The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors and manifests itself as an imbalance in coverage. This project attempts to fill in the gaps left by this bias, consciously focusing on those subjects and perspectives neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. A list of articles that are in need of some attention may be found on the CSB Open Tasks list.
In general, this project focuses on remedying omissions (either of entire topics, or of particular material within the potential scope of existing articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented.
The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15–49, (7) is from a predominantly Christiancountry, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor.
In order to contribute to Wikipedia, a user must have access to both a computer and Internet access and be able to use them. Most of the world's population does not and their views and experience are not directly represented. This includes the developing nations, the population at a lower socio-economic level within industrialized countries and those with disabilities and elderly people. In most countries, minority ethnic and linguistic groups have disproportionately less access to information technology and education than the majority group. This includes, among many others, the First Nations of Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, and economically weaker sections of India.
Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians who write English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by editors who grew up in anglophone countries. These also tend to be industrialized nations, accentuating the bias towards contributions from wealthy countries. While areas where English is an official language or where education in English is widespread, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and India, have decent coverage when compared with many other nations, they remain under-represented compared to those countries that speak English natively.
Wikipedians are people who have available free time to participate in the project. Viewpoints of individuals who are focused on other projects, e.g. their work or life, will tend to be underrepresented.
Wikipedians tend to be overrepresented by people who are intellectuals, employed in academia, or members of subcultures. There are many college professors and computer programmers editing Wikipedia, but very few vehicle mechanics, firefighters, plumbers, miners, or electricians. This leads to a bias against decent coverage of topics related to such things as blue collar employment and practical skills, while obscure academic theories and subcultures with few adherents have considerable coverage.
Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies or religious beliefs. Those with strong opinions tend to edit more and more vigorously, while those with no obvious agenda may be less likely to edit since they have no desire to represent a particular viewpoint. This may lead to articles which are not entirely objective or NPOV, but instead a mix of heavy-handed promotion or criticism of many topics, especially those which are contentious.
Even among their general socio-economic and ethno-linguistic demographic, Wikipedians tend to be more technically inclined. This is due to the simple barrier represented by the "Edit" button, which many readers either do not recognize or choose not to use (justifying this unconscious opting-out by thinking "It isn't really meant for people like me"). Wikipedians' areas of expertise and interest tend more towards computer science and popular culture than more specialized areas such as agricultural science or Medieval art. For topics that do not overlap with the typical Wikipedians' area of expertise and interest, it is easier for a knowledgeable author with a narrow view to introduce bias into the article unchecked.
Wikipedia contains a notable amount of material from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia and other older encyclopedic works which are now in the public domain that have been literally "text dumped" en masse across tens of thousands of articles. This material contains substantial ingrained biases, inaccuracies, and other problems reflecting the age and nature of the sources. It often takes a lot of work to "fix" old articles, and while they are being edited (often over months and even years), the inaccurate information and other problems remain in the Wikipedia article. In addition, the material that has been modernized still often reflects the underlying methods and approaches of the original article, resulting in a bias towards these older works.
The majority of the world's population live in the Northern Hemisphere, which contributes toward a selection bias towards a Northern Hemisphere perspective. This selection bias also interacts to some extent with the other causes of systemic bias discussed above, which tends to increases the selection bias towards a Northern-centric point of view.
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. This is obviously not objectionable but, multiplied across the entire body of editors, results in unbalanced coverage of topics in a global context. Bias is not only manifested in article creation--deletion is also a source of bias, with affected articles more likely to receive I don't like it, I don't know it, or I don't care comments in deletion discussions.
Once identified, the bias is apparent throughout Wikipedia. It may be found in two major forms: lack of articles on a neglected topic and perspective bias (most notably geographic) within articles on universal subjects.
A lack of articles on particular topics is perhaps the most obvious kind of bias. Both China and India separately possess populations greater than that of all native English speakers combined; by this measure, information on both specifically Chinese and Indian topics should at least equal that available on anglophone topics. However, it is apparent that anglophone topics dominate. While the conscious efforts of participants in this WikiProject have vastly expanded the information available on topics such as the Second Congo War, comparable conflicts in the West remain more detailed.
The other kind of 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. for example, the Dia article refers to a programming language, rather than a disambiguation page which may take a more global view on the uses of the word.
Articles which contain a "Religious views" section frequently include Christianity, Islam and Judaism while neglecting the views of other religions. An article describing religious views on a topic should probably incorporate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist views at a minimum, though the exact choice of religions will depend on the scope of the topic (for example, a Chinese topic might not require a discussion of Christian views, but might call for a discussion of Taoist views). 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 fiance, has a longer article by a factor of several dozen than Bernard Makuza, who has been Prime Minister of Rwanda since 2000.
"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 betraying a US perspective rather than a worldwide one.
Similarly, popular culture, especially television, is often covered as if only the U.S. (and perhaps the UK) exist. Things are often declared to be "the first" when they are only the first in this limited context.
Articles often use Northern Hemispheretemperate 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 may also cause difficulties for people from tropical areas that do not experience temperate-zone seasons.
Similarly, articles frequently describe material from the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere, and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective. For example, some articles on astronomical topics discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and it is not unusual to see "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" being used as a synonym of "not visible at all". Generally, Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics are covered in much greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomy. Relatively obscure constellations in the Northern sky such as Scutum and Camelopardalis are covered in more depth than the moderately prominent Southern sky constellations Grus and Carina.
Deaths of those in developed countries are seen as far more significant. The Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., 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 were massacred, receives less attention. Further, acts of violence whose targets are civilians in developed Western countries frequently include human-interest perspectives on their victims; Western military violence against non-Western civilian targets (such as Iran Air 655 or the Amiriyah shelter) generally do not.
Many editors contribute to Wikipedia because they see Wikipedia as progressing towards, though never reaching, an ideal state as a repository of human knowledge. The more idealistic 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". The idea of a systemic bias is thus far more troubling than even widespread intentional vandalism. Vandalism can be readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia, its contributors and the world at large.
The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not exactly identical to the world demographic, the vision of the world presented on the English Wikipedia will always be askew. Thus the only way systemic bias would disappear would be if the population of the world all spoke English at the same level of fluency and had equal access and inclination to use the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias may be mitigated through 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 websites of newspapers in English, from other countries than your own when examining a topical or recent event or editing an existing article related to a particular subject. There are excellent newspapers in South Africa, China, Hong Kong and India, who run websites in English. The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times are not the only major English newspapers or media covering a story. The Toronto Globe and Mail, The Times, and the BBC World Service may provide new and different insights on a story that an American media outlet might not have. And they will cover stories American media will not cover because it's considered of low interest to Americans.
Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be used for propaganda, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. It may also help you to understand why that particular country has its opinion on a subject, for example, how Mainland China thinks about Tibet or Taiwan may allow you to understand better why they act the way they do, and perhaps to better convince people as to why someone should or should not agree with their policies toward these countries, without necessarily being biased, but perhaps by pointing out errors in logic or thinking, by any particular side of the question, either pro or con.
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.
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 often have a vastly different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they emigrated from, which introduces its own systemic bias.
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.
This article or section deals primarily with Australia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
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
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 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 {{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
Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.
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.
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.
Relevant quality search results and fast easy navigation throughout the
different sections of the site, make Americola.com
a great entertainment
search engine offering
celebrity biographies, high resolution
celebrity photos, videos and more.
