Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Countering systemic bias and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 30 days

WikiProject Countering systemic bias was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 February 2014.

Please read the associated WikiProject page before posting here. If you notify the project, please be prepared to show how any potential bias could be resulting in a lack of balanced coverage, or some other omission, as described on the WikiProject page.

RfCs on autism

There's an RfC on whether the current article is consistent with NPOV and a second RfC on whether to keep the current lead or replace it. LogicalLens (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Feminism

Feminism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent areas of focus and active participation

I am an occasional Wikipedia editor and not very confident in what I can offer as an editor.

I have been concerned about systemic bias for a long time and am glad to have just discovered this WikiProject. I am concerned it is now rated semi-active.

I can well understand that activity comes and goes.

I would like to contribute more to this project.

I am relatively privileged.

I am using a smart phone, which is a less privileged way to engage with Wikipedia than it used to be. I use a laptop which is a sign of some of my privileges.

What can I do to become a more useful participant in this project?

I believe sharing more about my privilege in an appropriate way could also be helpful.

I believe I need to engage more fully with the issues this brings up. Suggestions on how to address this are welcome.

I am not sure how these observations and requests relate to Wikipedia’s overall policies and to participating in this project. CuriousMarkE (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of ideas. I try to counter systemic bias by starting articles about topics that tend to be underrepresented (for instance, people and places in non-English-speaking developing countries). I also look for articles that only cover a limited set of perspectives (for instance, an article about a non-country-specific topic that only discusses American and European perspectives) and try to find sources that I can use to expand them for a more global perspective. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this--if you have an interest in a particular area that is underrepresented or misrepresented, start there. You can do anything from cleaning up articles or copyediting to finding better or more representative sources or even rewrite articles that are particularly lacking @CuriousMarkE. PersusjCP (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousMarkE I am also sorry to see this is not very active, although I'm not sure what it takes to get people involved. Did the creator just make the page and then leave it, to be found only by accident? Anyway, I'm trying to fight a strong bias on the article on the United States, where editors actively defend their U.S.-centric edits with comments like, "This is the English Wikipedia—we don't care what people from other countries think." Those with that POV are rabid about protecting the current biased content amidst occasional, repeated, but ultimately ineffective complaints by others. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone actually say "This is the English Wikipedia—we don't care what people from other countries think."?

In that case, follow steps in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes. Bogazicili (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili In as many words, yes. While that might not be a direct quote, it was put just as abruptly. I saw it worded a little more diplomatically elsewhere, but expressing the same sentiment. As far as I'm concerned, the attitude of the editors on that page are so backwards that it's a hopeless endeavour to try to persuade them towards any other consideration. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousMarkE as you ae new I think I should point out that comments such as those above, eg "rabid" and " the attitude of the editors on that page are so backwards" are a violation of our behavioral guideline assume good faith. That says

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that fellow editors working on the project are trying to improve it, not harm it.
If criticism is necessary, seek clarification through discussion rather than assuming wrongdoing.}}

Ghost writers cat is very aware of the guideline. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the guideline. I'm also aware that it doesn't preclude making an honest observation. Just because someone doesn't intend harm doesn't mean they're not still causing it. They could simply be wrong. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comments are not simply an "honest observation" they are a violation of the guideline. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Feminist economics

Feminist economics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]