WikiProject Countering systemic bias
CategoryWikiProject Countering systemic bias
Project banner template((WikiProject Countering systemic bias))
Userbox((User CSB))

The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting in imbalanced coverage of some subjects, thereby leaving less represented demographic groups without adequate coverage. See an explanation of systemic bias on Wikipedia for how this may affect articles and content. This project aims to eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. A list of articles needing attention is in the CSB Open Tasks list.

The 22 October 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia"[1] discussed the effect of systemic bias and policy creep on recent downward trends in the number of editors available to support Wikipedia's range and coverage of topics.

See § Further reading for studies, statistics, and more information that demonstrate contributor or subject imbalances.

Systemic bias in coverage and selection of articles

This section has been copied and pasted from Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage.

See also: Academic studies about Wikipedia § A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content

Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias in the selection of articles which it maintains in its various language editions. Such alleged bias in the selection of articles leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London) philosopher Martin Cohen frames Wikipedia of having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators", which he describes as a "youthful cab-driver's" perspective.[2] Cohen's argument, however, finds a grave conclusion in these circumstances: "To control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought."[2] That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'."[2]

Critics also point to the tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance. For example, Stephen Colbert once mockingly praised Wikipedia for having a "longer entry on 'lightsabers' than it does on the 'printing press'".[3] In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted:

People write on things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.[4]

This critical approach has been satirised "Wikigroaning", a term coined by Jon Hendren[5] of the website Something Awful.[6] He suggests a game where two articles (preferably with similar names) are compared: one about an acknowledged serious or classical subject and the other about a topic popular or current.[clarification needed][7] Defenders of a broad inclusion criteria have held that the encyclopedia's coverage of pop culture does not impose space constraints on the coverage of more serious subjects (see "Wiki is not paper"). As Ivor Tossell noted:

That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana (and did you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica?) isn't a knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles aren't depriving the serious ones of space.[8]

Selection based on notability of article topics

Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the application thereof, are the subject of much criticism.[9] Nicholson Baker considers the notability standards arbitrary and essentially unsolvable:[10]

There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out.

Criticizing the "deletionists", Nicholson Baker then writes:[9]

Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come. [...] It's harder to improve something that's already written, or to write something altogether new, especially now that so many of the World Book–sanctioned encyclopedic fruits are long plucked. There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work—even to the point of laughing at nonstandard "Engrish." They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away.

Yet another criticism[11] about the deletionists is this: "The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionists approach."

Complaining that his own biography was on the verge of deletion for lack of notability, Timothy Noah argued that:[12]

Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement. To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Although I have written or been quoted in such works, I can't say I've ever been the subject of any. And wouldn't you know, some notability cop cruised past my bio and pulled me over. Unless I get notable in a hurry—win the Nobel Peace Prize? Prove I sired Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter?—a "sysop" (volunteer techie) will wipe my Wikipedia page clean. It's straight out of Philip K. Dick.

In the same article, Noah mentions that the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Stacy Schiff was not considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry before she wrote an extensive essay in The New Yorker on Wikipedia itself, entitled Know it All on July 24, 2006. Her entry was made the very same day.

Selection based on gender bias

Main article: Gender imbalance on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Wikipedia has been criticized[13] by some journalists and academics for lacking not only female contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender. An article in The New York Times cites a Wikimedia Foundation study which found that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia were women. Sue Gardner, then the executive director of the foundation, said increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be". Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving hacker crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists".[14]

Distinguishing between selection bias and systemic bias

Selection bias

Selection bias occurs when the general cross-section of Wikipedia articles becomes biased due to the often unintended result of subtle shifts against neutrality in article creation or editing — represented collectively by all editors as these biases accumulate over time. In the Real world the study of systemic bias is part of a field titled organizational behavior within industrial organization economics. It is studied for both non-profit and for-profit institutions. The issue of concern is that patterns of behavior may develop within large institutions, such as Wikipedia, which become institutionally maladapted and harmful to their productivity and viability.

Systemic bias

The eight major categories of study for maladaptive organizational behavior as they apply to maintaining and supporting Wikipedia are:


Latin America or the Caribbean




Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe

Other projects

Task forces

Some task forces that focus on particular aspects of systemic bias are linked below:


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

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.

See also:

Related cleanup templates

The template ((globalize)) may be placed to produce

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The template ((overcoverage)) may be placed to produce

The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The template ((toofewopinions)) may be placed to produce

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The template ((religion primary)) may be placed to produce

This article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The template ((recentism)) may be placed to produce

This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

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.


Please add your name to the members page.

We of course encourage all members of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, to also promote their membership to other Wikipedians, by adding the Userbox template to their personal user page. This is fast and easy to do. You only need to add this line at your user page: ((User WikiProject Countering systemic bias)), and then you will find this wonderful blue userbox displayed:

This user is a member of
WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

If you have specific interests relating to countering systemic bias, feel free to briefly describe them there or on this Wikiproject's talk page so we can get a sense of the strengths of the project.


  1. ^ Simonite, Tom. "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 14 April 2014.
  2. ^ a b c Cohen, Martin. "Encyclopaedia Idiotica". Times Higher Education (28 August 2008): 26.
  3. ^ Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, episode 3109, August 21, 2007.
  4. ^ Simon Waldman (October 26, 2004). "Who Knows?". Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
  5. ^ Brophy-Warren, Jamin. "Oh, that John Locke". The Wall Street Journal (June 16, 2007): P3.
  6. ^ Hendren, Johnny "DocEvil" (2007-06-05). "The Art of Wikigroaning". Something Awful. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
  7. ^ Brown, Andrew (2007-06-14). "No amount of collaboration will make the sun orbit the Earth". The Guardian. London (June 14, 2007). Retrieved 2010-03-27.
  8. ^ Ivor Tossell (2007-06-15). "Duality of Wikipedia". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2007-06-20.
  9. ^ a b J.P. Kirby (October 20, 2007). The Problem with Wikipedia. J.P.'s Random Ramblings.
  10. ^ Volume 55, Nicholson Baker (March 20, 2008) The Charms of Wikipedia – The New York Review of Books Vol. 55, Number 4.
  11. ^ Bobbie Johnson, Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2009
  12. ^ Noah, Timothy (2007-02-24). "Evicted from Wikipedia". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2019-04-09.
  13. ^ a b Cassell, Justine (February 4, 2011). "Editing Wars Behind the Scenes". New York Times.
  14. ^ a b Noam Cohen, "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List," The New York Times. Found at The New York Times, January 31, 2011.
  15. ^ "Wikipedia's Women Problem". 2013-04-29. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  16. ^ Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Women Novelists
  17. ^ Dunn, Gaby (2013-05-01). "Does Sexism Lurk?". Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  18. ^ Zandt, Deanna. "Yes, Wikipedia is Sexist". Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  19. ^ Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; US.
  20. ^ Tepper, B.J. (2000). "Consequences of abusive supervision". Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. doi:
  21. ^ Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. (2005). Bullying at Work: A Perspective From Britain and North America. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp. 271-296). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
  22. ^ Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). "Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace". Academy of Management Review, 74, 452-471.
  23. ^ Rospenda, K.M., & Richman, J.A. (2005). Harassment and discrimination. In J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway & M.R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 149-188). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  24. ^ Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. doi:
  25. ^ Schermerhorn. Organizational Behavior. Tenth edition. Chapter eight.

See also

Further reading

External links