'd practically think it was invented in the 1960s. Or Jackson Pollock: a near-stub on one of the half dozen most famous American artists of his generation.
-- Jmabel 01:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Progress reports

I decided to check out what had been done to Economy of Africa, since the link has gone from red to blue, and found that there is now a long article in place, and as far as I can judge it seems great. From a quick look at the edit history it seems as if SimonP and ChrisG have been the ones contributing most of the content. This calls for some cheering and applause, I think.

I am truly excited to see some real impact of this project. I think others, just like me, would be interested to know when major progress has been made somewhere. This would give us all a sense of moving forward. Also, I think people contributing to the articles we've targeted deserve to get some credit within the project. But there are now so many articles listed as Open tasks that it is hard to keep track of what is happening with them just by checking them occasionally. And I don't think it would be practical to watchlist them all.

This leads me to the conclusion that we could benefit from having some loose guidelines for progress reports. Some of our members have added a comment below the listing. This is possible as a general solution, but comes with the drawback that it soon would double the size of the (already long) list if it is generally applied. Another solution might be a subpage titled "Progress reports" or something similar. There are surely other alternatives. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts and suggestions on this. Alarm 16:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The progress is great. For fairness, it should be noted that Simon P contributed greatly to articles on African affairs before CSM. As for the subpage idea, I think the progress reports should go on the same page as the subpage suggested above (Expanding the to-do list here) - Xed 17:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Credit goes to Simon P, I just added a few paragraphs. Perhaps we should a CSB Hero of the month award. :ChrisG 17:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After a week, of the current items on the To Do template, only one - Djuna Barnes - has had any significant improvement. This is no more than would be expected if this project did not exist. 50 times more has been written on this talk page than on the articles. I see this as a failure, of myself and of the project. CSB seems to be no more than a talking shop. - Xed 17:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The to-do template is only a subset of the project. Many pages on the larger CSB lists have been greatly improved since the inception of the project, so it's unwarranted and possibly a little dramatic to declare all of CSB a failure. Furthermore, Spelman College was considerably developed after being featured on a previous to-do list.
I glanced at your contributions page and could not help but notice almost all of your work this week has been on Talk pages of various kinds. If you contributed any content to this week's to-do list items, I didn't see it. I hope you're holding yourself to the same standard of participation that you imply for the rest of us. —Bsktcase 20:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am. I didn't contribute to any items on the To Do list. I'm the worst offender. I'm not blaming anyone (except myself), I'm just reporting what I found. And so far, the project seems to be failing. That makes me very unhappy. I'm not sure what the solution is. But I know what the problem is - people (yes, including me), aren't editing the items on the To Do list. Something has to be done to get things written. To engender some responsibility, perhaps we should make it a policy that if you nominate or vote for an article, you must make a significant contribution to it - Xed 21:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xed, you have got to be more patient. We are trying to do is change the direction of Wikipedia by a few degrees and that is not something that is going to happen overnight, because there is so much inherent momentum. I do agree with your proposal, that one shouldn't nominate something you aren't going to work on. Taking that as a policy does engender commitment and ensures that if interested parties check the to-do list articles they should see progress being made, and may be inspired to give a hand.:ChrisG 14:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If no one objects, then that policy can be added to the voting section when, as seems likely from the vote below, it's moved to a subpage. Xed 17:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've edited a couple of Benin related articles to salve my conscience. Xed 04:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As the person who did most of the expanding of Djuna Barnes, I'd love to have dsomeone, anyone, review it and suggest what more needs doing. To me, that would be more helpful than lamenting the lack of work done. Filiocht 09:01, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Moving sections from main page to subpages

We've had several requests to move the voting section of the main page to subpages. I think the list of participants is growing long enough to justify being moved to a subpage as well. Please add your names under the alternative you prefer for each one. (added another vote - Xed 16:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Move Voting section to from main page subpage

  • Support
    • Alarm 17:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • ChrisG 14:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Joe D 14:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Xed 17:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). I don't think you should have to jump thru too many hoops to vote or submit a subject.

Move Participants to subpage

  • Support
    • Alarm 17:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Xed 17:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • ChrisG 14:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Joe D 14:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object

Move List of All subjects section to subpage, whilst keeping a representative selection of 10 on main page

  • Support
    • Joe D 17:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC), but I think the list should be larger than 10, parhaps we should make a template with the COTW, 10 red links, 10 expansion requests, 5 cleanups and 5 peer reviews?
      • but how would we choose the cleanups and peer reviews? Xed 20:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • --nixie 04:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Xed 20:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Alarm 21:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Please clarify: is this the same vote as above, under "Page size reduction vote", or not? There, the suggestion was 10 items per section. Reading Jmabel's comment to this suggestion I suddenly saw the dual updating problem that would mean. The wording here seems to imply that only 10 items in total should be advertised on the main page, but I'd like clarification on this point. Such a model might be easier to handle, but I'd also like to know that someone is prepared to take responsibility for changing the selection if the listed articles improve to a point where they're no longer relevant as examples of systemic bias (a highly likely development considering their high visibility). But even if that is taken care of, I remain sceptical. With reference to Xed's comment above on moving the voting section, I actually think it's more important not to have to jump through too many hoops to see and contribute to the task list. After all, it does a lot to define what the project is about. Perhaps this kind of reform could at least wait a bit. Alarm 17:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I wasn't very clear with the wording. I meant 10 items in each section (Women, Limited geo etc) on the main page, which would be represent the breadth of the section. I was mainly concerned with the length of the page. The updating thing is a problem, and the choosing of the ten would be a problem - so I'm changing my vote to oppose. But I still think the page is too long. - Xed 20:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll have to oppose it for now. (I think Jmabel's vote above should probably count as Object here as well.) There's no hurry, we can probably find a better solution. Alarm 21:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reform of voting and To Do template vote

The To Do template is due to be updated to take into account this weeks votes. As of 17 Oct, it contains 17 elected items and 9 rotated items from the Country Carousel. Not many of the items of this list have been significantly edited, leading me to believe we're being over-ambitious to start with. Also, there are only 14 items in the current voting section to choose from. To get some focus, I suggest we:

  • limit the country carousel to one country. In the future, we can add more later.
  • limit the Voted Items to 5.

This would make the total elected items to 8 (including Cotw and 2 extra carousel items). In addition, I propose we add the text "If you nominate or vote for an article, you are expected to make a contribution to it" to the voting section.

So the new template would look like this (note also the new Watch options):


File:CSB-circlelogo.jpgHere are some of the Countering Systemic Bias project open tasks: Feel free to edit or discuss this list.

Add yourself as a participant. Vote for our next collaborative articles. Discuss our strategy. Create, Improve, Identify or Comment on articles from the list below or from the more comprehensive list on the project page. Publicise and recruit other contributors. Watch the items on the list below or the comprehensive list. Use {{WikiProjectCSBTasks}} to include the template on your user page or elsewhere.

CSB collaboration of the week: Congo Civil War
Country carousel: A country is selected from a list every week.
Benin, Category, Politics, History, Mathieu Kérékou, Dahomey
Voted items: Every week, 5 articles are chosen in the voting section.
Black History Month, Djuna Barnes, Knitting, Freedom of speech*, Land Reform. (* Any starred articles have a limited geographic scope.)
  • Support
    • Xed 13:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Alarm 17:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think fewer alternatives is a very good idea. Also support more compact form. However, I think the watch option is a bit unneccesary in the template. (Watching the progress is not really a priority task. If kept, wording needs clarification.) Instead, I think the possibility to add new articles to the Open task list should be mentioned.
    • nixie 00:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) Less is more.
  • Oppose
    • I support the country carousel being just one country. Three countries spreads any interest too far, and weekly doesn't perhaps give enough time to change. However, I suggest changing the To-do list to approximately fortnightly. Updating weekly is too frequent, for a relatively small project, and means spending too much time talking and too little doing. Even if updated fortnightly each country on Xed's list will receive some attention in just over a year. I would suggest the first day of each month and the 15th. I would prefer the action points on the To Do list to be in bullet points, as it is clearer and more professional. And I think the watch option is unnecessary. I also think it shouldn't be so much a voting section as a commitment to edit; and we should only vote for a colloboration article based on articles participants having committed to editing in that two week period. Articles you wish to be updated should go on open tasks. :ChrisG 00:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I think we should try weekly first, since a lot of new CSB contributors might join up due to the Limitedgeographicscope and CSBArticles templates appearing on so many pages. If the weekly is unsuccesful we can start the fortnightly scheme from the 1st Nov. The watch items are useful (to me) to keep an eye on CSB articles, and act as kind of ongoing peer review. If the action list can be both bulleted and compact I would be happy. - Xed 15:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds fair enough to me. :ChrisG 21:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Implementing recent decisions

Template and votes updated. I don't know how to move the voting section and participants to a subpage--Xed 00:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template madness

We now have at least one article (Adrienne Monnier) which has no content other than the template. With my sysop hat on, I'm tempted to delete it. Please only add the templates to articles that already exist! Filiocht 10:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have created a stub to save the page from deletion. Filiocht 11:01, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me being over-ethusiastic. --Xed 11:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template on pages need expansion

Could this be put at the bottem of the page? At the moment it's a little overwelming particualy on stubs (ok so I'm mostly thinking of Guinea-Bissau Civil WarGeni 10:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As data for editors, it should probably be on the article talk page. It is overwhelming. Filiocht 10:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I prefer the side-bar template that Xed was tinkering with to the header template thats being put on stubs(if that makes sense) nixie 12:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CPN(UML)?

I see you've added Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) with the sidetext "Fights civil war". Have you confused CPN(UML) with Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)? CPN(UML) is a major legal political party in Nepal (part of the current government in fact) and have no armed activities. --Soman 11:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category: African-American history

I've noticed in the past that there is no category for African-American history that I can find. Am I wrong about this? I know there is one for African-Americans, and another one for Civil Rights history... would this be useful? It'd be large, that's for sure, but maybe that'd be the point. Well, it's a thought... --Fastfission 13:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Confusion between "systemic" and "systematic"

Although the distinction between "systemic" and "systematic" is mentioned in the section "Systemic bias" I think this distinction needs to be emphasized and made more prominent, as I'm sure many people have confused and will continue to confuse these terms - in fact I wonder if the project should even consider changing its name to "Countering structural bias". Consider some of the remarks made by some of the participants indicate to me a possible misunderstanding of this distinction, and thus the purposes of this project:

  • blankfaze - I'd like to cut down on as much bias/POV in the project as possible, but I'd especially like to keep Israel and its related articles free of bias. Some users, I've noticed, are on a mission to install a pro-Israel POV in the project.
  • Bontenbal I think that there is systematic bias of the European Union. It's far more important than most UK/US people seem to think.
  • ShaunMacPherson 01:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) - I think that the people with the most edits should be looked at as their point of view is dominating. As well, I say that many of the math articles are pedantically biased towards an audience well above our average user .
  • Sjc - already involved in the elimination of bias from (particularly) articles on history, social sciences, etc. This looks a sensible and practical approach to the problems I am encountering en route.
  • Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - OK, I'll give this project a shot. Let's see how well you guys do at fixing Christian views of women.

Perhaps there needs to be a section titled "What systemic bias is not"? or "What this project is not about"? I've added a bit of qualifying text to the "Systemic Bias" section, but I think much more should be done. Paul August 16:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Template

Sorry but the {{CSBArticles}} template is not appropriate for the article namespace. Anything is in the article namespace must be for readers not editors. Even worse is creating an article consisting of only the template this both violates policy and is counter-productive. - SimonP 17:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed above to take this approach. It seems to have attracted plenty of new participants. As for your Article namspace point, - the CotW template is for editors, and that's on African Union. Stub notices are for editors, and they are on the pages. Cleanup notices are for editors too. - Xed 17:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There was some debate about the CotW template but it was agreed that since it only affected one article it was not an issue. Stub notices go at the bottem of the page and are fairly undesruptiveGeni 17:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP. The template, though useful, should go on the talk page of the article. If every WikiProject started putting its own message on every page remotely associated with it, it would become obtrusive to those using Wikipedia as a reference source. This is especially relevant for this project, which has a broad subject area and a vast number of articles to be improved. Our time would be better spent working on the articles than posting bills. Sayeth 18:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Stub, POV, and cleanup messages are all meant to tell readers, as well as editors, that this article is not up to Wikipedia standards and such information is valuable to a reader. - SimonP 18:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
The CSM templates have exactly the same purpose. - Xed 18:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
not really becease for the most part apart from them being short (which is covered by the stub message) there is nothing wrong with them.Geni 18:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you can't see what's wrong with them then why are you here?-Xed 19:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias&oldid=6708976"