This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Countering systemic bias and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:BIAS WT:CSB

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

WikiProject Countering systemic bias was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 February 2014.

Countering systemic bias

This page is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias articles

Please read the associated WikiProject page before posting here. If you notify the project, please be prepared to show how any potential bias could be resulting in a lack of balanced coverage, or some other omission, as described on the WikiProject page.

The policy(ies) often if not always (non-systemically/systemically) perpetuate(s) western 'SYSTEMICBIAS' since most wiki editors and readers are from the US/western world and so the policy shall "obviously" mean common AMERICAN / common LATIN/WESTERN name(s)

A proposal i have in mind 👇

Let's make RS guidelines country-specific (or even better, LANGUAGE-specific) (A gentle reminder, this is not simply enwiki, this is the wikipedia of a language now used as a lingua franca among almost all other language groups) 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(One rather trivial reason can be - how wikipedians use almost exclusively US / Western - origin sources (like MSNBC, NYT, BBC, CNN in the news cat. foreg.) as examples, when trying to make a point about reliability in articles, thereby lending the whole RS thing (as well as 'reliability' on Wikipedia) a highly western - elitist "tone/air" ) (especially or atleast among non-western/english newbies)

As I implied above, there can be/are several far less trivial reasons than this one started above (but for Wikipedia itself, the above reason I think could have enough weight of it's own) 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:8992:B002:E06E:55C5 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, treating the #History of the practice of bride buying—nearly universal in various forms across human cultures since at least the neolithic—with a single long paragraph on Jamestown has to be some kind of apotheosis of WP:BIAS. Handy anecdote for those trying to explain the concept to others, when needed.

Here's a link to the current state of the article since I'll at least add Herodotus talking about it with the Babylonians and Illyrians. (Of course the ideal fix is to expand coverage and not just nix the navel-gazing bit in the name of WP:UNDUE.) — LlywelynII 21:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir, your account has been locked We saw unusual activity on your account. This may mean that someone has used your account without your knowledge. Account locked March 31, 2022 To protect you, your profile is not visible to people on Facebook and you can't use your account. 149.54.27.240 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]