Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Featured content

Well said, Lecen. Hopefully we can get more participation on articles about Global South topics. They've been talking about it for years. Alarbus (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We really need a better term than 'systemic bias', as this implies that people are deliberately not writing articles about topics when the reality is that people from English speaking countries generally like to write about topics with which they're most familiar and with which high quality references are available in a language they can read. I think that it's a shame that this term being used here to describe the distribution of FAs (as a note, I'm the primary author of the only FA class article about anything to do with East Timor). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, we have an article on it: Systemic bias. It's not just wiki-speak. WP:WORLDVIEW, the alt-shortcut, captures it. People need to broaden their horizons. If they don't want to edit the unfamiliar, they need to at least welcome it from others. Alarbus (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (ec'd with your )


 * Where did I say that I don't welcome FAs on unfamiliar topics? I've been the primary author of several of them and reviewed others... The term is unhelpful in this context as the use of 'bias' implies that there's something untoward going on. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean you; sorry. The term is a general one and I was referring to the same 'people' that you were (everyone). The term systemic bias isn't intended to slight anyone; it's just highlighting inherent patterns of behaviour. 'Countering' it means to simply seek to rise above them. Alarbus (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Systematic bias and systemic bias are different things, and I think the headline writer for this article should be told that. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our bias isn't just geographical. It's simply a result of the fact that editors will write about things they're most familiar with, and our editors aren't a perfect sample of the global population. So, we have great coverage of affluent anglophone countries, but many developing countries are neglected. Our coverage of current events is really good; our coverage of events 100 years ago isn't so hot. We have lots of detailed articles on retail electronic products but our map of b2b is an almost-blank sheet with "here be dragons". This kind of bias extends to many fields. For instance: If you want to write an article about a bird species or an airline, you can choose from a range of outstanding photos - but if you want to write about a taphrinomycete species or an insurance company, you're out of luck. bobrayner (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)