Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

Barnstar

Shouldn't the project's barnstar (currently the {{Systemic Bias Barnstar}}) be the Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar? Consider:

• {{The Anti-Wikibullying Barnstar}} not the Wikibullying Barnstar
• {{The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar}} not the Vandalism Barnstar
• {{Anti-Spam Barnstar}} not the Spam Barnstar
• {{The Anti-Flame Barnstar}} not the Flammable Barnstar

Ping @FormalDude: as the template's creator. I don't think this would be controversial, but I could list it at WP:RM if it deserves more attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Okay, I'm going to go ahead and change it, and fix all the What links here links. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)  Done. I think that's it. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of indigenous topics in English-language Wikipedia

Currently, the text acknowledges certain groups of people are underrepresented demographically in Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Those_without_Internet_are_underrepresented.

However, content might be biased too. There's a recent study that looked at Australia-related articles.

To engage with place in the Australian context is inevitably an engagement with settler-colonialism. This research concludes that First Nations histories, current experiences and voices remain marginalised on Wikipedia, reflecting the literature (Thorpe, Sentance & Booker 2023; Gallert et al. 2016; Bjork-James 2021). There are other omissions as well. Lucas argued that “basically any non-white experiences or non-dominant experiences are omitted.” Gabriel felt that Wikipedia was “quite a hostile space to marginalised people” and that there is “a really frustrating lack of space, I suppose, to me in all three elements: being a regional Australian; being queer; being disabled. None of them feel like something that Wikipedia really quite welcomes a lot of the time.”

[1][2]

Should we add a few more sentences about this into the project page? Bogazicili (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not confident in this piece of research. It is true that many areas are underrepresented on Wikipedia. However, the analysis presented is odd. On the quoted text, the idea that en.wiki is unwelcoming to the queer community is a striking claim; the way en.wiki handles LGBT topics is very progressive, especially in an international view. The systematic bias for the treatment of the queer/lgbt lends heavily towards western countries, and to the progressive views within them. I am not sure how regional Australians are being discriminated against either.

On the topic of how articles are written, I note this paragraph: "The article headings also contribute to locate each place in space and time: history, geography, demography, culture. The Australia and Tasmania pages have sections on government and economy, the Katoomba page includes sections on tourism–a major industry in Katoomba–and heritage listings. This small sample suggests that Wikipedia’s editors are primarily focussed on locating and ranking places on the surface of the globe. What matters most is how a place fits into the geographical and political divisions of the human world. On the one hand, this is an objective focus—the meaning of a place to its inhabitants is relatively unimportant. On the other hand, this is an anthropocentric focus—the meaning of a place to non-human entities is at best only secondary." It is likely true that Wikipedia articles focus on locating places on the globe as opposed to meaning, however this isn't due to "the meaning of a place to its inhabitants is relatively unimportant", it's because locating places on the globe is trivially sourceable, and common to every place on the planet. The meaning of a place to its inhabitants is going to be much harder to source and write. The meaning of a place to non-human entities specifically is a further layer of challenge in that respect.

I also noticed the claim "More deeply, for a place to even exist in Wikipedia, it first needs to exist in the European system of spatial divisions." That just doesn't seem true, all en.wiki would need is sources covering a place. The research does not provide an example we could look at. The desired outcome for place coverage is also contradictory. The researchers state "Country contrasts with the Wikipedia notion of “place”" (specifically relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concept of "Country"), which is true within my personal knowledge. However, the report then offers as a criticism "As a result, country is not represented as a place in Wikipedia". If Country contrasts with the Wikipedia notion of place, why would it be represented as a place on Wikipedia? That would be to misrepresent what Country is, especially, as the report doesn't seem to internalise, as en.wiki has a very global audience rather than simply an Australian one. CMD (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What most concerns me is the literature building up on this: Thorpe, Sentance & Booker 2023; Gallert et al. 2016; Bjork-James 2021. So it's not just a single study. There's also this [3]. I can check the other studies as well to see what they say. Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that paper being discussed at the time, as it bases a lot on named editors, but I don't remember where. CMD (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editor conduct described in those articles. I'm interested in gaps in content that several studies have suggested. Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)