User talk:Xed/Archive1

Responses to beta Systemic Bias section proposal
Thanks Xed, why don't you create the page, or map out a mock up of how it would be different than the other 'wanted articles' pages? I'll take a look at that and we can go from there. Mark Richards 04:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, you might consider starting a WikiProject. You should probably try to avoid referring to bias, when you can, since intimating that Wikipedians are Americentric seems to be taboo. Good luck, and don't be discouraged by the community. -- 05:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I think efforts to counteract the systemic bias of Wikipedia are all well and good, and I would contribute to them if I were able, I see no point in this kind of ostentatiousness [i.e. signing my name to a section on the Village Pump, as Xed requested. &#8212;No-One Jones (m)]. Let me know when the beta version is ready, okay? &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 04:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your limited support--Xed 04:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do think that there should be some mechanism where those concerned with gaps in Wikipedia's coverage can keep track of where we're lacking. I'd be willing to help in such an effort.

One simple problem is that for the average Wikipedia contributor, such subjects are not quite so easy to research, either. Many Wikipedia articles are distillations of other information already available on the Web in English, after all; thus, the biases of the existing Web is reflected here. &mdash;Morven 05:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out, but how would your idea differ from any of the other sections that promote expansion of articles? WP:COTW, Needing expansion and cleanup? - MGM 08:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea differs in that the proposed section would deal specifically with articles which, 'due to systemic bias', do not get much attention. I have added your name to the list below. Feel free to remove if I have misunderstood you. --Xed 10:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have the following simple suggestions:
 * You could add requests to Requests for expansion, and work on existing requests.
 * You could add requests to Requested articles, and work on existing requests.
 * You could propose projects at Collaboration of the week.
 * Template:Opentask is included on the Community portal. You could add an extra line of requests for expansion, but you'd have to discuss it with people who think that the list already contains too many tasks, and you'd probably have to do much of the work required to keep it up to date.
 * &mdash;AlanBarrett 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just a question...
Hey, Xed. It looks like your CROSSBOW page is off to a good start. It looks like it'll be a good idea if you can get the support, and show that you're actually having an effect. But I've got a question: how did you choose the users to originaly notify about your plan (on their talk pages)? It's an interesting group. Thanks, Whosyourjudas 00:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * He notified everybody who took part in the WP:VP discussion, and made it their own choice to participate or not.


 * Hmm... I'll probably watch from the sidelines, for a while. I'm too busy for wiki stuff these days. And I still have my doubts, and still think Crossbow will just be Requested articles etc backed up by belief that one is fulfilling some grand overwhelming goal. The thing about so called 'systematic bias' is how it is unintentional. However well meaning you are, everyone is themselves biased. So, even if you are looking for undercovered articles, plenty will simply slip under your radar. At the end of it, sure, you may be able to show off a few articles you added, but those would be the easy ones, the ones wikipedians already are dimly aware of, and often feel slightly guilty about.


 * You can't plan for the undiscovered.--Fangz 00:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias conflict
As you will notice, I've written a rather long comment on the new dispute within the project. This says most of what I want to say, but I'd like to further emphasize that at least I have observed a willingness from your side to compromise and move forward with the project. I think there will be a lot more issues to discuss as the project develops further, and I would hate for this discussion to lose any of its active and dedicated participants. That includes both you and Jmabel. I can see both sides of this - I understand if you feel hurt by being blamed for implementing unopposed suggestions, although I can also see it being percieved as "pre-empting consensus". Saying this with the hope that you don't find it out of line: If you're able to take the diplomatic path, responding to your critics with some understanding of their position, and possibly calling for clarification of the project's decision-making process to avoid things like this to happen again, I think this could improve diplomatic relations considerably. Which would be of great benefit to the project. Alarm 11:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Burkina Faso
Just to let you know that there is material to integrate into Burkina Faso on its talk page from the translation you requested. You may also wish to request that the parts of fr:Histoire du Burkina Faso and fr:Démographie du Burkina Faso we don't yet cover on en. also be translated. fabiform | talk 23:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bias
Xed, you are absolutely correct about Wikipedia's bias. Wikipedia's bias starts with Jimbo Wales, flows through his admins and permeates the site. What else do you expect from a millionaire? One of the contradictions of the site is that it needs free labor, yet it only wants a certain point of view. This can't be admitted, though it is apparent to anyone who looks at the whole megillah. The only positive aspect about Wikipedia is that its pages are GFDL. I see two solutions to this problem - one, the users concerned with the bias should band together and do something about it. It's amusing how many of the American users are being accused of being "anti-American" when they express an isolationist foreign policy, it's straight out of Nazi Germany, anyone opposed to invasion of Poland or France was "anti-German".


 * As outlined by the suppressed Wikipedia Red Faction? Anyway, there are other GFDL corpus wikis besides Disinfopedia which are perhaps even more promising, most notably Wikinfo, InfoshopOpenWiki and the newest one, Anarchopedia, whigh aims to be one big wiki for progressive factions to have articles on activism, direct action, social change, etc.

Country Carousel
Ah, OK. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

VP archiving
Hello Xed, in response to your question, archiving discussions from the Village Pump to the appropriate talk page is standard procedure. Of course the discussion can be moved to an older archive on the talk page if you feel it takes too much room on the currently "live" talk page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:35, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Neocolonialism
I am the editor who expanded much the article, and I cannot quite make out the At least until recent times the dominant ideology notice made at the Csb Project. I invite you (and others in the project) to share your thoughts in the article's discussion page as to further improvements. Interesting project, I just learned of its existence now (will look into it further). Thanks for taking the time. El_C

I will certainly consider doing so, thanks. I thought that since you added the template you would have an idea as to the reasons behind the notice. I am (temporarily) removing the template until these could be established. I agree that the article needs further expansion, but as for systemic bias, I think this needs to be better qualified prior to such a notice being issued, and acted upon. El_C

Because I think they look silly. We already have stub notes, we don't need those. Besides, what's Joan Jett got to do with countering systemic bias? Everyking 14:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point about Joan Jett. Ask User:Jmabel about her inclusion. I'm reverting Mathieu Kérékou, because it's on the main To Do list of WP:Bias - Xed 14:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine, restore it if you want. Hopefully someone will soon expand the article to the satisfaction of your project and then it will be removed. Everyking 14:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dahomey Amazons
Good work on the Dahomey Amazons! Very interesting subject, well written article. One question remains after reading: what was the name of this regiment in the local language? After all, Dahomey Amazons must be a name given by outsiders. The local languages of Dahomey were Aja and -to a lesser extent- Fon (both Gbe languages - that's why I want to know). - Mark Dingemanse (talk)  15:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The local name of the regiment is a question I asked myself when compiling the article. Relying as I did purely on internet sources, I was unable to come up with an answer. However, I have access to the SOAS library, and therefore to the books mentioned in the further reading section. On my next visit, I'll see if the books answer the question. On the subject of Africa, could you tell me where you got the vector maps of Africa? I'd like to use them for an illustrative timeline of Congo Civil War. -- Xed 16:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As for the local name, I'm curious! Regarding the vector map of Africa: I used the reference map from the CIA Factbook (pdf format) as a basis: . I layered the map in CorelDraw, (putting names, borders, rivers etc. on different layers) so if you need something with only borders and a plain background or anything else, I can provide you with that (it would save you some work). - Mark Dingemanse (talk)  17:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd appreciate the simplified version of the map, in Adobe Illustrator compatible format if possible. I've sent you an email. -Xed 17:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CSB reminder
If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it This fortnight, the Second Sudanese Civil War is the CSB collaboration of the fortnight.- Xed 08:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)