User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

The purpose of this essay
I wrote this essay to be a teaching tool for those who believe pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, urban myths, and other things which are not supported by any actual evidence.

For example, the reader may be someone who is a True Believer in magnetic water treatment and who strongly objects to the "bias" in our article on that topic. The same reader is likely to not be a True Believer in laundry balls or phrenology. My hope is that the reader, by seeing all these other pseudoscientific areas where Wikipedia is "biased" right next to his pet fringe theory, will come to an understanding of why it is that Wikipedia is "biased" against fringe theories in general.

Of course we know that in many cases this list will fail in that goal, because no argument will convince the fringe theorist. In such cases the secondary goal kicks in. This list also helps those who are responding to accusations of bias. All you have to do is to simply cut and paste the list into a talk page discussion with an edit summary of "Yes. We ARE biased." No need for attribution -- I released it under CC0 specifically so that you can use it as if it was your own. This cutting and pasting has been shown to take the wind out of the sails of many fringe theorists who think that they have found the magic words ("Bias!") that will magically cause Wikipedia to start promoting things that are not true. In general, cutting and pasting the list is more effective than linking to it, because promoters of pseudoscience have trained themselves to ignore the usual links to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. --Guy Macon 19:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Have been thinking good and long about this essay and Lunatic charlatans, and I'm coming around more to the POV expressed in them... I am a little bit of a bleeding heart for the True Believers™ but in the balance between skepticism and wonder, it does make sense for Wikipedia to be biased towards skepticism. That's how it's always been most useful to me. --User:Scarpy 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "[This essay] makes clear to everyone what editing Wikipedia is about. So, pseudoscience POV-pushers will be blocked or they will avoid pushing POVs, that choice is entirely theirs. But it makes crystal-clear that they will never prevail here. So, this is about establishing boundaries. Some people are honestly not aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH." --tgeorgescu 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "[If you don't like this essay] then let's have a competition: You try to keep more pseudoscience out of articles with your own method, whatever it is." --Hob Gadling 19:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that this entire essay is a conspiracy to keep me chain-reading article after article about interesting malarkey and its empirical refutations. Thanks a lot, Guy. I'll just clear my calendar. Yours from the rabbit hole, Laodah 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Curses! You have uncovered my Evil Plot! The only thing I can do now is to send you down a deeper rabbit hole. [ https://tvtropes.org/ ] BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the correct mad-scientist laugh goes more like "MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Help needed
I would like to ask my loyal minions  sycophants   fanbois   henchmen   talk page stalkers  talk page watchers for assistance.

Through the invaluable assistance of others, most of the entries on this list have links to places where someone claimed we are biased against, say, laundry balls.

Three items are missing such discussions:


 * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

Can anyone find discussions claiming we are biased against phrenology, Lysenkoism, or pseudoscience?

Discussions on Wikipedia would be ideal, but even an obsure plog or twitter discussion about how Wikipedia is biased against phrenology would be sufficient to establishe that someone claimed we are biased on that topic.

If you can fix this, you can expect a little something extra in the paychecks we all get for supressing the TRUTH... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For pseudoscience there's this, although it mainly claims that we may wrongly classify certain topics as pseudoscience.
 * I couldn't find any claim that we were biased against Lysenkoism (maybe it doesn't have many adherents today?) but I did find the opposite claim. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fascinating article on "Wikipedia’s Lysenkoism", but in my opinion completely wrong. The author, while fighting for their preferred definition of such terms as "sex" "gender" and "female" (ignoring the easily observed fact that word definitions and usage change over time) completely mangles the meaning of "Lysenkoism", redefining it as "any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable" (it actually refers to one specific set of wrong opinions by Trofim Lysenko and to Joseph Stalin making those wrong opinions the only acceptable biological science in the USSR). Interesting, but not much use in this essay.
 * On the other hand, the jcom.sissa.it paper is just what I was looking for. In seems to be quite clearly claiming that Wikipedia is biased against pseudoscience. Example: "their scepticism is applied asymmetrically, always against beliefs contrary to scientific and medical orthodoxy and, and their efforts are invariably against groups espousing those beliefs". The paper even lists Breibart.com as the first citation! Good find. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When they gave that definition of Lysenkoism, they were quoting straight from our article on the term I don't believe the medium.com article was saying that Lysenkoism includes all forms of pseudoscience, but rather making an analogy between Lysenkoism (which suggests that evolution occurs within a single organism and they aren't bound by genetics) and people being transgender. Regardless, it's a biased article that doesn't work here. An alternative could be a discussion in Wikipedia that affirms that we do believe in Mendelism, such as this extensive discussion from Talk:Evolution or this one. RedPanda25 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(Comparison_of_explanations) could be an option for Wikipedia being biased against phrenology. It's not a topic discussed much for obvious reasons, but the fact that "it's phrenology" is enough of a reason to delete an article shows that we consider it to be sure pseudoscience. RedPanda25 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Related: I rather like the recent addition of "We are biased towards Oneirology, and biased against Oneiromancy". Does anyone have a "Wikipedia is biased" thread we can incluse?

Also see:


 * Talk:Divination.
 * Talk:Dream_interpretation

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I already checked and did not find anything. Maybe someone else will. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are the Wikitrolls and POV pushers when you need them? (smile) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * are we biased in favor of logic and against magic? or is logic a type of magic? or is it we're biased against magical thinking. Andre🚐 17:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)