Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Village Pump discussion

Systemic bias in Wikipedia (initial discussion from Village Pump)
Wikipedia's own page on Wikipedia states that "Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible." However, there is still no mechanism for removing the systemic bias present in Wikipedia. I'm talking about the bias caused mainly by Wikipedia's demographic make-up (mainly North American computer literate types). Pages such as Collaboration_of_the_week, Requested articles etc don't specifically attack the problem, and often serve to perpetuate it. An example of this problem is that even after 1 million articles have been written, the article on the Congo Civil War, possibly the largest war since World War 2 (and which resulted in over 3 million deaths), have much less information than articles such as Babylon 5, Languages_of_Middle-earth, Slackware etc which appear to fit into the Wikipedia demographic. I suggest a section on the Community_Portal page to deal with this issue.--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a very easy fix for this: Get more people involved who aren't North Americans. I hereby assign you to the job. - DavidWBrooks 18:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The above response sadly demonstrates the self-satisfied attitude of many Wikipedians to this problem--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is your "someone else should fix it" attitude an improvement? Regardless, an imbalance in article quantity is not a "bias". --Doradus 03:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Replies_to_common_objections. While insufficient content in an area is always an issue, an imbalance of contributors isn't necessarily one. Derrick Coetzee 19:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I guess the only way to stop this is expanding the Wikipedia user base with more people from different backgrounds. If it bothers you, I'd suggest you specialize in promoting wikipedia to as much people as you can to solve the problem. MGM 19:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not Superman. I can only do so much. With 1 million articles, this problem needs to be addressed in a more organized way.--Xed 19:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Such as? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said I suggest a section on the Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * When the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the World Book, were written, what order did they go in? Did they start with World War II, or did they start alphabetically, perhaps with aardvark? Did they start with countries, or with people? The fact is, Wikipedia is, and will always be, a work in progress. If you want more coverage of the Congo Civil War, by all means, add it, and try to get others to help you. But the fact there is more information on Babylon 5 than the Congo Civil War does not mean there's a bias. If a writer of Britannica got writer's block while drafting the World War II article, should they not let others proceed with articles on other, less important subjects? It may just mean we haven't gotten around to it.
 * Furthermore, if there IS such a bias (and I will agree with you, en: is mostly computer literate English-speaking North Americans and Britons), ... there's really not much we can do about that, is there. You say, "do something." I say, "like what?" --Golbez 19:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said I suggest a section on the Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What can we do? All I can think of is (1) Spread knowledge of Wikipedia as far as we can, in the hope of attracting as diverse an editor pool as we can; (2) make some effort at identifying areas of poor coverage, to guide editors who might be looking for something to research. &mdash;Morven 19:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

So quit bitching and do something about it already. Make the list of articles that you think would help counteract the systemic bias; start it at User:Xed/Anti-Systemic-bias list and see if you can get consensus for including it on the community portal. Then go work on the articles yourself. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Smugness about this problem, and its size, seems to be common among some people. If there's over 1 million articles I can hardly do it all myself. Furthermore, it's not up to me to make this list. Which is why I suggest a section on the Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 20:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You may not be able to do it all yourself but you can at least make a start. If you aren't willing to put forth even that minimal effort then I suggest you quit your whinging. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 20:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed. If you want to help, it is up to you to create this list. If you only want to interfere with what other people are working on, go somewhere else. Awolf002 20:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A troll is someone who wants to improve Wikipedia?--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed" - BWAHAHAHA! RickK 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Morven's idea is interesting - has there been any serious attempt to map the areas that have the least coverage? Mark Richards 20:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed, the part of Wikipedia you wan't to be more important, is growing. But it won't outgrow the Slackware+Babylon 5 part for some time, I guess. But IMHO, there is no conflict between these parts. Anyway, you can't transform a good contributor on Slackware into a good contributor on Congo Civil War, most of the time. But the growth of Wikipedia will give more public visibility, which will result in new contributors. Think of the North American computer literate types as the first wave of contributors with more waves rolling in. Perhaps the most important point in making this concept work, is to ensure that Wikipedia is a friendly environment for new contributors. Pjacobi 20:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The response here isn't too friendly. See No-one's comment above.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The response would be a lot friendlier if you'd quit whinging, quit trying to pick fights, and get to work on the problem. Obviously. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bias discussed here is present in the range of existing articles, not in the text of any one article. An important distinction, imho. In the latter case, an active effort would be required to remove the bias from the text. As it is, we can just wait for WP to outgrow the bias. And if there is a decent article on the war in the Congo, it is not degraded by any number of geeky articles that may exist beside it. Yes, we are a long way from WP 1.0. But as long as nobody claims that WP is a valid replacement for the Britannica yet, this is a non-issue. dab 20:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The 'geeky articles' will continue to grow, so I don't see how 'serious' articles have a chance to catch up without any organized effort--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to add a new template stating something in this direction: "This article needs attention, for a encyclopedia of Wikipedia's size and stature it is highly undeveloped, considering the relative importance of the subject". This allows easy categorization, and allows people interested in filling the gaps in Wikipedia knowledge, that are caused by WP demographics to be, to find these articles easily. -- Solitude 20:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ugh, NO! RickK 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Also, while en: is the largest wikipedia, it is not the only one. IIRC, it makes up only 1/3 of the articles on Wikipedia. es:, de: and jp: are all much more likely to have articles on Spanish/Latin American, German and Japanese interests, just as en: is more likely to have articles on Anglo-Australian interests. These will outgrow with time, but we only have a million articles. ;) --Golbez 21:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm something of a newbie, but wouldn't the Congo Civil War article (for example) be appropriate for Requests_for_expansion? Jpgordon 21:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For a few articles which you most care about expanding, why not nominate them for Collaboration of the Week, at WP:COTW?-gadfium 22:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you can find, say, half a dozen others who want to work with you on this, you could start a project group. They don't all have to be on subject matter areas. Xed, there isn't a someone else who needs to start this, you have to decide what is important and start building, or find a group of people who want to work with you on it. It's unlikely that you will get consensus to go straight to the Community Portal without demonstrating some smaller-scale success first, and it may turn out that Community Portal is irrelevant (but do start making nominations for Collaboration_of_the_week: in my experience, a cluster of related articles tend to get written. -- Jmabel 23:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot help but feel that the premise of Xed's argument is a little shaky. A pejoritive accusation of systematic bias is at best a value judgement. What underpins it? Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5? Who decides these things, and who is able to make apple versus orang-utan comparisons? Whereas I tend to share what I assume is Xed's opinion, that it would be more worthy to read about or even write about the Congolese civil war than Bablylon 5, I note that we already have a number of Requested articles pages which go some way to address/answer Xed's call for action; and also have List of encyclopedia topics. In what way do these differ from Xed's section on the Community_Portal suggestion? Beyond that, his/her argument seems to be a good example of the best driving out the good. --Tagishsimon


 * 'Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5?' - because the Congo Civil War resulted in 3 million deaths and is possibly the largest war since WW2. Surely it can't be difficult to see why it needs more coverage. Look how much coverage 9/11 has on Wikipedia, and that was only 3 thousand deaths. The Requested articles page does not deal specifically with the issue of systemic bias.--Xed 00:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You should also complain to EB then. Their article on it is even shorter than ours. -- Wapcaplet 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If it is "not difficult to see", then why are you unable to explain why it is more important? If you are unable to explain why, then perhaps it is just a value judgement on your part. Waving the magnitude of the death toll does not amount to an argument. --Tagishsimon


 * I have explained. Your arguments would only make sense coming from a robot or a lawyer--Xed 00:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There I must beg to differ: you have not explained. You have articulated a value judgement with no explanation whatsoever, and you do not eecognise your judgement for what it is. Your premise is indeed flawed, and I submit that any resolution based on a flawed premise will itself be flawed. Neither have you explained by what mechanism will be determined the actions that must be taken to correct the supposed systematic bias. All in all, much heat but not very much light. --Tagishsimon


 * It should be exceedingly obvious that a war affecting the lives of millions of real people and having a profound impact on the politics of several nations is far more important than a television program which cannot reasonably be said to have significantly affected the lives of anyone. See abstraction, problem of universals, phenomenology, abstract structure, and reification.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta;[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 01:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Doubtless it should be but it isn't. It depends upon your frame of reference, and of necessity is a value judgement. That is the way of these things; all else is little more than hysteria. But you made a slightly better stab at it than did Xed. --Tagishsimon


 * 01010110100100110111010100011 beep beep. Would you regard the Holocaust article more or less important than Babylon 5? Or would that be a value judgement?--Xed 01:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you consider the comparitive quality of, say, Holocaust and Babylon 5 to be an issue. I think this is the sticking point in this disagreement.


 * In other words, you say "It's a disgrace that we have an excellent article on X but a bad one on Y." But why does the quality of article X matter?  It's like you feel it's an insult to "worthy topics" to have so many good articles on "trivial topics". &mdash;Morven 01:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The quality of X certainly doesn't matter. Your straw man is getting taller and taller--Xed 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If I'm an editor who knows more about Babylon 5 than the Holocaust, should I be encouraged to contribute to the article that I know, or the one that is deemed more important? (To forestall any baseless accusations right away, I am not trying to diminish the significance of the Holocaust.  But this question is important to me, and I'd like to read your answer.)  --Ardonik.talk* 01:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about what you know, or indeed edit. Edit what you want. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so - hence a list on the Community Portal page.--Xed 01:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that most of the above discussion only strengthens Xed's position. From the crude sample here, it would appear that most Wikipedians hold a blind faith in the infallibility of community editing, minds closed to any suggestion otherwise. The community does have a systemic bias, supported by sheeplike herd behavior when anything appears that threatens the status quo. Musk oxen may be more apt: Wikipedian protectionism is generally predictably odious, mindlessly guarding of its central beliefs, and too stubborn and dense to usefully argue with. At least sheep are polite. -- 00:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Community editing isn't infallible, but it is all we have. You'll note that some people are A) acknowledging that the problem exists and B) making suggestions on how to fix it. You could too, instead of flinging insults. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not blind faith, for most of us. Community editing has its problems, but it also has its strengths.  Most of us consider the latter to very much outweigh the former.  Suggestions of how to mitigate the weaknesses are always appreciated, at least by me. &mdash;Morven 00:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Note: User 'Neutrality' vandalised this page, before it was fixed by User Eequor.--Xed 00:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:41, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Check the history. --Xed 00:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, I don't think that's vandalism. I think you're trolling, too.  --Ardonik.talk* 01:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Xed, there are two possible routes to choose when you notice something wrong with Wikipedia. They are:


 * 1) Say "Wikipedia's broken.  You guys should fix it."
 * 2) Say "Wikipedia's broken.  Here's my proposal for fixing it.  Anyone want to help?"

Oddly enough, option 2 is appreciated much more than option 1. If a problem is not important enough for you to wish to be part of the solution to it, of course everyone will conclude you're whining -- or just intent on arguing. &mdash;Morven 01:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I chose option 2, suggesting a section on the Community Portal page, which of course I would be willing to help with.--Xed 01:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why not knock together a page inside the Wikipedia namespace, as a few people have suggested, and let people see what they think of the idea, then? &mdash;Morven 01:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Right, hang on, let me summarise this discussion so far:
 * 1) Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia (and nobody appears to mind)"
 * 2) Everyone else (with varying amounts of civility): "What is your proposed remedy / action?"
 * 3) Xed "We could have a list of articles that need creating or expanding for this reason"
 * 4) (Nearly) everyone else: "Can we have a demonstration?"
 * 5) Repeat


 * More like:


 * 1) Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia, here is my suggestion - put a section on the Community portal page"
 * 2) Others - we agree.
 * 3) Wikiclique - do it yourself and stop being lazy.
 * 4) User:Neutrality - 3 million dead is funny, I will vandalise the page
 * 5) Wikiclique - You are a troll
 * 6) Tagishsimon - beep beep I am a robot.
 * 7) Wikiclique - But you haven't made a suggestion
 * 8) and repeat

--Xed 01:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, grow the hell up and stop calling us names like "wikiclique." I don't think you even want to be taken seriously.  --Ardonik.talk* 02:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. I never "vandalized this page," nor did I say 3 million dead is funny. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

So, instead of trading insults, let's look at the deatils and feasibility of this suggestion:
 * what would be the criteria for listing?
 * how would it differ from other "to-do" type lists, such as Cleanup, Requests for expansion, Requested articles, and the List of encyclopedia topics that someone mentioned?
 * relatedly, how can we ensure that each of these pages retains its usefulness as others spring up with overlapping roles; or have we got too many and need to rethink how we organise them?
 * do existing pages address the issue of systemic bias simply through "the community process"?
 * if not, why not, and is there a way we can change this? (e.g. some kind of rules for Requested articles that tend towards correcting rather than increasing the "lean"?)

Discuss. - IMSoP 01:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) [Typed simultaneous to Morven's comment above; perhaps these questions could form the basis of such a page.]

There's an option 2a, and that is "Wikipedia could be improved, and there are several ways of doing it. Here's the one I'll work on".

I can't see any prospect of eliminating systemic bias from Wikipedia, but I can see several ways of trying to reduce it.

The one that is most likely to succeed IMO is simple Wikiquette. We are I hope all aware of the policy of not biting newbies, and also the more general policy of not biting anybody.

Sticking to these policies will reduce systemic bias by broadening our contributor base. Or, to put it another way, every time we condone violations we are increasing the bias, because the presence of rudeness, aggro and even rhetoric in our discussion pages is a far greater obstacle to the participation of minority-view editors than to others. Andrewa 01:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the one long-term solution to the problem that will work. Committing a group of interested people to go and help is laudable, but in the long term, expanding the contributor base will have a far more powerful effect.  Tempshill 17:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surely the Congo War is an extreme case. By the argument of deaths alone, articles on Starvation, Old age, Heart Disease should be far far longer and more detailed than everything else. Surely importance is something decided by the reader - in the end, wikipedia has a target audience, and the expansion of articles is almost directly based on the level of interest this audience has for the various subjects. If no one searches wikipedia for the Congo War (possibly because despite the death toll, the war has very little global impact, unlike 9/11, and because little information is available for it from base sources), then harsh as it may be, it is not important to the average reader. So, your ire is misdirected. I wouldn't call it bias. Rather, its reflecting western culture.
 * On the contrary, the Congo War has had massive global impact nine different countries ahve been involved. Just because they don't happen to be in your part of the globe shows your own bias. Secondly, I didn't make the argument by deaths alone. Thirdly, a subjet shouldn't be avoided simply because it is a difficult one to comprehend or far away--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So basically, what you are really proposing is to deploy WP as a tool to change the minds of the populace, to open their eyes. To become much less an encyclopedia, but more a source of investigative journalism. The argument then is whether wikipedia can, and should fulfill that aim.
 * Again, someone is putting words into my mouth. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So do something already. Every second you spend picking fights here is one second less for counteracting the systemic bias of Wikipedia&mdash;and yet you continue trolling rather than making a single constructive edit. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is disappointing. Did you even read the comments by IMSoP and Andrewa?  No biting.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta;[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]]

(I hence wouldn't term it 'removing systematic bias', since bias is pretty vague and subjective. Its more coverage of events outside the public awareness. If this is to work at all, we need to construct a highly visible way of showcasing such content.)--Fangz 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments like Xed's come along from time to time, but the underlying message I always get is "you should stop working on you want to work on, and work on what I want you to work on instead, because I think it's more important". Browbeating people with charges of "systemic bias" or whatever is just a technique to try to make us feel guilty, but you know what? This is a hobby, not a job, and no one is going to push me into doing anything that I don't want to do. Stan 02:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good for you. No one is pushing you to do anything. You have misread what I have said. Again and again I have said - edit what you want. DON'T STOP WORKING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO. I'm talking about people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias and how they can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Raul's law of Wikipedia #3 - ''"You cannot motivate people on a large scale to write about something they don't want to write about". &rarr;Raul654 02:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well Xed, there's already nothing to stop random people from working energetically to "counter-act the systemic bias" that they perceive. Ergo, I conclude that you're wanting people to do something different than what they're doing now. If you don't want anybody to do anything different, then what's the point of telling us that we're not working on the right subjects? It doesn't make any sense. Stan 04:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Community_Portal is not locked. Xed can go there and start eliminating bias, as he has suggested here seven times without bothering to do so.  Does he expect ... what?  acclaim for his suggestion?  Actions speak louder, you know, than those other things.  Ortolan88 02:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. If anyone is willing to help me produce a beta version of section I sketched out above, please sign your name below. For Popperian reasons, I would prefer to have people critical of the idea as well as supporters.--Xed 03:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Xed is referring to "systemic bias" and a lot of you are responding as if he had referred to "systematic bias". The latter basically just means thoroughgoing bias. That's not what he is saying. Although he's not being terribly articulate about the matter, and I think he is being unnecessarily abrasive, "systemic bias" means that there are structural issues in Wikipedia that tend strongly towards certain topics getting much better coverage than others. I think that is clearly true. I also think there is a lot of reason for us, if we are trying to produce a quality work, to consider seriously what biases are built into the system and which of these can be addressed. I'm not sure if Xed's approach here is constructive, but I am sure he is describing a real problem.

Examples of systemic bias:


 * 1) Because so many Wikipedians do their research on line, topics not already well covered on the Internet tend to be under-covered in Wikipedia.
 * 2) Because so many English-language Wikipedians live in a very small number of countries, topics pertaining strongly to those countries are disproportionately covered.
 * 3) Because so many Wikipedians are interested in technology, technological topics are disproportionately well covered. Ditto science fiction. Ditto libertarianism. Conversely, and presumably for parallel reasons, there is very little on (as Xed points out) contemporary events in Africa or (as I'd point out) even on African-American history or Native American history: most of our articles on Native Americans are written from an anthropoligist's point of view, whereas our articles on (for example) punk rock or grunge rock or the science fiction fandom are consistently written with insider's knowledge.

This list is, at best, illustrative. I do think we would do well to look at the systematic biases in the Wikipedia. I think some of them can be covered by adding to the efforts at translation from other languages. Others really would require recruitment to correct, and that recruitment may depend in part on a positive community decision that the recruitment is importans, accompanied by a long, hard look at what aspects of our internal culture are not seen as welcoming by certain groups. Wikipedia is disproportionately white and male, and I don't think that is good. There are probably other similar issues that don't leap out at me as readily.

Systemic biases are not easily addressed. One of the biggest factors here is a (generally commendable) tendency to write about what one already knows about. Frankly, it's a lot easier for me to write a decent encyclopedia article on a subject where, in examining sources (or looking at other people's edits), I can look at some of them and just go "this person doesn't know his/her stuff, useless." For example, I simply don't have the knowledge to know whom to believe when two well-read Slavs are arguing over the history of Carpathian Ruthenia, but I have plenty of ability to judge whether someone is talking sense about Jorge Luis Borges. Therefore, I am a lot more likely to focus on writing about the latter. And would you really want me writing extensively about the former? In other words, some of this can only be adddressed either by recruitment and/or a serious self-educational undertaking by some of our participants.

So, Xed, sign me on to participate somewhat in your project, probably more in terms of helping strategize this than in further stretching myself as to which topics I write about.

Any other takers? Because I, for one, won't do this with less than five people involved. -- Jmabel 05:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's something that I personally recognise as a problem and something that I'd be willing, within my personal limitations, to work on and help with.


 * Note that, in my opinion, every time you go to an off-line source for Wikipedia articles you are helping with Wikipedia's systemic bias -- at least, the bias to write about only the stuff the Web already has information on. Every time you refer to a book, magazine, journal, or whatever, you are adding a dash of another viewpoint to the online store of knowledge.  I think we should all try a little to stretch ourselves beyond our comfort zones of what we already know; and that doesn't mean one can't have fun.  Find some topic you wish you knew about, go to the library or somewhere and research it, and write what you learned.  Even if it's not perfect, it's better than we had. &mdash;Morven 05:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think some of the things Jmabel talking about are already happening - for instance, as WP gets more complete in certain areas, there is simply no online source to raid for additional material. Most of my content additions these days are from books, and I see a bunch of other people doing the same. (A visit to a university library really makes clear just how much is not on the net anywhere.) Likewise, we see that now that every imaginable Tolkien-related topic has an article :-), interest drops off and the action moves elsewhere. I think the most important thing to do is recruitment - everybody should try their hand at WPing, but only a subset will enjoy it enough to keep at it. Stan 06:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm in. The more I think about it, the more enthousiastic I become about it. One is easily tempted to write only about topics that you're already familiar with, as long as your contributing, thats marvelous. But I think a section for discussion and categorising articles that really need work for Wikipedia to be taken seriously would motivate people to expand their horizon and learn about those topics, I think it could work, but giving it a proper place with current categories like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. could be a challenge. -- Solitude 07:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Me too. How it would differ from existing pages like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. is that those pages exemplify the bias to some degree or another. As I read it, this proposal entails looking at all the things an encyclopaedia needs that nothing here is addressing. @Thinking outside the Wikibox', so to speak. Filiocht 09:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm not particularly enthused about writing stuff which is likely to engender responses along the lines of "what do you know about XYZ, you don't even live there" which I have seen elsewhere in Wikipedia. I tend to dabble in areas where I do have knowledge, and ask impertinent questions where I don't (in the hope of obtaining a pertinent answer, obviously :-) --Phil | Talk 11:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Count me in. I have just had this discussion brought to my attention, read through it all, and was a little taken aback by the way Xed, who I genuinely believe to have good intentions for Wikipedia, was immediately denounced as a troll. The fact is that Wikipedia is massively biased towards certain countries and certain subcultures, and while some of us are able to see that and realise that we are a part of it (I know far more about what goes on in Birmingham than what goes on in Kinshasa), there seem to be a worrying number of people who are blind to Wikipedia's bias and are unwilling to do anything about it. I agree though with much of what's been said here, specifically that in the long term only recruitment will solve our problems. Personally I don't mind that we have lengthy articles on obscure Tolkein and Star Trek characters, but I do mind that we have next to nothing on the Congo Civil War. We can only cure Wikipedia of its systemic bias if people appreciate the problem. Why the hell does www.wikipedia.org redirect to en.wikipedia.org as if English takes precedence over all other languages? Why the hell is the article on Georgia located at Georgia (country) so as to avoid confusion with an administrative subdivision of the USA? I could go on but I'll spare you the moralising. I hope we can all see that Wikipedia is undoubtedly biased &mdash; embarrassingly so &mdash; and we should be doing our best to make it as international and as neutral as possible. Please don't be complacent about this wonderful thing we are creating for the world. It is currently full of flaws. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 12:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you care to take a look at Georgia there are at least 10 articles which a user might expect to find under that name: it therefore makes sense for the disambiguation page to live there and the different pages to be distinguished with suffices of appropriate type. I would be a lot more impressed with the arguments being presented if one single complainer said anything like "hey, I know an awful lot about the Congo Civil War, I'll write it up", rather than expecting everybody else to go away and find out about it. If one is so damn interested in a subject, one is behoven to write an article on it oneself. --Phil | Talk 14:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * (note: reinserted comment in order to reply to it--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))(1. Georgia is not an administrative subdivision of the U.S. 2. When multiple articles with significant numbers of hits (i.e., 75%/25%) have the same name, it makes sense to have a dab page, though it would also make sense to put the country at "Georgia" and have a link to the state at the top. 3. But there's no compelling reason to change the status quo. Wikipedia articles aren't an honor, they're a means of disseminating information. 4. The horse is dead. Please stop beating it.) --dreish 13:35, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
 * Jiang's comments on Talk:Georgia are hilarious. What strange company you keep.--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the perfect illustraton, Xed, of why people are having a problem with you. If you disagree with what someone said, respond to their argument.  Instead, you have a tendency to ridicule or otherwise not address the issue.  Here, you're casting aspersions on Driesh's arguments based not on their own merit, but rather on who else agrees with them. Yes, Jiang said some pretty outlandish things on that page (though I suspect they were not said with a straight face), but that fact doesn't alter the truth/falsehood of the argument, does it? &mdash;Morven 15:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there was an argument to respond to, which is probably Dreish originally deleted his post. Hope to see you on CROSSBOW. Love, Xed 16:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also wanted to congratulate Xed on making a stand. One area where systemic bias is particularly worrying are borderline inclusion debates. Borderline techie/geeky topics are routinely kept as there is sufficient critical mass saying keep, whereas borderline articles in other areas get deleted. This systematic problem is not easy to resolve by just saying "so fix it then". It would require forcing people to think more deeply before editing vfd - a near impossible task. Pcb21| Pete 12:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can see a new law emerge here: 'The quantity of systemic bias in a system is directly proportional to the amount of bile raised in denying its existence.' Filiocht 13:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the creation of Articles that can do with a non-OECD perspective. There are a lot out there such as publicly funded medicine, primary education, newspaper, and history of Africa. - SimonP 16:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts... --Jpgordon 18:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually eliminating systemic bias in Wikipedia is impossible. There will always be considerable systemic bias in any compendium.
 * 2) Attempting to alleviate such bias is a meritorious task.
 * 3) Broadening the demographic involved in editing Wikipedia is an ideal approach.
 * 4) Actually achieving such a broadening is extremely difficult; it requires some sort of affirmative action program -- perhaps ambassadors to online or off-line systems with different demographics might be helpful.
 * 5) Determing which articles (or which absent articles) reflect a system bias in itself carries a systemic bias.
 * 6) Words are critical. As mentioned above, at least some of the argumentation in this discussion stems from the confusion between "systemic" and "systematic"; the latter implies deliberate or negligent action or inaction, while the former is a general statement of the shortcomings of the system per se. This reminds me of heated discussions in another venue (The Well, where I was a conference host for many years)  where a fellow with a particular hobby horse would every couple of years come out with a strong declaration of  opposition to "bastardy", one meaning of which -- the meaning intended by the author -- is "begetting of illegitimate children"; but most readers reacted strongly to his proposals, conflating "bastardy" with "bastardry", "being an illegitimate child". One little letter. Now, the author knew full well such a confusion would ensue, and he was a bit of a troll at heart (as well as being CEO of  Network Solutions), so presented the argument with language that he knew would cause excessive annoyance. I don't think Xed was deliberately trying to agitate with his choice of words, but it worked. I guess the message is "pay careful attention to the words being used" for the reader, and "pay attention to how people might incorrectly perceive your words" for the writer.
 * 7) Some people are just too good at annoying other people. I'm reminded of the old Fidonet rule:  "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be too easily annoyed."

A few thoughts from a very new visitor to wikipedia.


 * 1) I agree that there will always be some bias in this or any other encyclopedia.
 * 2) This is a self-organising system: as it grows it will become more and more difficult to shift it in any particular direction.  It'll go where it goes.
 * 3) Having said that, as a frequent visitor to Africa I think there's a lot to be said for taking steps to increase coverage from that continent - and from developing/emerging nations in general.
 * 4) I like the idea of on-line and off-line ambassadors - is there anything like this now?
 * 5) I suggest approaching people like librarians at the major universities in each 'under represented' country and that they be asked to recruit undegrads (or anyone else who can find the time) to help augment the coverage for their country.
 * 6) other government organisations - like tourism authorities - could also be approached but may be more biased.
 * 7) I'm happy to try to get the ball running in Tanzania - a country I visit from time to time.
 * 8) I'd also be happy to attempt to write an outline, and informal job description for the 'ambassador' role - generally speaking their job would be to raise the profile of Wiki in their country and to encourage people to contribute. (I'd add that I'm from the UK, am not a 'techie' and have only just heard about the wikipedia - likewise most of the colleagues, relatives and friends I've just told about it!)
 * 9) Comments anyone?

Jerry cornelius 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a sidelight on this, I found the following on User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0:

''Britannica exists to support a particular canon, that being, the British and now American concept of "what history is." It is, for instance, light on the History of India, China, Africa, Latin America and figures of those cultures - one way Wikipedia can differentiate itself is to say that it is less Anglo-centric than Britannica. Build up an audience in developing nations who can really benefit from having a neutral encyclopedia &mdash; like in China where Wikipedia.org is banned, but they won't be able to keep all the CD-ROMs out. It may thus make sense to *focus on Chinese figures and history* deliberately. How can they keep out the only encyclopedia that does their history justice?''

Filiocht 12:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, I soon noticed the systemic bias referred to by Xed and more eloquently described and explained by Jmabel. Although you certainly could argue that such a bias will be more or less unavoidable in an English language Internet-based open project, that's not really a valid argument for not discussing what could possibly be done about it. I fully agree with Jmabel that this is something that ought to be adressed in order to improve the scope and usefulness of Wikipedia. However, as many have already pointed out, this cannot and should not be solved by forcing people to contribute in areas they have no interest in contributing to. There are a number of constructive proposals that could be made, and although none of these might come anywhere close to being the complete remedy for this problem, they will most likely all be beneficial to a larger or smaller extent. In the following list, I'll try to summarise the proposals that I've been able to distinguish in the discussion above, adding my thoughts on them.


 * 1) A section on the Community_Portal page that deals with the issue, as proposed by Xed. Closely related to this idea are other suggestions proposing different types of lists of suitable articles for expansion, such as the creation of Articles that can do with a non-OECD perspective, as proposed by SimonP.
 * 2) Using the existing Collaboration_of_the_week, Requests for expansion and Requested articles, adding suitable articles for expansion to these pages, possibly including a comment on the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" problem. To some extent this is already happening, which is something I find uplifting. This strategy might be used as an alternative to 1. in order to avoid partially overlapping pages, or together with 1. as a complement. I think I'd actually prefer the former, considering the number of "to do" pages already existing.
 * 3) Intensifying the efforts to translate articles from other Wikipedias, as proposed by Jmabel. I think that in order to actually increase the number of translations made, something concrete must be done to encourage and facilitate the process, opening participation to people lacking the courage or language skills to complete this task on their own. One approach could be forming "translation teams" consisting of one person with fluency in the foreign language in question and a reasonable but not necessarily perfect grasp of English, and one person with fluency in English, working together on the translation of an article.
 * 4) Trying to widen the contributor base by reaching out to people representing Wikipedia minorities, encouraging them to contribute. Jerry cornelius' idea, to approach university staff in under-represented countries is one way of doing this. I think this is an excellent proposal. This kind of outreach could be extended to under-represented groups in general, for instance by asking for a mention of Wikipedia, or even some free ad space, on community and organisational web sites and paper publications catering to such groups.
 * 5) Forming a group of Wikipedians working with some or all of these tasks. I think this is a good idea, and I would be willing to participate.

There must surely be possible to come up with other strategies, and I'd like to encourage further creative thinking on this subject. Alarm 17:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(moved from policy section)
 * What's there to deal with. Fanboys write long and detailed articles; we deal with that all the time on VfD.  The Congo Civil War is very important, so the solution is to work on expanding it.  Or do you suggest that we enforce caps on the size of articles according to their relative importance?  --Ardonik.talk* 19:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, as I said I suggest a section on the Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Who decides? :ChrisG 19:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Like what? Sure, Congo Civil War, but any other ideas? And what about the non-North American bias that would start to show? At what point should we begin refocusing on stuff we know more about? --Golbez 19:42, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a very valid concern. Please note, however, that we can't (and shouldn't) twist editors' arms to force them to write about topics that don't particularly interest them. Certain subjects will always get more interested editors than others. For the time being, this is a fact of life. The long-term, general solution is to expand our userbase until we have experts (or at least interested amateurs) in all revelant fields and topics.


 * Also: there are several mechanisms in place to address this problem now. Formally, List of encyclopedia topics and (to a lesser extent) Requested articles are the primary mechanisms to fill holes. Informally, User:Mark Richards periodically posts The "Encyclopedia that Slashdot Built" Awards to the Village Pump as a method of constructive criticism to help solve blatant imbalances. I'd suggest talking to him if you want to make the process more formal. Also, Collaboration of the week attempts to expand an article per week. The vast majority of COTW articles have been globally relevant. &bull; Benc &bull; 02:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no connection to the Congo Civil War, I don't know anything about the Congo Civil War, and I don't even know where to find information about the Congo Civil War. I suspect this is true of many or even most people. Don't berate us for not writing about a topic they don't know anything about. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "geeky" articles are not competing with "serious" articles. because the encyclopedia is not published on paper. I still think the notion of this kind of bias is misguided. Every article should be taken at face value, without going to check if someone may have written a longer article about Babylon 5 somewhere. WP should try to attract people of other fields of expertise, but it's certainly not a solution to make people write about subjects they know nothing about. dab 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May require multiple projects
It's become pretty clear to me that, despite some confluence, Xed and I have very different visions of the nature of the systemic bias. I'm taking the liberty of copying the key exchange:

An excellent map of media bias can be seem here, courtesy of Ethan Zuckerman. He has also written an essay which deals with many relevant issues. --Xed 02:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest countries not on the Bottom 100 lists below should be ignored when choosing CROSSBOW subjects: (Xed, though unsigned; his list can be seen at . It's interesting.)
 * Do I understand the previous comment to mean that you feel this project should not be looking at neglected aspects of women's history, African-American history, etc.? -- Jmabel 03:21, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Women exist in the countries below. And they certainly are very neglected aspects of women's history. And American history seems well within the bias zone. For focus, the crossbow should aim at the bulls-eye. --Xed 04:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, since you are doing this in your personal pages rather than as a WikiProject, I guess you get to call the shots. Sounds like you will not be focused on areas where I have expertise, either in the subject matter or in whom we might recruit. I'll just duck out of this. Best of luck. -- Jmabel 18:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I do strongly encourage people who have expertise or interest in, for example, Central Africa and Central Asia to work with Xed on this. Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in starting a WikiProject on African-American topics, or addressing the under-coverage of women's history in the Western world, plese get hold of me, I'd love to participate and might even have ideas about recruiting people. -- Jmabel 19:17, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * A notice board might be a good way to do this. Rmhermen 01:23, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud Xed for starting and Jmabel and others for sustaining a thorough discussion on a topic I've brought up many times in the past without much success, for ex. here: Template_talk:In_the_news. Wikipedia is indeed overwhelmingly biased in several areas and, what is equally bad or worse, overwhelmingly reluctant to examine the issue or work against it - witness all the knee-jerk "couldn't care less" or "don't blame me" or "fix it yourself" or "that's obvious" reactions, most of which are variations on a predictable theme; I personally concluded that it was pointless trying to prod the average Wikipedian into a little curiosity about the world or areas outside their specialities, and tried to continue making the occasional edit, but the issue can't be ignored as one keeps coming up against this 'wall' even in obscure articles. Someone pops in and decides they know what's best. They make a ridiculous edit. Edit is reverted. Revert war begins. Long explanations ensue and nothing much happens because the issue is reduced to a personal confrontation everyone loses interest in - I think the more knowledgeable Wikipedians are engaged in this crap most of their time here, which is pretty sad for them and pretty lousy for Wikipedia. So my question now is not about the bias itself, but: why is it so hard to implement a few simple decisions, even detailed templates where no brainstorming is required, to curtail obvious problems in Wikipedia? -- Simonides 23:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whew! I agree with Xed in principle (though living in the new "Middle-earth" I have a built-in bias!!) and with many of the other contributors to this discussion. I support Jpgordon's recommendation that Requests for expansion is a good part of the solution for people who agree with some of what Xed started. Maybe it deserves greater prominence in the various lists of things worth tackling; some current writers on TV program[me]s may become excellent writers about Africa and women and other under-reported subjects if given a nudge in that direction. Robin Patterson 01:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)