Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics

 __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. Comments are fairly evenly split between plain keep (ie keeping it where it is) and userfying it; I will leave it up to any interested editors to determine if it should be userfied somewhere. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics


This is an essay written by. Let's go over its content:
 * Informative content on philosophy, logic, mathematics and Wikipedia.
 * Complaints that Wikipedia is biased for mathematics and against philosophy, with the following evidence:
 * "WT:MATH gets almost 20 times as much traffic as WT:PHILO."
 * There is "[o]mission and deletion of philosophical or logical connections to mathematical topics", and examples are provided.
 * There is "[f]orking of many otherwise comprehensive articles on a single concept into Topic-x (mathematics) and Topic-x (everybody else)", and examples are provided.
 * There is "[d]epopulation of Category:Metalogic".
 * "WP:BATF Boolean algebra task force could easily have been set up as a Propositional logic task force, giving less emphasis to Boolean algebra but it was not."

I think next to none of the essay's content is helpful for the following reasons: If all of those were removed, only the concern about metalogic and the proposed solution for it would be left. I don't understand that part, which obviously isn't enough of a reason to denounce it as well.
 * Reasons for the alleged bias.
 * Proposed solutions.
 * The informative content doesn't seem to be relevant to the essay's point.
 * Talk page traffic isn't evidence for bias.
 * The examples given as articles from which philosophical connections were omitted and deleted are articles to which themself tried to add unsourced information.
 * The examples given as pairs of articles on the same concept (one of which is about Topic-x (mathematics) and the other about Topic-x (everybody else)) are on fundamentally different concepts (lemma (mathematics) and lemma (logic) is a possible exception).
 * Both Boolean algebra and propositional logic are in the scope of WP:BATF. It seems there are significantly more articles about the former than the latter, which is presumably the reason for the task force's name.
 * If the bias doesn't exist, its "causes" are irrelevant.
 * The solutions target the evidence for the bias, and I explained why I think it's largely flawed.

Moreover, I think the essay is detrimental for the following reasons: I support userfying it once more or deleting it, and removing the mentions from WP:CSB. By the way, has been blocked indefinitely since 2014 for an unrelated reason, not sure if it matters. If you think any Wikiproject (say, WP:CSB, WP:WPM, or WP:PHILO) should be notified of this, please notify them. Professor Proof (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A prior version of it under the name Mathematosis was already userfied.
 * It's a subpage of WP:CSB and is linked to from the WikiProject's main page, even though if my claims are correct it isn't really related to systemic bias, and even though only one person has voiced concern about the alleged bias.


 * Question - Is the WikiProject active? Does the project have an opinion on deletion?  I would favor letting the project decide.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wrong forum.  All of the above belongs on the talk page.  None of the above amounts to a good reason to delete, certainly not before a reasonable conversation.  The 2009 userfied version was deleted as a copyvio?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing the flavour of several comments below, I recommend as an editorial action, userfying to User:Gregbard/Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. If it is felt that the user's opinion is idiosyncratic and of not value to any user in good standing, blank the page, but there is no good case to hide the contributions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. These complaints strike me as very idiosyncratic and very personal to Greg Bard specifically.  I've never been able to really figure out what he's talking about with a lot of them. That said, I don't see any strong reason to delete the page.  I'd call it mostly just "inactive".  If someone comes along who can explain to the rest of us what it's talking about, then maybe that will lead to an understanding that can point out possible improvements we've missed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I agree with Trovatore that these are some rather idiosyncratic complaints.  Normally, I would have just said userfy it, but the original author has long since been blocked.  On the other hand, if anyone who's active with this page's parent wikiproject really wants to keep it, especially with an intention of cleaning it up, then I'd probably say go ahead and defer to their wishes on it.  In any case, it would be good to hear from folks there (if there's enough activity for that).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fundimentally flawed logic so it can't be cleaned up. Just clear it away. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep We shouldn't be debating whether we agree with the essay or not; but there is any need for the deletion. I could agree with the suggestion it might not belong to the project page (but that's what the project decides.) -- Taku (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy - this is "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors," and furthermore that of an experienced editor, so I do not favor deletion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a web host for the idiosyncratic complaints of users who were blocked four years ago. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: I mention the blocking not to cast aspersions, but because it means there isn't a place to userfy to, unless someone steps up to volunteer. And I'm not sure why anyone would want to, even if they find the overall thesis persuasive; there's so little content that one might as well start from scratch. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with userfying to a blocked user's userspace, and especially not where their essay opinions are unrelated to their block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is at least arguable that there is a systematic bis here. If so, it could be well for editors to be aware of it. In any case, essays are statements of opinion. Disagreement with them, even with evidence, is properly matter for talk page comment, or for a counter-essay, not grounds for deletion. Nor should the fact that the user was later blocked be at all relevant. It may be thqt this should be movd to a separate project-space page, not under WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but that is not a reason to delete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Userfy Not connected strongly to the WikiProject in question, and clearly the opinion of a single user with dubious claims (For example, I'm not sure why anyone would even think that the two notions of class listed in the article are at all the same.) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete/userfy. Some editor's private rant, in the wrong namespace.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguments for deletion seem to be 'I disagree with/ take issue with the essay'. That's not sensible. Amisom (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There certainly seems to be a bias in WP against the philosophical side of math, for instance against the question of whether the real numbers $$\mathbb{R}$$ are the only possible proper expression of the philosophical idea of a line or continuum, etc. The general topic needs to be explored further. Eleuther (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is directed at me, I reject it utterly. Yes, the real numbers are in fact the only possible expression of the intuitive idea of the line.  But this is a philosophical fact, not a mathematical one, so it does not indicate any sort of bias against philosophy. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (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.