Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process.
Please see the Guide to WikiProjects and the Directory of WikiProjects for more information.
Shortcuts:
WP:BIAS
WP:CSB

The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject. This project aims to control and (possibly) eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and point of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. A list of articles needing attention is in the CSB Open Tasks list.

Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented.

WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.


Contents

[edit] Systemic bias of Wikipedia

[edit] The origins of bias

Population of Internet users by country (CIA figures)
Population of Internet users by country (CIA figures)
Internet usage by percentage of each country's population
Internet usage by percentage of each country's population

The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005).

  • To contribute to Wikipedia, a contributor must have access to the Internet. Most of the planet's population does not, hence their views and experience are not represented herein. This includes developing nations, the poor people of industrialized countries, the disabled, and the elderly. In most countries, minority ethnic and linguistic groups have disproportionately less access to information technology, schooling, and education than majority groups. This includes the First Nations of Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, and the poorer populations of India, among others.
  • Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. These Anglophone countries tend to be industrialized, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. Countries where English is either an official language or where English-language schooling is common (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other European countries or former colonies of the British Empire) participate more than countries where the first tongue is not English; hence the latter remain under-represented.
  • Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other projects, e.g. work, life, will be underrepresented.
  • Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. More university professors and computer programmers edit Wikipedia than do mechanics, firefighters, plumbers, miners, electricians, et cetera. This leads to a bias against full coverage of blue collar subjects, employment, and practical skills, while obscure academic theories and minority subcultures are well covered.
  • Wikipedians tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies or religious beliefs. Editors with strong opinions tend to edit vigorously and often, while editors with no intellectual agenda edit less since they do not desire to represent a particular point of view. This may lead to subjective articles and heavy-handed promotion or criticism of topics.
  • Even among their general socio-economic and ethno-linguistic demographic groups, Wikipedians are more technically inclined. It is because of the barrier the "Edit Article" button represents and Wikipedia's complex code, that many readers either do not recognise or choose not to use it (i.e. the "It isn't really meant for people like me" way of thought). Wikipedians' areas of interest tend towards computer science and popular culture rather than agricultural science or Medieval art. For articles outside the typical areas of interest, it is easier for a knowledgeable narrow-minded editor to instill their cultural bias and have it go unchecked.
  • Wikipedia contains material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Nuttall Encyclopædia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older, public domain encyclopedias that have been text-dumped en masse throughout thousands of articles. This material contains many ingrained biases, inaccuracies, and other problems reflecting the sources' age and nature. It often takes a lot of work to repair these outdated articles, and while they are in the process of being fixed, the inaccurate information and other problems remain in the Wikipedia articles. The modernised material usually still reflects the original article's underlying method and approach, resulting in a similar bias.
  • The majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which contributes toward a selection biased to a Northern Hemisphere perspective. This selection bias interacts with the other causes of systemic bias discussed above, which slants the selection to a pro-Northern Hemisphere perspective.
  • Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship. To compound the problem, Wikipedia has a policy prohibiting editing through open proxies, which are the most common method of circumventing such censorship.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is an American charitable organisation that supports the free software/free content movement. Thus supporters of the free software/free content movement are overly represented on Wikipedia.

[edit] The bias

The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Each editor contributes to articles based on his or her interests and knowledge, not objectionable itself, but multiplied across the entire editorial corpus, yields imbalanced coverage of topics within a global context. Bias is not only manifested in article creation – deletion is a source of intellectual bias; affected articles more likely to suffer deletions, i.e. "I don't like it", "I don't know it", and "I don't care" comments in deletion discussions. Similarly, systemic bias may cause articles of local interest to places (from where few Wikipedians come), to be nominated for deletion for lacking notability, because they are obscure to the majority of Northern Hemisphere Anglophone editors.

Once identified, the bias is noticeable throughout Wikipedia. It is in two major forms: (1) a dearth of articles on a neglected topic, and (2) perspective bias (notably geographic) in articles on universal subjects.

  • A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone topics; yet, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, comparable Western wars remain much more detailed.
  • Perspective bias is internal to articles that are universal in aspect. It is not at all apparent from lunch (see tiffin) or the linguistic term continuous aspect that they exist outside of the industrialized world.
  • Articles such as "Uses of torture in recent times" tend to dwell on the relatively few (but well documented) cases of abuse in Israel, the United Kingdom, United States, conducted during their foreign wars and incursions, and to a lesser extent, those by other western democracies, while ignoring the widespread and systematic abuses which take place in countries where information about torture is not widely available to English-speaking Wikipedians.
  • Articles where the article name can mean several different things, tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian.
  • Articles which contain a "Religious views" section frequently include Christianity, Islam and Judaism while neglecting the views of other religions. Ideally, an article describing religious views on a topic should incorporate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist views, at a minimum, though the exact choice of religious opinions will depend upon the topic's scope (e.g. a Chinese topic might not necessitate a Christian view, but a Taoist view). Views of more prominent religions should be given more space, in accordance with the policy on NPOV.
  • The size of articles is often based on the interest that English-speaking Wikipedians have in the subject (which to some extent is based on the involvement of their nations). For example, the article on the Second Congo War, the deadliest conflict in the past 60 years, is shorter than that on the Falklands War, with a death toll of under a thousand. Also, the amount of information available to researchers is disproportionately biased towards events involving MEDCs.
  • Recentism: Current events (especially those occurring in developed, English-speaking nations) often attract attention from Wikipedians, and are edited out of proportion with their significance. Jennifer Wilbanks, an American woman who attracted media attention when she was presumed kidnapped, but actually ran away to avoid marrying her fiancé, has a longer article by a factor of several dozen than Bernard Makuza, who has been Prime Minister of Rwanda since 2000. Additionally, because of recentism bias, the "In the news" section on Wikipedia's front page may be limited by an unequal proportion of significant news from English-speaking nations compared to news from others.
  • "National" is frequently used to define United States organisations without specifying the country. Equally, "international" is frequently used as a synonym of "foreign" to define non-United States organisations, again suggesting a US perspective rather than a worldwide one.
  • Similarly, popular culture, especially television, is often covered as if only the US or only the UK exists (depending on the origin of the Wikipedian).
  • Firstism: Things are often declared to be "the first" when they are really only the first in a limited context. The bias of "firstness" often occurs when one is knowledgeable only of the accomplishments of their country of origin and doesn't think to look further in researching and writing an article. A similar problem occurs with naming conventions when it is assumed that the name or label with which one is familiar is the only correct option.
  • Articles often use Northern Hemisphere temperate zone seasons as time references to describe time periods that are longer than a month and shorter than a year. Such usage can be confusing and misleading for people who live in the Southern Hemisphere and people from tropical areas that do not experience temperate-zone seasons.
  • Similarly, articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective. Some articles on astronomy discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and sometimes "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" is used as a synonym of "not visible at all". Generally, Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics are covered in greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomy. Obscure constellations in the Northern sky such as Scutum and Camelopardalis are covered in more depth than prominent Southern constellations such as Grus and Carina.
  • Deaths of those in developed countries are seen as far more significant. The Al-Qaeda attacks on the US, UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people, are seen as having enormous significance. The Darfur conflict in Sudan, in which 400,000 civilians have so far been massacred, receives less attention.
  • Certain groups of articles, such as those about intellectual property and software, may have a pro-free software/free content bias. Due to severe restrictions on the use of fair use images, certain groups of articles are more likely to be illustrated by associated images than others; for example, articles on American celebrities often have images while articles on Singaporean celebrities usually do not.

There is further information on biases in Geography, in Politics, in History, and in Logic. See also Countering systemic bias: Project details for an older introduction.

[edit] Why it matters and what to do

Many editors contribute to Wikipedia, because they see Wikipedia as progressing to, though not reaching, the ideal of a repository of human knowledge. The more idealistic editors may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view" or "God's Eye View". Thus, the idea of systemic bias is more troubling than intentional vandalism; vandalism is readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion at hand, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia and its contributor editors with the world at large.

The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world. Thus, the only way systemic bias would disappear is if all of the world's population spoke English with the same fluency and had equal access and inclination to use the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias might be mitigated with conscious effort; this is the goal of the Countering Systemic Bias Project.

There are many things you may do, listed roughly from least to most intensive:

  • Sign up as a participant and mention any interests you may have related to "Countering systemic bias" (CSB).
  • Add the Open Tasks box ({{WikiProjectCSBTasks}}) to your User or User talk page to let other people know about the issue.
  • Read news articles in as many languages as you know, from as many news sources as you can find, from as many political view points as you can find (especially those that you would normally not read) when examining a topical or recent event or editing an existing article related to a particular subject.
  • Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be more one sided than wikipedians may like, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does. The readers of Wikipedia could benefit from this, regardless of whether they agree with that view or not (if they don't, they may use it to find errors in its logic or thinking). For example, official news outlets may be useful indicators of how Mainland China thinks about Tibet or Taiwan. Secondly, they may provide relevant non-controversial information about the country or its leaders which could help in improving the article on that topic, for instance, date and place of birth, occupation of leaders, cultural heritage of, links to and other tidbits which may not be available elsewhere.
  • See if there are web pages on a particular subject which were written by people from other countries or cultures. It may provide you other places to look or other points of view to consider.
  • Be more conscious of your own biases in the course of normal editing. Look at the articles you work on usually and think about whether they are written from an international perspective. If not, you might be able to learn a lot about a subject you thought you knew by adding content with a different perspective.
  • Occasionally edit a subject that is systemically biased against the pages of your natural interests. The net effect of consciously changing one out of every twenty of your edits to something outside your "comfort zone" would be substantial.
  • Create or edit one of the articles listed on the CSB template.
  • If you don't particularly like any of the subjects on the template, our open tasks list has a wide array of articles in need of attention.
  • Add to the open tasks list. No one person can fix a system-wide problem, so be sure to tell people when you find needy articles.
  • Rotate articles from the open tasks list to the template, and other helpful tidying tasks.
  • Give feedback on this WikiProject on the talk page.
  • If you're multilingual, add information from Wikipedia articles in other languages to their English Wikipedia counterparts.
  • Contribute to articles on under-represented topics that you are familiar with.
  • Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations. If you are not familiar with a subject area, or it has meaning outside your experience base, discuss your concerns on the talk page or another appropriate forum before making an AfD nomination.
  • Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia. Contact minority or immigrant groups in your area to see if they would be interested in encouraging their members to contribute. The worst they could say is, "No". But keep in mind that immigrant groups may well have a different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they emigrated from (they may, for example, be members of a minority group themselves), which introduces its own systemic bias.

[edit] Related WikiProjects and regional noticeboards

There are several WikiProjects and regional notice boards that have potential to help out in our efforts. We may also eventually want to create new WikiProjects as part of this effort.

[edit] Africa

[edit] Latin America

[edit] Asia

[edit] See also

[edit] Related cleanup templates

The template {{globalize}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{globalize/Northern}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the Northern Hemisphere and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{globalize/UK}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the United Kingdom and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{globalize/USA}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{globalize/Canada}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with Canada and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{globalize/US and Canada}} may be placed to produce

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with North America and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{toofewopinions}} may be placed to produce

 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The template {{recentism}} may be placed to produce

 This article or section may be slanted towards recent events.
Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.

The template {{CSB/Math}} may be placed to produce

non-contradiction icon
 This article or section deals primarily with a topic in Logic, but does not represent an interdisciplinary treatment of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

See Template:Globalize for a list of region- and bias-specific sub-templates similar to {{globalize/UK}} and {{globalize/USA}}.

When these templates are used they should be accompanied by a brief note on the talk page to outline what exactly you feel needs to be addressed.

[edit] Members

Please add your name. If you have specific interests relating to CSB, feel free to briefly describe them so we can get a sense of the strengths of the project.

Further information: /members

[edit] See also