Wikipedia talk:National bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I started this essay with the intention of encouraging other editors to improve and expand it. Accordingly, I would prefer if it wasn't moved to user space. PhilKnight (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provided useful statistics but they are not, in and of themselves, evidence of nationalistic bias and they probably belong with WP:BIAS. As such, I'm initiating a discussion through a...

[edit] Requested move

Wikipedia:Nationalistic biassomething else like Wikipedia:National bias or merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

This essay has nothing to do with nationalistic bias per se. It is a list of geo-bias statistics and, if one assumes good faith, these could be the innocent result of authors' and editors' limited knowledge and experience (as WP:BIAS assumes), not overt nationalism. I question the need for this essay — it belongs on the WP:BIAS page or talk page — but, if it remains, the title should better reflect what it is or at least be at the more stylistically pleasing and less provocative title of Wikipedia:National bias. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I think 'National bias' is less memorable than 'Nationalstic bias', however I've made the change. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Memorability should not be the primary determinant of titles at the expense of accuracy. The two terms mean something different. Nationalist or "nationalistic" bias is bias rooted in or engendered by feelings of nationalism, a doctrine or political movement. National bias could be nationalist as well but it could be innocent geo-bias due to the editor's limited experience outside of his or her own culture.
There is no evidence presented here that any of the bias derives from deliberate nationalism or a nationalist programme and yet you concluded this in the intro. Since nationalism is assumed by some to be a negative phenomenon, by calling all examples of geo-bias nationalist or national in origin, you are not assuming good faith. For example, I might create an article about the Boxer Rebellion Indemnity Scholarship Program that has a heavily American perspective. My motivation might not be a pro-American or anti-Chinese national agenda but simply that I am more knowledgeable about the USA than China. Thus, the geo-bias exists and should be countered but it is not necessarily due to nationalism.
I'm still wondering too how this is different from geo-bias as dealt with at WP:BIAS since the body of the essay repeats what is there. — AjaxSmack 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the essay could be expanded to incorporate what you are saying, perhaps by indicating that someone with an 'innocent geo-bias' wouldn't object to other views being given coverage, while someone with a less innocent bias would edit war to remove the other views. However, I find it very odd that are you saying there is no evidence of nationalistic bias - there are plenty of articles that are in the middle of nationalistic edit wars. In my view these edit wars break out when nationalist editors edit war against neutral editors, or, more often, other nationalists. The nationalistic editors obviously edit and create other articles, in these cases the result is very often a biased article. Based on my experience, I would suggest that many editors are somewhere between the extremes of innocent geo-biased editor and nationalistic edit warrior. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean there was no nationalism-inspired edit warring going on. I just said there is no evidence of it presented here in this essay. Nationalist edit warring tends to lead to POV issues rather than geo-bias issues though. The vast majority of articles I've tagged with geo-bias got that way through perfectly innocent means. — AjaxSmack 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)