Talk:Sierra Leone Studies
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reducing systemic bias[edit]
I have removed the template suggesting that this journal may lack notability, as I see this stems from systemic bias as discussed at the Oxford Internet Institute during the Wikipedia Birthday celebrations today. What other Academic Journals are there about Sierra Leone? Leutha (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have once again removed the template suggesting that this journal may lack notability, as I see this stems from systemic bias as discussed at the Oxford Internet Institute during the Wikipedia Birthday celebrations nearly three years ago. What other Academic Journals are there about Sierra Leone? Leutha Leutha (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is an incorrect interpretation of systematic bias. Bias is when there are sources to write, say, 10 articles on notable US topics and 10 articles on notable SL topics, but we write 9 US ones and only 1 SL one, because we are not interested in SL. Or, accept articles on US-related topics as notable when there are two in-depth sources, but demand 3 or 4 for SL-related topics. That would be systematic bias. However, what you are doing here is waving away any considerations of notability (or even verifiability) because this is a topic related to a country on which we have not many articles. The notability of this journal is strongly in doubt, not because it is on SL, but because we have no independent sources. Whether the journal started by Birchall has anything to do with this journal, apart from having the same name, is completely unclear. Whether Birchall's journal has any notability is even less clear (personally, I think the lack of notability is rather glaring). --Randykitty (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- If no improvement is forthcoming in the next couple of days, I'll put the notability tag back. Probably a "disputed" tag, too, given the lack of evidence that the Birhcall journal has any direct relationship with the older one, apart from the same name. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is an incorrect interpretation of systematic bias. Bias is when there are sources to write, say, 10 articles on notable US topics and 10 articles on notable SL topics, but we write 9 US ones and only 1 SL one, because we are not interested in SL. Or, accept articles on US-related topics as notable when there are two in-depth sources, but demand 3 or 4 for SL-related topics. That would be systematic bias. However, what you are doing here is waving away any considerations of notability (or even verifiability) because this is a topic related to a country on which we have not many articles. The notability of this journal is strongly in doubt, not because it is on SL, but because we have no independent sources. Whether the journal started by Birchall has anything to do with this journal, apart from having the same name, is completely unclear. Whether Birchall's journal has any notability is even less clear (personally, I think the lack of notability is rather glaring). --Randykitty (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)