Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks

Updating Tasks and Dating Requests
Is anybody currently using or updating the task list? It looks like many tasks were added a long time ago. I noticed some people signed & dated their additions. Is there any agreement as to whether dating all requests would be helpful? Cloveapple (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the primary updater of tasks during the past few years. Please look at my contributions to the history of the page.  Here is more evidence that I am generally the sole contributor for the past few years: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks.  It would be much better if there are other people updating the list, rather than myself doing a task that is meant for many editors to do, since having a single person updating the list will actually defeat the purpose of this project.  In fact, this very talk page was not modified for three years straight!  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see how one person could never do this kind of task. Kudos for sticking with it. I'm working through the list to see what the current condition of all the articles is so I can help update the list. Cloveapple (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We might even need more people to do this task, as two is definitely not enough (despite the fact that a single person (me) had been updating the list for the past few years). No wonder why such systematic bias exist.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, it would definitely take more than one or two people. And even in good situations I expect there is always some bias and blindness in any group. I'm just hoping to get things to the point where the out-of-date template can be removed from the top of the page. That template message and the notice on the main page that you were the only person updating the list made me hesitate. I almost didn't read further when I saw those and I'm hoping that doing enough work to remove both of them might encourage other people to stop by more.


 * I wonder if checking items on the task list to see if they still need work could be added to the main page's list of suggested ways to help out? I haven't read the archived main page discussions so I don't know if that's ever been discussed. Cloveapple (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the "needs updating" tag off the task page because updating the whole page at once is a huge task. Instead I changed it so each section lists when the articles in it were last checked to see if the assessments still stand. I had checked some sections back in May and some other sections had already been marked as last checked in July 2009. Undated sections that could use checking over are tagged with the update template. If you check a section over and re-assess the articles in it, please note the date you checked it.


 * I'm committing to stopping back periodically to check some of the sections, but I hope other people do too. I'm not comfortable checking linguistics or economics so I'm leaving those sections alone. Cloveapple (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely more people are needed to check the sections. I cannot be the only one (or very few others) who maintains the list, as more are much needed.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed from task list (misplaced?)
I removed Pro se legal representation in the United States from the task list. It was oddly listed as non English literature that needed expansion, plus it seemed to be part of a sock puppet edit war by the person that posted it. Cloveapple (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seemed that nobody noticed it for so many years. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Systemic bias here
With 35 sections on this talk page, more than half the space is taken by only one of them, and that's a discussion on whether to use the term "progressive" or "reform". Could the systemic bias on wikipedia be illustrated more clearly than that? DS Belgium (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the systematic bias needs to be more clearly illustrated. Unfortunately, I had been the only contributor of this WikiProject for so many years, despite not being a founding member.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathy. I couldn't do it, nice to see someone still cares. DS Belgium (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you DS Belgium. I know that one person cannot maintain the list, but one person maintaining the list is better than having the page collect dust.  This is why more people should notice the Open Tasks page, which unfortunately is neglected and has a self-fulfilled prophecy of systemic bias being completely unchecked.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that once again, I am the only person maintaining the list. There should be more people contributing to the list. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Need more people to go through the page
It is very unfortunate that I am the most active person on this WikiProject. It would be better if more people can take part in it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am slightly disappointed that white anglophone scientists are considered to be among the topics where we lack proper coverage. Surely our systemic biases fail nonwhites, non-English-speakers, and those outside the hard-sciences interests of our typical young male geek anglophone editoriat? Whatever next - is somebody going to add a videogame or a rifle to the list of open tasks? bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How unfortunate. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep tab on an article just in case there are untoward incidents
For context:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

As of now the contents at Cyber Anakin had been restored, however since the instigator of the removals and the whole larger incident is back after months of inactivity, it’s requested that you keep tab on the article for the time being. If any untoward incidents occur please either revert the changes or report it to the admins straight away where you can let them know about the news articles as well.

The Wikipedia Oversight team may need to be pinged too as the instigator and their cohorts were spotted putting up gaming/abusing legitimate on-wiki processes to put up doxxing/outing/smearing page(s) making personal attacks against the defenders back in 2022 immediately after they were exposed by news media, just in case.38.99.82.242 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, extra due diligence is necessary since if I remembered correctly, the edit war instigator and their cohort may had the ability to compromise the VPN networks of some users who were defending the preservation of the content and impersonate them in order to revert their changes and further smearing their character through joe-jobbing. A red flag to look for is if an IP (including mine!) had a “sudden change of mind” and go over to the instigator’s side by reverting changes made prior by people who were inhibiting the instigator.38.99.82.242 (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)