Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RightCowLeftCoast/Userboxes/WikiLBias

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

The result of the discussion was:  keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:RightCowLeftCoast/Userboxes/WikiLBias

 * – (View MfD)

WP:5P4 says that Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. I edit in modern U.S. politics quite a bit, and find that the accusation that liberals will violate NPOV to suit their own biased ends to be disrespectful and uncivil. "No personal attacks" includes Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The same userbox could be applied to various forms of nutty content, with or without bad faith intent, that we recognise as legitimate enough to not tban. For example, This user recognizes that some articles on Wikipedia give undue weight to conspiracy theories, and that some editors may attempt to protect such undue content, even if it is against the pillar neutrality. which I happen to think is quite acceptable (though I wouldn't put it on my own user page), and is actually quite true (ref COVID conspiracy theories, or The Signpost piece, or various ANI discussions). I see this as an extension of that, and materially distinct from saying editors with liberal ideology are incapable of editing in a non-partisan manner (which I believe is how you've interpreted the statement).If it said "Liberal editors on Wikipedia edit in a biased manner" I might see your point, but it mainly talks about some content. I'm inclined to oppose for these reasons; I think this is within the acceptability of userspace userboxes and think it's carefully worded as not to generalise a whole, large political belief of partisan editing. The statement as worded is not entirely untrue (and applies to various forms of skewed content, including conservative-skewed content, and conspiracy-content); just take a look through the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN archives if you doubt that statement, cases do fly under the radar sometimes, and get corrected once they receive broader attention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:UBCR, which I was just coming back to add to my rationale, says Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks and Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. I think this is both. The userbox specifically says that there are editors who edit with a liberal POV to the point that they violate policy. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, we can MfD those userboxes too. I think there's way too much divisive content in them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your objection is to and understands that other editors may attempt to protect that bias? If that portion was removed, this userbox is acceptable in your view?
 * I see no personal attack here, personally, for reasons above. However, your point about Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. may be true, although what's inflammatory varies from person to person and so what has to be considered here, imo, is what the community consensus position and precedent is on such content. Course, I happen to think ideological userboxes, or any userboxes which have minimal relevance to building an encyclopaedia, should be ruthlessly pruned as unnecessary drama. But that's not the community's consensus, and not the precedent either. Various text in userspaces is permitted which makes generalised political comments, focused on conduct, indeed often written by admins.
 * For a more humorous example, that I believe is considered acceptable, see eg WP:CGTW: Jimbo's talk page is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Is this a personal attack stating that anyone that posts [an appeal] on User talk:Jimbo Wales is a scoundrel? If you think such userspace content is materially distinct to things like this userbox, please tell me how as I'm not seeing it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who adds the content that is on Wikipedia? The editors. I don't see how one can say "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias" without that coming down to the editors, even if this was to be reworded. Calling oneself a "scoundrel" is not quite the same thing as saying liberals can't follow NPOV. I see this on a userpage, as I did before nominating it for deletion, I think the person with it on their page has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this argument is logically inconsistent, Muboshgu. Especially as this exact matter is has been an area of academic research, the raw statement is akin to such a statement about gender representation in articles or another such issue which ultimately comes down to editors. It doesn't say liberals can't follow NPOV, or imply anything of the sort, by my reading. We can't prohibit generalised criticism of content on Wikipedia, on the basis that it implies a fault on the part of editors who wrote it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh. I mean it's clearly a polemic, claiming that a group of people edit against NPOV for political purposes, but it's also just an iteration of a standard conservative media talking point: "[source outside of the conservative media] is part of the [lying liberal media] even though they [claim to be neutral]." I'm reminded at how poor our section at Criticism_of_Wikipedia is (linked from this template). It's unfortunate that the only real academic research is so methodologically problematic (according to the Greenstien and Zhu paper, for example, if an article contains the word "crime" or "immigration" that contributes to it being "left-leaning" while "trade" and "abortion" contribute to it being "right-leaning"...). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a standard conservative media talking point, and we shouldn't be amplifying either left wing or right wing talking points. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A different point but the blue links on that background fail web standards for contrast, I can barely read the text enough to know if I should be offended. Zindor (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Personally I see no issue with the userbox other than the god awful colours ( You may want to change the link colours or background so it's actually readable). As noted above offensiveness varies between person-to-person and as I said I see no issue with it. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, I have largely stopped editing around articles that fall within the area of modern American politics as it has led to myself being harassed, hounded, and faced with incivility. This has further caused me to take a very long wikiBreak from editing due to real life obligations on top of the stress that the hounding and harrassment has caused me. To the point where at a offline Wikimedia event, I have feared for my own safety, at the possibility of a hounder following me to the event.
 * That said, I believe that editors who are seeking to defend/maintain a bias mean well(AGF) and are only documenting what many biased (mainstream) news sources are stating. Unfortunately, this creates a situation (as stated above by another editor) where those who don't agree with the bias reinforced by those news sources view the content as having a non-neutral content. This further leads to alternate wikis which are fervently biased to the other side, which as a experienced contributor/editor I see as being a disservice to the readers of those alternate wikis, and at the same time a sign that we here on Wikipedia need to do a better job of having neutral content.
 * The user box in question does not target any single editor individually, nor does it make a statement that any of those editors are acting in bad faith, as surely those who have caused at least a few non-left of center editors to depart editing Wikipedia believe they were acting in the best interest of the project.
 * It just makes me disappointed, reflecting on my past negative experiences here, and that such reflection on my past experiences via a user box, is now sought to be silenced/cancelled/censored.
 * If the coloration needs to be changed as suggested above, I am not opposed to that.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, more talk of "cancellation". This discourse is not helpful and why userboxes should not include such polarizing statements. If you feel you've been treated poorly or hounded, I am sorry about that, but this isn't the answer. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Without stating that there are issues on our project, we cannot improve IMHO.
 * I am not the only one who has the opinion that there is bias, please see this presentation as an example.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 20:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a more recent critique of percieved bias on Wikipedia. -- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be looking to improve ourselves and improve the project however we can. Unfortunately, I think this userbox is divisive. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I just read the comments more carefully - user:RightCowLeftCoast is not making a *personal* attack, and anyone who identifies as liberal brings liberal bias to their choices. I identify as liberal and progressive in my views. I bring those biases to the choices I make.

Writing in NPOV is different from having NPOV. I maintain that no one can hold completely neutral points of view. There’s a range of how much we know or care about anything, and then a range in which ways we lean. We may straddle the middle as best as we can on views, but the “how much we care” piece is fundamental to whether we spend time paying attention to topics or not, and the attention we pay (or don’t) = bias.

I will also vouch personally for user:RightCowLeftCoast - in working with him on Wikipedia projects for the past 4 years, he has always been respectful, even if our beliefs differ as they often do. I’m hopeful this will be resolved quickly. There are so many other important tasks on Wikipedia projects that need our attention. DrMel (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for a similar rationale I've mentioned in the discussion below, a perceived liberal bias is certainly up for debate, but I don't see how this userbox directly violates policy. And I really don't see how NPA is relevant. NPA doesn't apply to political ideologies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this violates NPA. It may if added to someone's user page but as a stand alone box?  No.  Springee (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There is simply no valid reason for deletion here. It is just saying people who believe in a particular ideology will tend to advance it, even unconsciously. One could disagree with that, but that is by no means a personal attack or a violation of civility. People are claiming that this userbox is divisive; that may technically be true, but is also entirely useless. Every single userbox in existence is "divisive," to varying extents; does policy support deleting all of them? No, of course not. Guidelines are not meant to be interpreted that literally.  Zoozaz1   talk   01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is accurate to say that some articles do have a bias; we even have maintenance templates and categories for this. The template does not say that all liberals edit with a bias. This is not an attack on anyone, and there is no valid reason to delete. --IWI (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.