Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 1

Venn


Image:Crossbow_diagram.png: I don't really care about the outdated name of this, but the image itself needs to be altered to remove the word "CROSSBOW" (in "Area targetted by CROSSBOW": should just be "Area targetted"). Can someone take this on? I'd really like to see this already dealt with before we publicly announce this as a WikiProject. -- Jmabel 23:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I hope this isn't a controversial idea, but can we just abandon the image -- I just don't like the whole idea of a "weapon" "targetting" certain deficient areas as a metaphor for improving Wikipedia. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree though could there be another image somewhere to break the text up? That's perhaps a more controversial idea than getting rid of this one... -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 00:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to do whatever. The same Venn diagram minus the military metaphor would be fine by me, but so would all sorts of things. And if someone can identify some appropriate existing images to add, please go for it. -- Jmabel 00:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

New image:


 * I'm not totally sure I understand the Venn diagram right, but to me it seems to imply that an "Ent" article does not belong in an "imaginary ideal" Wikipedia. Although I do understand the arguments that could be made for this position, I think there is a serious risk that such a position becomes the target of a lot of criticism that would divert attention from the main purpose of this project. Which, in my interpretation, is to expand the Wikipedia, not to single out existing articles that we want to take away. Alarm 23:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Though there hasn't been much criticism from people within the project, it may put off people joining. I don't know. I thought it got the point across, in an easy to understand way. I'm not suggesting Ent should be removed - Wikipedia will always have that "bulge". --Xed 03:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"would normally be longer"
I've taken the liberty of deleting from the list of the concerns of this project the phrase "Subjects which would normally be longer in other encyclopaedias." It's awfully vague, and I don't think it's useful. I've added one remark, reminding people that there already is a Requests for expansion. -- Jmabel 00:02, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comments eagerly solicited
I've done about what I can to set this up as a project. My inclination is to give about 48 hours for comments and revisions by the other people who have been actively involved in this, then announce it on the Village Pump, link it into the list of WikiProjects, maybe even add it to the template on maintenance tasks (what do people think of this last possibility)?

Anyway, I've put most of today into putting this together. It's time for someone else to weigh in. -- Jmabel 00:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Third World"
Can I just point out that the term "Third World" is very US/Euro-centric and is frowned upon by globalist organisations/academics. Alternatives include "The South", "Majority World" and "Developing World"; can we agree on standard alternative to use, please? -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 00:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Developing world" is a good alternative. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:03, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. -- Jmabel 05:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Page title move to: WikiProject Countering systemic bias
Before we go live could we move this page to:

WikiProject Countering systemic bias

so it is in line with usual WikiProject naming conventions, i.e. WikiProject Animals etc. "WikiProject" is a like a pseudo namespace, so the first letter should be capitalized, then subsequent letters in lowercase. --Lexor|Talk 08:09, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, done. -- Solitude 09:30, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Template update
I have tried to incorporate the garish table above into the existing template design. It needs a lot of work design-wise. Anyone with the knowledge can try and make it look better. One thing that needs doing is making the "Country carousel" block a different color from the "Voted items" block. Leave comments and suggestions below.---Xed 02:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here are some open tasks in the project on countering systemic bias: Feel free to edit or discuss this list.

I think this is way too many topics to be worth listing at once on a to-do list. Are we suggesting that we will meaningfully take on, as a group, in the near future, a number of unrelated topics exceeding our number of participants? -- Jmabel 02:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * well, tell me what you think would work - a 4 x 4 grid, with 2 cols country carousel, and 2 cols of voted?--Xed 02:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Cut the voted items back to no more than 8 at time. (so I guess 2 columns in this arrangement)
 * Use background color to make it clear that the columns in the country carousel are meaningful. No loss of information, but fewer separate items for the eye to grasp.
 * No need to mention Congo Civil War as a voted item when it's already our current collaboration.
 * Also, in my experience, it's easier to get a group to maintain a table with meaningful rows than with meaningful columns, because the related data is all together in the source. You might want to rearrange this so that the countries each ger a row rather than a column. And then, instead of needing each item to be in a separate column, they could just be free form. I'll take a shot at this, but thought I'd get my comments up here first. -- Jmabel 02:48, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Since we seem to be in agreement about the general layout, I'll confine myself to showing what we could do with the grid. Keeping the "columns" approach, but reducing number of topics and adding color:

-- Jmabel 03:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Making rows rather than columns meaningful and using free form as appropriate:


 * }

In fact, now that I look at it, this might even let us get back to as many items as you had in the first place without it being confusing (although that still might be an awful lot to list as we launch this. Separate issues). -- Jmabel 03:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

This may not be perfect, but it's better than what I did before, so I will revise Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks accordingly. -- Jmabel 06:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Good work. I've simplified the code a bit, padded the cells, added categories to the carousel, and made carousel and voted items to diff color blocks, and turned the carousel items into a plain list. ---Xed 12:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggested direction
This is a rough idea of how I see the project working. Ethan Zuckerman (weblog) has supplied us with a list of countries that he has calculated receive least attention, using his Global Attention Profile resource:


 * 1) Benin
 * 2) Burkina Faso
 * 3) Burundi
 * 4) Cameroon
 * 5) Central African Republic
 * 6) Chad
 * 7) Comoros
 * 8) Congo Dem. Rep.
 * 9) Congo Rep.
 * 10) Cote d'Ivoire
 * 11) Ethiopia
 * 12) Gambia
 * 13) Georgia
 * 14) Guinea
 * 15) Guinea Bissau
 * 16) Kyrgyzstan
 * 17) Madagascar
 * 18) Malawi
 * 19) Mali
 * 20) Mozambique
 * 21) Myanmar
 * 22) Niger
 * 23) Papua New Guinea
 * 24) Suriname
 * 25) Tajikistan
 * 26) Tanzania
 * 27) Togo
 * 28) Turkmenistan
 * 29) Western Sahara

I suggest the systemic bias section should be a small box be made up of 6 columns, with 5 items in each column. This would be a box on the 'Community portal page'. (A link would go to main page, which would also have this box, as well as more detailed information)

Three of the columns should have as the first item one of the countries above. The remaining items in these columns should relate to this country, with items 2 and 3 being the History and Politics of that country. The next column would have the name of a popular language (other than english) used by Wikipedia (German, Spanish, Japanese etc), and below it 4 subjects which have more detailed entries in that language than in English. The next colum female oriented. The sixth column would be.... I don't know.

So it would look roughly like:

Table design (evolving)


The countries would rotate every week, so that the next group of countries would be Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad. As would the 4th column language. The main page would have more in-depth details, including a list of the above countries, main languages of wikipedia etc--Xed 12:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this is an excellent setup. How about putting this in some sort of table, so it can be put up the top of the page? Ambi 12:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * While I think Xed's emphasis on the poorest and least represented countries is a valid part of the systemic bias within Wikipedia, it is just one aspect, there are other aspects of systemic bias which are equally important. As I see it this project is a broad church of people interested enough in the problem of systemic bias to do something about it. To my mind Xed's suggestion would make a superb child wikiproject from this one; when we get enough critical mass that we can so to speak procreate; but for the moment lets spend so more time defining the problem space, before we jump to a definitive solution. I rather suspect what we focus on in three months time will be quite different to what we are focusing on now, as we begin to identify the major holes in Wikipedia. :ChrisG 14:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you look at the project page, it would appear that women's studies is at least as big an area as countries. Filiocht 14:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * From the list, all I conclude is that it is a lot easier to come up with Women and Ethnic Minority subjects that have been underdeveloped, than ones from Africa and Asia. Personally, I am most keen to work on articles on major events in the African and Asian countries mentioned above. Its just I don't know many of them (I guess you'd call it my systematic bias!). Even to produce a list of major areas need knowledge ChrisF 23:25, 5 Oct 2004 (GMT)


 * As far as I can see, Xed's table gives room for both women's and ethnic minority subjects, as well as pursuing the countries that need the most help. One thing which we may want to do here is dig through the histories of the respective national articles, and try and find some of the editors that specialise in that area. They may then be able to help us pinpoint articles that need targeting. I can certainly help with Central Asia in this respect, but we'll need people with the appropriate knowledge to point us in the right direction (like with the Guinea-Bissau civil war) on certain others. Ambi 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * To me, this seems like an advanced To do-list. As such, it might be useful, since it is quite easy to understand and clear in its priorities. But there are a few things I think need to be discussed further. I don't doubt that the general tendency of Zuckerman's study applies to Wikipedia as well. But if we are going to choose a number of top priority countries, wouldn't it make sense to do it on the basis of their (lack of) Wikipedia coverage, rather than the amount of attention they get in the news media? Judging from a quick look, Mongolia (including History of... and Politics of...) seems about as much in need of attention as Kyrgyzstan.


 * Another thing that is not fully clear to me is how item 4 and 5 in the country column and the items in the "women-oriented" column are to be selected. Does anyone have any thoughts on this process?


 * Regarding the proposed Language column, my first reaction is that very few Wikipedians will be able to do much with a list of articles that are longer in the Japanese Wikipedia. How about asking for translation help on the Wikipedia of the source language in question, rather than on the English Wikipedia? Alarm 00:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 1.

Incongruity
Does anyone find it incongruous that our countering systemic bias page includes the line "Female oriented/dominated subjects ... Nursing, Fashion" - SimonP 19:38, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that jarred a bit when I read it. :) But so too did the word "feminism". I wonder if feminist issues might not be one of the best covered of all women-related topics on wikipedia, given that feminism has a reasonably high profile among the majority of wikipedians. I've not checked out my suspicious but I bet that we have massive holes in many areas relating to the history of women and of biographies of women who had nothing to do with feminism, or did not support it.


 * [The word] "feminism" also tends to make people think of western women, and their women's right's movements. We should not forget to seek out notable women, and information on the lives of the whole spectrum of rich/powerful to poor women, who live in the developing world. fabiform | talk 20:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The prime concern is Countering Systemic Bias, which is why female-oriented subjects need addressing, since there are more men than women on Wikipedia. This doesn't automatically mean articles related to Feminism - though of course there are some missing pieces there too. The parochial nature of the women on list on the page (almost all are western) reminds me that western feminists have long been criticised (internally and externally) for seeing non-western woman as a homogenous mass who are simply passive objects and weak victims. The western feminist seems only interested in these women when they fit into this stereotype. Ironically, western feminism is very paternalistic towards non-western women. Elements of patronising racism are probably inherited from the wider western society.---Xed 22:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When is a to-do article done enough?
Thrilled to see this as an official project. Kudos to the organizers!!

I'm working, bit by bit, to improve Smith College. It is by no means done, but I'm pleased to report it is no longer a stub with an unannotated list of alumnae. :) What I'm wondering is, how will we decide when it's good enough to come off of our to-do list here?  And how should I indicate that when/if we do?

I will probably dig into Spelman College next if nobody beats me to it. &mdash;Bsktcase 02:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we need some way to monitor what we are doing, e.g. stub to article, stub created, featured article status. :ChrisG 04:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping the comments area next to each article on the project page will help with this. We'll probably want to "rotate" what gets put on the shorter to-do list. If someone wants to suggest some "canonical" statuses for the comments section (as I did for translation) that would be great. -- Jmabel 05:55, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really answer your question, but I was visiting a university library yesterday and took the opportunity to look up Tanzania - one of my interests, and various other things, in the print version Encyclopædia Britannica. Most of the country entries that I've looked at in Wikipedia have a very long way to go before they are so complete!

Location of the to-do list
I feel it is important the todo list is the first thing someone sees when browsing the project page; so that potential contributors are can see at one glance that it is an active project and well worth involving themselves with. Usability research on the internet shows very clearly that most people do not scroll down a page, unless their first view of a page grabs their attention. I think the to-do list should be treated as an advertisment as well as active tool. The current location of the to-do list (below the table of contents) means it is out of sight and so out of mind. ChrisG 07:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest placing the to-do list ala the regional noticeboards, with the to-do list at the top of the main page (i.e. Australian wikipedians' notice board, with all the discussions going under that. Ambi 08:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. In fact, I think a lot of the project pages could be based on the regional noticeboards. For instance, each project could have a COTW subpage. Filiocht 09:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Size of box could be smaller though--Xed 22:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have COTW, but we don't have any indication of which week (e.g dates). Perhaps we could add a date for this? This gives the immediate impressions, on arriving at the project that there is an active community. It also avoids confusion. cgfoz 12:25, 9th Oct 2004 (GMT)

Current direction of page
I had to return to comment about the astonishing direction the page in taking. The page as it stands is completely contrary to what I envisaged when I started the project. It has been watered down to the point of irrelevance. The idea was to concentrate on subjects which fall OUTSIDE the systemic bias zone. The current page seems mainly about filling some missing pieces INSIDE the zone. The bias noted was primarily towards American, European and Developed Countries. Look at the list of names on the page and you find 95% of them are from these countries! It's a joke. The page should be renamed 'Encouraging Systemic Bias'. Completely contrary to the original idea.

It's as if a botanist, instead of searching far and wide for new plants, has just taken a few steps to the other side of his garden - and then congratulated himself for his adventurousness. Writing about US, Euro and Developed countries and people adds to the bias.

Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has said he plans to create a printed version of the Wikipedia to distribute for free in the Developing World. What will people in these countries think when there's more articles on Middle Earth than their own countries? And what will they say if we claim to have tried to address this problem by writing about.... Joan Jett..?

The Guinea-Bissau Civil War doesn't even have it's own article, and has only two or three sentences in the whole of Wikipedia. PJ Harvey has a reasonably large article - and yet we are asked by this page to concentrate on PJ Harvey - it's insane! (and I say that as someone who went to Harveys early gigs)

The idea for the page at the moment seems to be that topics are be chosen on individual basis. Logic dictates that more popular topics will be chosen. Instead of a popularity contest, there needs to be a systematic mechanism for choosing subjects. I have outlined such a mechanism below. A popularity contest just chooses popular subjects - and if you're writing 'against' systemic bias, then who cares about those subjects. --Xed 12:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Xed: I was willing to stay out of the way of what you envisioned if you were willing to follow it through. I still am. I'm not willing to engage repeatedly in debate with someone who wants to sit on the sidelines and tell other people that they are not doing the right work. I literally know nothing about the Guinea-Bissau Civil War. I can't suggest topics I don't know about. I will, of course, add this to the list of suggested articles &mdash; it's obviously appropriate &mdash; but why didn't you do this yourself?


 * At the time I made up a to-do list, there were exactly two Africa-related topics that anyone had actually suggested in the course of this discussion. The article we singled out for collaboration (Congo Civil War) is one that you and I presumably both agree is a priority. The other was Tuareg), which I also put on the to-do list. If you want to suggest ten, twenty, thirty worthwhile Africa-related topics, great, and I am sure they will get rather high priority. If you want to sit on the sidelines and criticize others for not knowing the terrain well enough to suggest such topics, then you are nothing but a useless scold. And if you want to assert that topics related to women and African-Americans are, in general, adequately covered in Wikipedia, most of my likely responses would violate the code about ad hominem remarks, so I will restrain myself.
 * Let's analyse comparative coverage. Africans-Americans (population 38 million) have a list of 267 individuals (see List_of_African_Americans). The country on my list with a population count similar to African-Americans is Tanzania (population 36 million). There is no List_of_Tanzanians, but I could (with difficulty) find a dozen Tanzanians with articles on Wikipedia. So there is one article for every 142,000 African-Americans, and one article for every 3 million Tanzanians. As another comparison, the US Hispanic population is roughly the same size as the African-American one, yet I would guess there is fewer articles on US Hispanic people than African-Americans. My analysis should give you an idea of priorities.--Xed 10:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, if you want to actively contribute in areas related to the developing world, great! If you want to suggest topics in that realm fine. If you want to sit on the sidelines and heckle... once again, I'll restrain myself, but read between the lines. -- Jmabel 23:57, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have suggested, after analysis, 29 countries, mainly African. And created a map of them. And linked to their categories. And created a new venn - which you asked for. And created three logos. And come up with a mechanism for ensuring that the page doesn't become purely a popularity contest. And created an example table below, with a dozen more topic suggestions. All this has taken time. So your comment about me being a useless scold sitting on the sidelines is both factually incorrect and has indeed violated codes for ad hominem remarks. Xed 08:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The zone of bias is not just geographic: there are, for instance, more Asian topic articles on WP:FA than there are women. And there are no women artists or writers. We need to address all the holes tha bias creates, not just one. Please, Xed, add Africa topics to the todo list so that we can see what needs doing there. Filiocht 08:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I never said the bias is just geographic. I'm not going to add topics to the todo list at the moment because currently the page has no mechanism for dealing with subjects outside the systemic zone - it's just a popularity contest.--Xed 09:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Currently we are trying to identify examples of systemic bias. I for one, despite my recognition of the need for the project, have been really quite shocked at the limited coverage of the big issues for the developing world. It may be just a popularity contest as you put it at the moment; but at least its a popularity contest within articles that clearly represent some sort of systemic bias. In addition, I'm sure we will at some point agree mechanisms for prioritisation and working on the articles, but we have only just started. Rome was not built in a day. :ChrisG 15:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Filiocht is absolutely right in what he is saying. Bias zones could be defined in very different ways. From a geographical perspective US, Euro and other Developed countries are certainly well covered in comparison to most African countries, and all additions to African subjects would be most welcome. But just as Xed notes under "Incongruity" below, "female-oriented subjects need addressing, since there are more men than women on Wikipedia". In my opinion, female-oriented subjects in the developing as well as in the developed world need to be expanded, although female-oriented subjects in the developing world is clearly doubly neglected.


 * I'd also like to point out that although there might be some truth to the claim that the current topic selection mechanism is a kind of popularity contest, the Congo Civil War example on COTW clearly shows that it is actually possible to state the case for a topic outside the systemic bias zone convincingly enough to make it very popular.


 * Regardless of which topic selection mechanism we decide to use, however, I think we need to be realistic about what any kind of "to do-list" can actually achieve in terms of contributions from Wikipedians in general. The choice to contribute to an article, which after all is what is ultimately needed in order to overcome the systemic bias, will always be in the hands of the individual Wikipedian. I think we'll have to accept that some people will try hard to convince others of the importance of expanding Congo Civil War, but, when it is actually listed as a collaboration, will concentrate their personal efforts on John Kerry. Alarm 00:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Labor issues
In my opinion, a subject area that seems to be generally undercovered in Wikipedia is labor issues. My theory is that this is at least partly due to systemic bias (white American computer users is generally not very interested in the area, I think). I added Congress of South African Trade Unions the other day, after having found it on Articles requested for more than a year. I'll take the liberty to add this to the list on the project page, along with a number of examples, but I'd also really appreciate comments on this. Alarm 01:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Completely concur. -- Jmabel 02:20, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Me also. The Australian coverage is absolutely atrocious - I think we have about one stub. Ambi 09:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are we ready to "go live"?
While there will always be room for improvement, I think we've reached the level of "unembarrassing" and should announce that this project is live. Anyone disagree? I'll give it 24 hours for objections, because I know people are in different time zones and all that. -- Jmabel 06:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we're ready. Filiocht 07:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Ambi 09:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not quite yet. Some things are not clear. Some things are too complicated. I'm away today, so I'll just list some things below --- Xed 13:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should go live. Just because we go live doesn't mean we can't continue to evolve as a project, there are always going to be issues to resolve. Moreover the more contributors the better, and I'm sure they will want to contribute to the ongoing discussion. Creating an issue list is a good idea though. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because Xed and I have been often at loggerheads, I'm really hesitant to overrule him on this, especially in his absence. However right now, he's a minority of one out of five. Here's my suggestion: there is still about 12 hours until when I proposed going live. If even one more person weighs in saying we should hold it up, either on their account or for Xed's sake, I will yield to that no matter how strong the consensus the other way, but I'm not willing to let one person unsupported hold this up. -- Jmabel 19:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ready.--- Xed 23:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spelman
Being an Atlantan, I went ahead and added a bit to Spelman College. Along with a significant addition from an anonymus contributer, this article is almost up to par with articles on most other small schools. However, it could use some checking for grammar and spelling and a bit more info. Spelman's brother college, Morehouse College, also needs some work. Sayeth 17:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll take the liberty of moving a digest of that onto the project page (which is in general where this sort of thing should go). -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)