Talk:Bias/Archive 1

Wikipedia How-to
Q: How do I mark a wikipedia article as biased?

'You' can't mark it as biased. You have to discuss this with wikipedians.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2000 (UTC)

Institutional bias
I added the section about institutional bias. I feel compelled to note that I am not 'Jedi' (nor 'Sith') nor have ever ticked 'Jedi' on a census form. So have no beef to make in promoting the topic. If someone else wants to place a different example, feel free. I just found this a relevant and useful example that stuck out in my mind. UnterlandingZo 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following I had posted and was removed which I am fine with, however (below): 'Another example of institutional bias is the Jedi census phenomenon in which governments of Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada, despite having a statistically significant number of people mark 'Jedi' on the census, in some cases in greater percentage than traditionally recognized religions, continued to not recognize 'Jedi' as a religion. - 	It would also be institutional bias to not recognize something like 'Jedi as a religion' on the sole basis of governments, i.e. institutional authority, not acknowledging it.'

It was removed reasoning this: '(Not recognising "Jedi" as a genuine religion is not "institutional bias", since few people think "Jedi" is a religion, as opposed to a joke, mocking both the census and organised religions.)'

IMO I listed two types of institutional bias, 1) that the governments refused to recognize it, ok, apparently I am only guessing at their reasoning, perhaps this is not good. I am assuming they did not recognize it because it was not an organized religion; it was not institutionalized. They are therefore bias towards religions being institutional. I can now see it was correct to take it down, because I was only speculating at their reasoning for refusing to recognize Jedi as a religion. However, if it was official policy to recognize a religion as legitimate if x number checked it on the census, (I do not know if this was the actual case) if it was official policy and they ignored it, regardless of the reasons for ticking Jedi, then it is institutional bias, perhaps on the official's part, but institutional bias none-the-less. Perhaps someone else can come up with a good example, as the definition of institutional bias needs to be fleshed out. 2) individuals or perhaps other institutions that do not recognize some matter unless some form of authority officially recognizes it. This fits with what remains and the second part of what was removed. UnterlandingZo 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced
I was WP:BOLD and added the unreferenced tag to the top of the page. It should have been tagged back in 2005 when it was first noted. I can't believe that a page referenced from a policy has been in violation of policy for so long! I also moved the worst of the unreferenced stuff below. I don't doubt that it is probably true, but it is to controversial to stand without cites to WP:RS and without them it looks like WP:OR.


 * This is particularly common in discussion of news media outlets such as CNN, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and so on. For example, Bill O'Reilly has made accusations of liberal bias against the staunchly conservative Globe and Mail; at the same time, critics of O'Reilly accuse him of a conservative bias.  Control Room, a documentary film made in 2004, has examined the role of bias in the media, through an examination of the conflicting methods of reporting the events of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in Western and Arabian news networks.

--Dhaluza 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage of term in bowls
According to one dictionary's etymology, the term originated in bowls, and first came into psychological usage in the eighteenth century, quoting the example "The law does not consider the possibility that a judge may show a biass(sic.)"ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

An example:
Prejudices of power-players in a real relation lead to what? Shall I ask the goveneur?!--88.77.219.32 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have one or more concret examples for processing on BIAS. To me happens, being testified for my driving license a manipulation of my body weight. 20 kilos more than I really have and it#s not so clear, who profits in doing so.

Funding Bias
What happened to Funding Bias? It's mentioned (but not wikilinked) in the Passive Smoking article and is a significant type of Bias. Maybe I'll finmd some references and add it, unless someone else has some already lined up? Bryson430 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Self Defeating
"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." Neutral point of view

"In theory, bias is a term used to describe a preference to a particular perspective or ideology, which means all information and point of views has some form of bias." Bias

If all information is biased, then isn't this page (which contains information) asserting it, itself is biased? And if so, doesn't that violate the NPOV principle?

Also, it seems to me to be violating NPOV because that assertion that all information and points of view are biased (aside from being self defeating which was part my previous point) is itself non-neutral with important philosophical implications.

I'd like to point out that "all information and point of views has some form of bias" is asserted to be a fact, not in the form of "____ says 'all information [...]'".

Paul Kennedy

Considering more then one person is working on this article, it is unlikely it is biased. By human knowledge biased is to be self centered towards one ideaology. Which you lack to understand.--71.162.77.108 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideaology on the actual term being.--71.162.77.108 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If an idea is based on the majority and agreed by the majority it is unbiased. This is evident in how wikipedia functions.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Your a genius...--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias means knowledge and experience
Bias does not have to mean slanted although that is the most common use. As someone above said, everything has bias, and necessarily so. Unfortunately, the so-called smartest woman in the world, Marilyn vos Savant, gave the negative defintion only in her column. The smartest man would likely do otherwise. And in my quick-look now at dict.org, all the definitions for bias imply a negative aspect. Yet I've looked up bias in the dictionary before and found what I believe is the proper definition: it can also mean something coming from knowledge and experience.Gyoung572345790234789 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias is usually referred to self centered beliefs on what is and what is not. If one bases his beliefs on others and compare's them to his own, without these self centered blind beliefs he is not biased. In my belief which holds certain truth's.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the opposite of what you believe. Wish to debate?--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

History!!!
We have other sections, such as for 'statistics' 'computer science' ,etc. Yet bias plays a very important role in historical analysis. What of intentional bias in this field? though omission, eg: a document that may have omitted certain fact, details, and moreover, been written with a certain literary style so as to present a certain viewpoint, or perhaps guide the reader to adopt that viewpoint. Perhaps unintentional bias of this style could be covered as well? Seeaxid 02:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * History is written by the victors--71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for some of the claims?
The part some user edited as: "'Racism, regionalism and tribalism. None of these things are biases, as they are evidenced stronger than the opposite arguments. Listing them here is nothing more than misinformation and politics.   Inductive bias in machine learning.    Sexism, homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity. None of these things are biases, as they are evidenced stronger than the opposite arguments. Listing them here is nothing more than misinformation and politics. Furthermore, homophobia does not exist. As any good psychologist will say, there are many reasons to dislike these groups that extend beyond biases. For example, the most rampant bias of modern times is that against racism, sexism and gay criticism. Even though all they do is explain scientific fact at its appropriate level of importance.    Sensationalist: put simply, favouring the exceptional over the ordinary. However this sentence structure makes is sound like an appeal to popularity or normalcy fallacy. This is actually a more complex problem, whereby, the proponent elevates the importance of the evidence to more subjects than it is relevant. This is accomplished by willfull bias, assumption or, putting conclusion ahead of evidence.

In practice, this includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost popularity. An example would be, leaping to epigenetic, an unproven science to explain gayness, when normal genetics has been conclusively and repeatable refuted to have a significant effect. This is clear in that gays are present in nearly all races.'"

My own opinion here seems the person has their own agenda and may be intolerant but who really knows... Anyway, where are the citations to say that these things are not biases? 'As any good psychologist will say, there are many reasons to dislike these groups that extend beyond biases.' does not suffice. If anything, it seems as if prejudice towards a group would qualify as bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanwashere (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this any more than just a disambiguation page?
This article is looking more and more like Bias_(disambiguation). What's the rationale for even having a separate article on bias, given that the word has so many meanings? What should the article contain? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from Martin. Perhaps this article should identify the common threads, point people to the different aspects and relate other broader topics/issues to the concept of bias. I previously pruned it down to remove content duplicated in the more specific bias articles. But I don't think we want to make the main bias article too bitty. Disambiguation articles can be a bit too much like a list, without much prose to help unfamiliar people navigate around the concepts/ideas involved, so a general article on bias may still have value. What do other people think? Emble64 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Britannica doesn't seem to have a Bias article, only individual articles about the applications of the word in psychology, ballistics, electronics etc. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone just searching to find some general background on bias, the discussion on this page was very helpful. I wouldn't have found it as useful to just have a disambiguation page. Theyogre (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Illustration
I restored a video which was removed with comment. The same user removed it from conflict of interest also. I requested clarification about the justification for removal at Talk:Conflict_of_interest. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Razorback
I appreciate that the edit was well-intentioned and not vandalism, but the edit is not appropriate. Some forms of bias are discussed further down the article, and to say that e.g. FoodDrink is one form of bias is not up to the same standard as the rest of article. Gravuritas (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge!
An article should not cover such a diverse list of topics. This should be merged with bias (disambiguation) and made a disambiguation page. The topics should be discussed at length only in separate articles. Michael Hardy 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. One thing I remember is that I once tried to sort out the interlanguage links of the various topics this article discusses. In the end, not all articles could be linked. If this page was split up to discuss each topic at length, it would be easier to sort out the interlanguage links. Ae-a 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to send flowers / rotten tomatoes.. OliverL 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In contrast to the original proposal; I believe a page for the definition of the word in general use is necessary as well; with a provided disambiguation link. It is after all a plethora of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.46.62 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070224025607/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/Saints/ncd05726.htm to http://catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05726.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias of Priene
Hi,

Apologies for not having acquired proper Wiki skills, but I'm still a fan, so...

Might a section be added on the presumed origin of the word? I find this at a glance: "mid 16th century (in the sense ‘oblique line’; also as an adjective meaning ‘oblique’): from French biais, from Provençal, perhaps based on Greek epikarsios ‘oblique’", but find - as so often - that Wiki offers a more convincing origin story... https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bias_of_Priene ("Most men are bad") (Which admittedly could be said to be a true observation, but hey...)

So, I thought I'd share that. Now back to the wine...

Cheers,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantophileDiderot (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217043411/http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf to http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205050857/http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/L0246450.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/L0246450.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

JzG's edit
JzG deleted two referenced statements in this article, giving as a reason that the sources are "crappy".

The sources may be crappy, but I wanted evidence of that, so I attempted to revert JzG's edit. This proved impossible, because evidently one or both of these sources has been blacklisted. I tried to ask about the sources here in talk, but that also was impossible. Evidently blacklisted sources cannot be cited even on a talk page. I would appreciate it if someone with expertise in this area would provide information on these two sources, on how a source gets blacklisted, and on how a source can be removed from the blacklist. This is the first time I've run into a Wikipedia blacklist, and while I can see the necessity for such a list, I can also see how such a list is easily abused. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521050439/http://www.medico-legalsociety.org.uk/articles/dishonesty_in_medical_research.pdf to http://www.medico-legalsociety.org.uk/articles/dishonesty_in_medical_research.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720083041/http://www.iceaustralia.com/apsacc2011/pdf/papers07/day1_24oct07/StreamA2/RegulatoryCaptureManagingTheRisks_JohnBoyd.pdf to http://www.iceaustralia.com/apsacc2011/pdf/papers07/day1_24oct07/StreamA2/RegulatoryCaptureManagingTheRisks_JohnBoyd.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/79/8/1001.full.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719153236/http://www.njmonline.nl/njm/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000037 to http://www.njmonline.nl/njm/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000037

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Halos and Horns
The recent changes by u:Trink24 may have added to clarity, but at the expense of accuracy. The halo effect is the belief that unknown aspects of a person will match the known aspects of that person. Although it is named after the assumption of (positive) unknown aspects based on a known positive aspect, it is equally applicable to negative effects. The recent edits have stripped this information out of the halo effect section, restricting it just to positive aspects, and this is inaccurate. I don't want to do a wholesale revert, so please amend your edits to fix this blooper. Gravuritas (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
keeps getting vandalised


 * FYI, new posts to a thread should go at the end of the thread, not at the beginning, and should be signed with four tildas (the symbol to the left of the exclamation point on most keyboards). The wavy read underline in your post indicates a spelling error. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Could use more classes of bias
"5.1	Classism 5.2	Lookism 5.3	Racism 5.4	Sexism"

See any toxic biases not mentioned? There are many, but let's start with Homophobia.76.105.244.90 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition is poor
Defintion of bias in the first sentence is poor. ‘Often’? So, by implication, bias is sometimes ‘having an opinion ... having considered evidence or information’?* How about, from google ‘prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.’ Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Your definition is better. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence currently has a dictionary definition which I think is credible and I don't see any further neutrality issues, so in my opinion it would be helpful to remove the large template and instead use in-line notation if desired. I'll do the first thing myself next time I'm "in the neighborhood".- Thrif (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone else see the irony?
Putting a neutrality flag on an article about bias is similar to the frequent vandalism of recursion saying "see recursion!" I think what some editors are confusing here is valence vs. bias. IOW positive or negative valences vs. cognitive errors, as an example. To illustrate, can you define bias in an unvalenced way? When we say it refers to a "negative" trait, that's valencing. What about this: "To hold a partial perspective in the face of incomplete information" (hearkening to George Box's "all models are wrong, but some are useful" in a humility, evolve to the best sense of skepticism, not pejoratively. Neutral in the sense of objective, even though "biased." This puts a finer point on neutrality in an article that is meta-hierarchically-recursive to neutrality itself! Pdecalculus (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I like your idea, but I think most bias is negative. There is some positive bias: patriotic bias for example, but even that positive is usually expressed in a negative way.  I see more people being attacked for being unpatriotic than I see people praised for their patriotism.  Most bias seems to me to take the form of having an extreme negative view and refusing to see any merit in the other side of a given question. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I got a good laugh out of it. That being said, I'm confused bout the neutrality flag. What viewpoint is this article allegedly unfairly disparaging or promoting? Matthew V. Milone (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

To the True Believer, everyone who disagrees with them is biased.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Split
I propose that this article be split into two: one on cognitive bias, and the other on scientific bias. They are really two different things. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Old discussion by anonymous
Are we missing "strategic bias"? This is the bias that a respodent puts on a test when they are trying to alter the outcome for their own ends. For example, if you ask a group of employeesare we getting enough training?" they might all respond with a resounding "NO" in an attempt to win more funding for their trainingbudget?

Bias can also be a result of game theory, such as when 360 degree feedback surveys areriggedbygroups of people who collude in order to rank each other highly?

Lastly, bias can creep into socialresearch where respondents second guess the questioner. This is especially true in cultures where there is an emphasis on not being disagreeable?

--- this important entry lacks a LOT of references!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- This WP definition of 'bias' has nothing scientific and seems mainly informed by 'media' and 'pop culture' considerations. Informed by political 'gut' feelings and not a by rational, articulted or analytical approach (not even attempted). In my opinion the definition should be re-edited from scratch to attempt a scholarly definition considering the point of view of natural as well as social sciences.

--

In my opinion the passage:

An example of bias is having an Americo-centric point of view (the point of view of an American, in particular one from the US), or similar for another country......

is unfair. Whilst I am no sympathiser with America (I doubt they need any), using any particular country in an example of bias is bias itself.

I think references to particular countries should be deleted from this article.


 * Funnily the first section seems to be quite Americo-centric since it mentions only American examples :) Fornadan 20:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the following para D:

"Bias is used in modultion to create a carrier wave from the oscilator. In FM, the bias is quite high, and defines the center frequency.  In AM, the bias is only as high as the peak of the normal audio input signal, and defines the average ampltude of the RF output signal."

As someone who has designed many AM and FM transmitter circuits, this is more or less rubbish. what? It may refer to one particular type of, and one I'm not especially familar with athabut. It is not a statement that is in any way generally true. The first sentence in particular is simply wrong in any interpretation I can make of it. An oscillator produces a car wave, period. It does not need "bias" to make it produce a car wave - it just does. A certain design of osciltor may include an element that changes the frequency of the oscill, and is sensitive to voltage - a varica diode for example - in such a circuit, a bias voltage would be usually needed to establish the center frequency, and an AC signal applied here would cause frequency modulation - but this is all a particular implementation detail, it does not belong in this article. This use of the term bias is covered by the para that is already there. The mention of AM in this para is also erroneous, I have no idea what the author was trying to say. The AM modulators I've designed don't fit this picture, and I don't think my designs are especially wacky. In any case it's another implementation detail that doesn't belong in this article. Stay focused, people!

I should also say I have some issues with the para that talks about DBS receivers. I feel it is also very specific to a caertain kind of design, as well as being not terribly clearly written. However, I don't know enough about the subject to simply remove it, so I've left it in. GRAHAMUK 23:47, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Etymology important for understanding English word "bias"
I would like to suggest that perhaps there should be a better definition on bias here since bias is taken to mean several things depending on which European root it was ultimately taken from. I would think that the English bias is ultimately an amalgimation of the two.

A) The Ancient Greek bia (pronounced Vi-a), means (when applied):

1. strength, force, opression, violence.

B) The Middle French biais (pronounced ), means:

2. a slant, an angle,

C) In English Bias means:

3 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45° angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit 4 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency c : the swerve of the bowl 5 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others 6 a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording

Taken from (dictionary.com) & Pocket Greek dictionary - Langenscheidt.by Dr Karl Feyerbend. --JamesTheJust 07:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biased dismissal of academic bias
Only the first sentence on academic bias discusses the concept of academic bias. The rest of the section seems to be discrediting the existence of academic bias, proposing that it is actually a fake concept created by conservatives and Christians because of their bias against academics. Ironic that on an article about bias, there seems to be an attack against conservatives and Christians. Solution: either present academic bias as a form of bias if it is a real concept (regardless of its prevalence), or delete it if it is a fake conspiracy created by conservatives and "religious" Christians (are there any other types of Christians?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.31.52 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scarpinojosh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Pressure
Peer pressure is when your peers make you to do something that you are not comfortable at like when they tell you to smoke drugs wear short skirts like hijacking being involved in crime Amasofa amacouch (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Alessandro219 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)