Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social class bias on Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SPA opinions are given little weight due to their lack of experience with Wikipedia standards for inclusion, which all other participants agree this article does not meet. BD2412 T 04:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Social class bias on Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We already have separate articles on gender, ideological, and racial bias on Wikipedia, and the article Criticism of Wikipedia also gives details about these and other types of bias.

The problem with the "social class bias on Wikipedia" article is that its sources are mostly concerned with the exact same biases again. The article as it stands has 11 references and 2 additional sources. The references are
 * (ref 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10); a powerpoint introduction on how to edit Wikipedia to counter bias, which doesn't mention social class bias even once
 * an article on racial bias, no mention of social class
 * An opinion piece, so not a reliable source, and it doesn't mention "social class" anyway but simply deals with gender bias
 * A Wired article about gender bias and racial bias on Wikipedia
 * This pdf doesn't mention social class either, but deals with social norms as they are created on sources like Wikipedia
 * This pdf again deals with gender bias
 * This is a definition about "classicism" (not the art style) and doesn't mention Wikipedia

So, none of the sources even mention social class bias... Looking for sources that actually discuss the "social class bias" on Wikipedia proves to be remarkably hard. No (Google-indexed) books seem to have tackled this, and similarly in Google News one can easily find articles about the gender bias on Wikipedia, or the racial bias. But social class bias seems to have been neglected in the available sources, which is reflected in the sources used in this article.

Which means that we shouldn't have an article on it either. It isn't even mentioned yet in the Criticism of Wikipedia article; if there has been some study of it anyway, which so far hasn't become truly notable or visible, then a short section or mention there is the way to go. Fram (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I have the view that anything more exact than criticism of Wikipedia becomes to self referencial to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I had no more luck than the nominator finding sources that address this specific issue. With the sources given in the article, it leans a bit toward synthesis. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding comments to my !vote: Although this article might make a good paper in a journal or magazine, it is original research. I examined every ref, and read each article and paper and study. I'll put my results at the end of the page for readability. What I found is that the article uses Intersectionality to extend research done on race and gender bias within Wikipedia and apply it to class. It has references about race and gender bias on Wikipedia, and it has references about classism. There were no sources that examine social class bias on Wikipedia. (Let me add, I am not saying there isn't a social class bias problem on Wikipedia; there could be, and there could even be an intersectionality argument to be made. But until there are secondary, independent, reliable sources discussing it in depth, it should not be an article.) Schazjmd   (talk)  19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedias about page claims that "Wikipedia's greatest strengths, weaknesses, and differences all arise because it is open to anyone", but today Wikipedia has a systemic social class bias, both in terms of content selection and in the userbase.
 * Delete — Per . Celestina007 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 2A00:801:42E:D09E:1556:A8C9:A57F:F35E (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You may have to read some of the content and not try to CTRL F your way to success here, not everything ever mentioned (in my opinion) tends to occur without any euphemisms for the exact same thing, the first source clearly mentions " class privilege" on page four. So it seems to be some really severe bad luck.

The wikisurvey also supports the additional information. Regarding the first article "on racial bias", within the context of where it's quoted it seems obvious to me that it's made to refer to the digital divide which is an issue in the racialised community as well as the lower class community. The article explicitly states:"Many of the arguments made regarding the systemic bias against women and racialised people on wikipedia also apply to people of lower social class, as for example a small presence within the technology sector, and a relative lack of reliable access to the Internet" before the source is cited.

The opinion piece written by Susan C. Herring (professor of information science and linguistics) which is argued have no value due to being an opinion piece, actually contains not only opinion, but also information that that's in line with research. But it was surely misplaced, so I can really see why that meant some confusion.

The case for the wierd article is the same, it's cited with a scientific study which also deals with representation, which the article also does.

Reading for context within the text often helps when trying to find out why the source is cited. Also the article claimed to be about "classicism" is about Classism. As a whole this doesn't look like charitable interpretation to me, which seems kind of well... hostile to the principles of the enlightenment. 2A00:801:42E:D09E:1556:A8C9:A57F:F35E (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

InspecdahBall (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's very cool to see how much has been done since my original post. I really don't see any reason at all for removing the article,quite the contrary I think it should be expanded further, and I am certainly not against classicism either!
 * — InspecdahBall (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * My examination of the sources (after removing a résumé and a "ref" to this AfD nomination) in which I quote any mention of class or economic: Schazjmd   (talk)  19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Quilter: replicates systemic biases of Internet culture: Anglophone, class privilege, "Libertarian" politics, WM single mention of class on a powerpoint slide
 * Shlomit: Furthermore, Fraser raises an important claim that the suspension of gender, ethnic and class differences work in favor of the strong and does not promote the weak (Fraser, 1992) single mention of class, as part of background about a study on gender bias
 * HuffPost: would also like to see the Wikimedia Foundation conduct more research on how gender, race, and other factors 'dictate the sociopolitical reality of Wikipedia edits'
 * Wikipedia survey that is just data
 * Classism on Class Action: no mention of Wikipedia
 * Cassano: about race and Wikipedia
 * Classism on IResearchNet: no mention of Wikipedia
 * Hargittai: Of particular relevance to the case of the Wikipedia gender gap, research on differentiated Internet experiences and skills has shown that socioeconomic inequalities and demographic differences tend to translate into differentiated patterns of Internet use across cultural, civic, and relational spheres of activity. We have every reason to believe that this might also be the case with Wikipedia and the gender gap. (they then surveyed college students, and found white + male the only background characteristics that exhibit statistically significant relationships, also None of the other variables in the models--including mesaures of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, availability, Internet experience, and confidence in editing Wikipedia--are significant.)
 * Executive summary of Wikipedia survey, no mention of "class" or "econom"
 * Ferguson: no mention of Wikipedia
 * Quilter: another slideshow, same slide as before
 * Eltecolote: Some of the obstacles that prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians are the same hurdles that confront other people of color. Less education, less access to Internet, less computer skills and also having a lesser presence in the high-tech sector can all prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians.
 * Wired: race and gender
 * Manstead: no mention of Wikipedia
 * SPLC: is about fringe and racism
 * Nguyen: is about a study of Wikipedia users to examine adherence to social norms; nothing about class or systemic bias
 * Lam: gender
 * Macaulay: no mention of Wikipedia
 * Herring: gender
 * NASPA: no mention of Wikipedia
 * GRE vocabulary: list of GRE words
 * LSE Research: gender
 * NYTimes: gender
 * MIT Technology Review: gender

I'll pick up a few of those and put them in context, I might do more later:

(I see two mentions one refering to the userbase and another refering to it generally?)
 * Quilter: replicates systemic biases of Internet culture: Anglophone, class privilege, "Libertarian" politics, WM single mention of class on a powerpoint slide


 * HuffPost: would also like to see the Wikimedia Foundation conduct more research on how gender, race, and other factors 'dictate the sociopolitical reality of Wikipedia edits'
 * Wikipedia survey Demography data of Wikipedias skewed userbase.
 * Classism on Class Action: It just explains the concept of Classism, I'll go ahead and remove this one.
 * Cassano: about race and Wikipedia and digital divide.
 * Classism on IResearchNet: Mentions digital divide.
 * Executive summary of Wikipedia survey: Mentions what we already know about the group of people that mainly edit wikipedia, (this by negation is very well reason enough to have the article.)
 * Ferguson: This one seems to be about life expectancy, if you die for example 18 years before a more well of counterpart, that obviously limits your time to edit wikipedia.
 * Eltecolote: Some of the obstacles that prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians are the same hurdles that confront other people of color. Less education, less access to Internet, less computer skills and also having a lesser presence in the high-tech sector can all prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians.
 * Wired: race and gender
 * Manstead: I get that it doesn't say Wikipedia, but it literally applies everywhere.
 * Nguyen: If one reads what it's cited for it becomes another issue.

I think a mistake here is to assume that the arguments relating to platforms cultural logic and gender and race isn't relevant in an intersectional perspective, which isn't exactly fringe. As the article stands, that concept isn't exactly explained for the users however. And that's a tad ironic... I'm even more on my original perspective now that more sources have been added. InspecdahBall (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep

Having read this, I think it should stay, I can certainly understand why there has been some quibble regarding the sources, but I think my recent edit fixed that pretty well. As it looked in the beginning I could have understood if it was to go to the sandbox but now it's another story. But one could certainly zero in more regarding the quotes, as I'm looking at it now I see that it could be summarized more heavily. That might have been a mistake at my part, I might have to look into that. EgoBenedict (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep EgoBenedict (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * — EgoBenedict (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note to closing admin; after the first delete votes, the AfD has been canvassed externally here, the article has been refbombed (with e.g. 6 refs for the section "Lack of ontological reflection regarding contemporary mental health issues" but only one, already discussed above, referencing Wikipedia), we have the article creator voting twice plus an IP and a SPA joining them... Fram (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suspect this will end with delete and possibly redirect (although it's unclear which target, since criticism of Wikipedia doesn't mention class). The issue is lack of sources specifically about social class bias as on Wikipedia rather than a side discussion of class while focusing on gender, race, etc. The other issue is there seems to be some WP:OR and tangential material added. the thing that will persuade people is a list of those sources specifically about this subject (which is not at all the same as the list of sources in the article currently). Strip away sources about other aspects of Wikipedia that mention class and sources about class that have nothing to do with Wikipedia -- what's left? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

EgoBenedict (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC) EgoBenedict speaking: The article has (not very surprisingly) also been linked from other sources at this point.

https://boards. 4chan.org /pol/thread/ 258726557/help- clense-wikipedia-with-your-spare-time

https://www.google.de/search?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_bias_on_Wikipedia&ei=I_fLXsnLBczi6QT_m6dI&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiJ6YyevM_pAhVMcZoKHf_NCQkQ8NMDegQICxA7&cshid=1590425401889931&biw=1745&bih=813

Please consider the entirety of the references instead of refering to this simplified notes like this one, for example.
 * Note to closing admin

Fram (talk) Why do you think that my post constitutes "refbombing" ? 6 sources isn't much for a section.

I've just tried to add content and clean up the page and make verification more transparent, and from what I can find SPA means single purpose account which my account isn't. The thing is that I only tend to edit content which I care about, which to be honest isn't much anymore these days. I stand by my previous statement, and would like to hear opinions on what has to be improved from the people who think this should be deleted. Because ources regarding the issue exist even if they aren't as extensive as they should be. The sources regarding gender and race are relevant due to intersectionality as well as similair issues affecting all three groups, which overlaps very frequently. Have a great day. EgoBenedict (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep Gumlau (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete OR article. I have added Template:Not a ballot as well. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to state that I did not intend to vote twice, I merely stated that I once again took the same stance, which becomes apparent if you check what I wrote. Does anyone know if I should remove it? Thanks. InspecdahBall (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites

Why not start here?

Lund, Arwid (25 April 2017). Wikipedia, work and capitalism A realm of freedom?. Lund. p. 60-61,111-112 180,150-153,158-159, 234,282,299-300,323,etc. ISBN 978-3-319-50689-0.

Also I just want to note that the starting point of the conversation seems inherently biased in the first place, instead of talking about how Wikipedia obviously mirrors society, and therefore takes up a really good amount of what's in society.

We seem to talk about this is a manner of which it seems to be a implicit premise that wikipedia wouldn't take up these biases, which is very, very unlikely, and then we shift the burden of proof to the people who want to acknowledge the fact that there has been bias, and that there will probably be more bias because humans aren't machines. (see sources in the article)

But if one could show how Wikipedia doesn't mirror the rest of society and have at least a small class bias, then we could throw this page out instantly due to the premise being falsified. So as this stands now, the page could be seen as a good(but with room for improvement) cogent argument which does a decent job of falsifying the thesis that Wikipedia wouldn't take up class bias. (This is not even mentioning what's been written about the user-base, and empirical examples of "best for business ontology", etc.)

This could be laid up as a simple argument by elimination: 1:Wikipedia either is or isn't biased on the question on social class. 2:Wikipedia is not unbiased on the question on social class (for all reasons mentioned in the literature, and the sheer unlikeliness) Therefore: It's impossible to rule out that Wikipedia has a bias regarding social class.

You can even construct your own little cogent argument relating to the article. E.g as a conjunction: 1:Wikipedia uses secondary sources for a enormous part of its content. 2:Secondary sources contain class bias. (See for example Kendall, Diana. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America.) Therefore:

Wikipedia voluntarily or not hosts class biased content.

Or you can present the same thing in another way by affirming the antecdent: 1:If Wikipedia hosts class biased content, they use at least some sources which contain class bias. 2:Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources.

Therefore: At least some secondary sources must contain class bias (See for example Kendall, Diana. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America.)

Or why not:

1:If Wikipedia exists Wikipedia is an entity in society. 2:You are reading wikipedia right now, and therefore have good reasons to believe that it is an entity in society. 3:Scholars have frequently demonstrated the existence of class society and human beings tendency to bias.

Therefore:If Wikipedia exists Wikipedia is subject to being a part of a class society.

InspecdahBall (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC) InspecdahBall (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not the place to discuss or decide whether there is social class bias on Wikipedia. There are typo's galore in Wikipedia, but "Typo's in Wikipedia" would not be a good subject for a Wikipedia article. Please drop the irrelevant walls of text and stick to the actual discussion instead. Fram (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.