Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countering systemic mathematics-centric bias in Wikipedia's logic articles

One of the essential qualities of humanity is our rational capacity. Every Wikipedia user is a rational being. The Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia intended for everyone. Logic is the study of the principles that govern our rational capacity. It should be a mission of WP to make the concepts of logic as accessible to every person to the maximum extent possible.

Contents

[edit] Overview

In the history of philosophy we have seen an evolution. Back in the day there were NO scientists, they were called "natural philosophers." As the knowledge they accumulated became greater, and more understood, specialized fields developed, and the idea that it was "philosophy" went by the wayside. These days science and philosophy only intersect (in an academically recognized way) where there is a frontier: theoretical physics, artificial intelligence, etc.

Math used to only be done by philosophers too. However, math is a little different from other "natural sciences." It deals with abstraction, and there is no limit to the frontier of abstraction. So math is still philosophy in certain areas especially in logic. Some at WP:MATH will probably vehemently disagree with that statement. I have seen on a talk page more than once about "mathematical logic isn't logic," or "these are two different concepts we are talking about," or "the logicist project was a failure," or how about "I don't know much about philosophy, but I know x is not philosophy," etc. These sentiments, all of which have been seen in some formulation, are more about personal identity with an academic group, than it is about the actual nature of the concepts being considered.

We have a very large group of mathematicians, some are introverted, some are very critical because of their appreciation of rigor, some are attracted to the idea of certainty, some are just left brained, etc. There are all kinds of generalizations that could be made, however in the aggregate we get a self selecting group of whatever stripe. Certain patterns have developed some of which I have noted under "supporting evidence" at this CSB/Math project.

For certain articles the issue is obvious: Consistency. There is almost no philosophical treatment even though it is obviously a very important concept for philosophy. This kind of issue is widespread, and it is basically the philosophy department's fault because we are so small, and not nearly as active as the math people. However, when efforts are made to provide the philosophical aspect, there is an intellectually hostile tendency due to this environment to either delete it as irrelevant, or unimportant (even if sourced as we are seeing at interpretation (logic)), or there is a proposal to disintegrate the article covering what really is one concept into two (see Theory and theory (mathematical logic), for instance). These are a few small examples, however the tendency behind them is solidly in place in this culture. Over time we get what we expect: a math department with very mathematically complete, rigorous articles, with almost no connection to any other areas. So is it really true that there are no connections or is it just the case that you aren't in a position to see all the connections? The tendency is a self-segregation into math and everybody else. That just doesn't make quality for a general use encyclopedia. Intelligence involves being able to make connections between ideas. If WP is to promote intelligence, we need to endeavor to make those connections.

So the way it manifests itself isn't necessarily in any particular statements in any particular article: they are all accurate just fine. The issue is about the organization of articles among each other, and the organization of the outline within some others, for some it is hostility to alternate terminology, for many others it's the omission of important aspects that mathematicians would never themselves see as important. The issue is real, the question is what do we do about it?

[edit] Is the WP content and organizition biased toward mathematics and against philosophy in its logic articles?

Almost certainly yes.

Some supporting evidence

[edit] Causes

  • Sheer numbers. There are more mathematicians, than there are philosophers on the WP.
  • Increased access and use of computers by mathematicians, than by philosophers.
  • Mathematical culture that is hostile to being seen as a form of philosophy.

[edit] Solutions

  • Make Wikipedians aware of the issue so that they might decide to help work to correct it.
  • Ensure that terminology that is specialized to one field or the other is explicated, rather than omitted from articles.
  • Create lists of missing topics in those under served areas to aid Wikipedians in finding ways to correct bias.
  • Create a list of articles that currently only reflect a mathematical treatment.
  • Rather than only encouraging existing users, attempt to recruit new philosophical logicians to the project who can help counter these biases.

[edit] Logic To-Do List

The following logic related articles have been identified as inadequate. They must be completed to counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia.

Image:25%.png - stub, a paragraph or two, completely inadequate.
Image:50%.png - maybe a few paragraphs, but coverage is inadequate, still missing some basic information. May include mathematically biased information; for example an article may claim a highly specialized mathematical teminology which precludes the more general and logical aspects of the same topic.
Image:75%.png - Many paragraphs, covers all, or almost all, basic information, provides depth, but still lacks philosophical underpinnings of the topic.
Image:100%.png - Excellent article. Covers all that is required of an encyclopedia. Has balance and depth. Sufficiently long to cover the topic. A natural language philosopher would have little more to clarify.