Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/Recent research

Judging by the conclusion from the opening article (systematic bias), it rather reads that we were screwed from the off - either there was a bias, and so Wikipedia was deleting articles in line with a sexist agenda (possibly unconsciously) or we weren't, because we were doing so by instead limiting access. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There were so many caveats that I don't think you can draw any definite conclusion. They drew up a list of words that they thought would define "...pages that may have interest to a given gender". From popular magazines? Really? So they obviously zeroed in on 'waxing' and 'beer', right? No, 'dishwashing'? I'm insulted already, at least three ways. "Once the Wikipedia content is matched to a demographic..." First wave of magic wand! Then there is "the authors note in the discussion" their editorial conclusion of bias mixed with weasel words 'likely', 'perhaps', usw. Then they conclude their conclusions by combining the standard research "needs more money" along with the oh so neutral assertion "future work should be done around the more pernicious ways that system bias is reinforced." Generally, or just at Wikipedia?
 * Given any particular 'demographic', there is a lack of articles here. There is a lack of development of the articles we already have here. I see it given my cross-section of interests. You do too. Does diversity of subjects really compete with breadth of subjects? No, unless viewed through the short-sighted lens of advocacy of self-interest vs. interests of others. Motivation over accusation is my preference. Shenme (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was concerned that "popular magazines" were the means of determining keywords. That smacks of a more risky demographic bias source than anything we might do. Given any particular 'demographic', there is a lack of articles here isn't quite true. The "LotR demographic" (I remember a census box for that, right) must have sufficient articles by now Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given any topic, and there is a lack of sufficient good articles for it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, I would like to point out that in some cases the deficiency is due to a lack of reliable sources, which is not our problem. We shouldn't go and use sketchy sources because of a "systemic bias" that some random researchers are worried about. And as for systemic bias on Wikipedia, there is one- that enforces strict adherence to notability and verifiability, among other high standards. See WP:LOC.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)