Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

Witchcraft
There's a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft about traditional vs western/pop culture/neopagan definitions of the word, and which to prioritize in the lead of Witchcraft. Input was solicited at the Neopagan wikiproject and that is currently dominating the discussion. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the contents of this essay come down on the side of the people arguing for the modern witchcraft definition (or at least against the one that explicitly calls it evil or harmful). There are reams of academic gender/religious studies that point out how the "traditional" definition is the literal embodiment of systemic repression and codified bias. And the person who notified the Neopagan group says they notified all the projects listed; I verified the notification on the Religions project. Darker Dreams (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that the Neopagan community is the source of systemic bias, but rather the article itself (until the latest initial corrective edits) displays gross (religious and social) systemic bias, dating back hundreds of years (and also in recent years). Hopefully more-involved editors will be able to come up with reliable sources to correct this.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   12:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wikiprojects notified were paranormal, horror, skepticism, occult, and anthropology. None of the wikiprojects for the ethnic or cultural groups whose practices are called "witchcraft" on the page were notified. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I came here from Skepticism, as a "seeker after truth".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous acknowledgement in Wikipedia articles
When I write and edit history articles I always try to include whatever information I can find on Native history and populations since that's a frequently overlooked topic. I am wondering if there is an applicable Wikipedia guideline (not necessarily a rule) to help guide editors on getting the full picture, including Native history and things such as Native place names. I have my own process but I felt that looking at land acknowledgement practices might be a good place to start. I also commented this on Land acknowledgement while searching for the right place to ask this.

I see that in Systemic bias there are a number of topics that somewhat fit what I'm looking for, but I wonder if there can be an addition about the average Wikipedian and most promoted sources being from white settlers of European ancestry. Settler colonialism and the resulting sources are very much a bias on Wikipedia. Pingnova (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Witchcraft
The article has sections on a number of different global cultures. There has been conflict around the meanings of the words "traditional" and "witchcraft". - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Bride buying
For the interested, treating the #History of the practice of bride buying—nearly universal in various forms across human cultures since at least the neolithic—with a single long paragraph on Jamestown has to be some kind of apotheosis of WP:BIAS. Handy anecdote for those trying to explain the concept to others, when needed. — Llywelyn II   21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your Jamestown link goes to a disambiguation page. Which Jamestown article did you mean? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Content will reflect the bias in a source
, do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias, so I added the following section:


 * Content will reflect the bias in a source


 * The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy does not require either sources or content to be neutral. Instead, it requires that editors edit in a neutral manner. Editors should never be the source of the bias in the content. They should not allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the source and the content based on that source. They should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that content will reflect the bias found in the source unless an editor has violated policy by censoring, whitewashing, or neutering what the reliable source says. When controversial, the content will normally include attribution to the author of the source, maybe even using exact quotes, so readers can see that editors are not the source of the bias in the article. If a reader is still unhappy with that bias, their dispute is with the sources, not the editors.

Your edit summary mentions "editors' responsibility to use a range of sources to avoid bias in articles". That is not our "responsibility" and sounds like an encouragement to create a false balance. NPOV does not mean equal treatment of the POV on a topic. (Some POV are better and more factual than others.) It means we document the often unbalanced way that most RS treat a topic, and such an article will appear unbalanced to readers. We are not allowed to try to create a false balance to please them (or ourselves). We should let it be as is.

Some readers will perceive a bias (usually those who are fringey, whose preferred version is contrary to what RS say), and that's okay, as that is the mainstream RS bias the article should have. Readers just need to know that the bias comes from the sources and not from the editors. Editors are not "taking sides", just documenting all relevant sides according to their due weight, and that means some aspects have more weight than others. That creates a perceived bias. That's what the section above addresses, and I'm sure it could use improvement. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My edit summary may not have been clear, so let me try to lay out my main concern. To my eyes, it felt like the paragraph you added implied that when an article is biased due to a biased selection of sources, that's okay as long as the editor has accurately reflected the sources they're using. (That might not have been your intention, it's just how the paragraph came across to me.) I don't think that's right – NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy. It requires that our content fairly and proportionately reflect the reliable sources that are out there.
 * In my view, if a Wikipedia article is biased due to systemic bias influencing our selection of sources, the solution is often to look for a wider range of sources. In some cases, of course, an article may appear biased to a reader because the reader is biased, and that doesn't mean we should create a false balance. If our articles seem "biased" in favor of science over pseudoscience, that's not a problem. But if our articles are biased in favor of, say, the UK over France, due to English-speaking editors tending to cite sources from English-speaking countries, that often is a problem and something we should work to avoid.
 * I suppose my question for you would be, what are you trying to convey with this paragraph beyond what's already covered in the "External factors" section? Maybe we can find a solution that would address both of our concerns. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "is biased due to a biased selection of sources" That seems to accuse editors of selection bias, rather than a bias toward solely using RS and trying to summarize what they say. I'm not saying that it can't be a problem. It certainly can be, but the wisdom of crowds tends to neutralize it because editors with opposing POV will tend to use the opposing view sources they are familiar with, thus covering any gaps caused by the ignorance or natural biases of other editors. We are all imperfect humans. The following is in a box on my talk page: "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT
 * "NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy." No, it's just as much a behavioral as content policy. It's about editorial attitude in the editing process, hence the prohibition against including "editorial bias". It's about how to deal with biased sources. We should not censor or neuter them. The "nutshell" is largely about behavior in how we deal with content.
 * This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
 * "due to English-speaking editors tending to cite sources from English-speaking countries" Definitely a problem, and one that cannot be fully solved. It is normal that different language Wikipedia's will cover some of the same topics quite differently, especially when some editors are only allowed a censored view of sources due to government control of information. We welcome when editors can translate RS from other languages. I sometimes edit Scandinavian language articles because I'm fluent in one of them and understand the others. I come into contact with language bias affecting content.
 * "what are you trying to convey with this paragraph beyond what's already covered in the "External factors" section" That's why I included it in that section. I started this thread by asking "Do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias." If we do cover it, then my addition would be duplicative or superfluous. So do we cover it? Where? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's my question – what is "it" that you're trying to cover? Is your main point that bias (or apparent bias) in articles is sometimes a reflection of the sources? That's what the "External factors" section is already about. Or is your main point that it's against policy to misrepresent or distort sources in the name of fighting bias? If so, I agree with you, and I can see the value in covering that on this page, but I think the paragraph would need adjustments to convey that more clearly and precisely. Or is your main point something else? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess one of my main points is to make it clear that not all systemic bias is from editors but rather from sources. Sources also have biases, and that form of systemic bias should not be "corrected" or removed. It's the nature of the beast, part of the "sum total of all human knowledge" we are supposed to document. We document biases and opinions all the time, and that's proper.
 * I don't see that angle mentioned in the "External factors" section. Do you? If so, where?
 * The proposed heading above is Content will reflect the bias in a source. Maybe it should be tweaked to Bias can come from sources, not editors or Sources, not editors, introduce bias that should be preserved. That would prime the reader to understand that the section addresses "editors are not the source of the bias in the article." -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The angle that is discussed in the section, yes. For example, the section says that "Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage."
 * I think "Content will reflect the bias in a source" is fine as a heading; my concern is about the paragraph itself. How about something like this (a modification of your original version):
 * Wikipedia content reflects the biases in the sources it uses. The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the sources and the content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Wikipedia content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources.
 * Would that accomplish what you're looking for? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like it! You have captured my point very well. There was an edit conflict, so I dumped what I had written below. Please take a good look at the new paragraph introduction and see if some of it can be incorporated. Thanks so much for your help. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! I've added that paragraph plus your new introduction from below. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope to work with you in the future. This was a pleasure, an exercise in AGF, rather than the often painful and confrontational process we often see. Have a great day. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's another attempt with a better introduction.


 * Sources, not editors, introduce bias that should be preserved
 * The entire premise of Wikipedia started with a vision, a "radical idea", later expressed by Jimmy Wales, cofounder of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." That means that it is part of Wikipedia's function to document biases, opinions, and points of view. They are part of "all human knowledge", and we find them in the reliable sources we use.
 * The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy does not require either sources or content to be neutral. Instead, it requires that editors edit in a neutral manner. Editors should never be the source of the bias in the content. They should not allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the source and the content based on that source. They should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases.
 * That means that content will reflect the bias found in the source unless an editor has violated policy by censoring, whitewashing, or neutering what the reliable source says. When controversial, the content will normally include attribution to the author of the source, maybe even using exact quotes, so readers can see that editors are not the source of the bias in the article. If a reader is still unhappy with that bias, their dispute is with the sources, not the editors.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)