WikiProject Countering systemic bias | |||||||
|
Potential bias in article
In the first section there is a portion of text that says this: "The same flawed standards of wikipedia's predominantly male and first world bureaucracy simultaneously consider hosts of fictional characters and pornographic actresses to be notable."
Is the mention of pornographic actresses and fictional characters necessary for this point about notability? My main concern is it comes across like the article is casually denigrating porn actresses—as if they are undeserving of being notable when compared to Stacy Schiff—just because of their professions. Maybe it is unintentional, but it sounds like bias against porn actresses. Pythagimedes (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. That line was added January of this year, by User:Jaredscribe [1], I don't think we need or have consensus for it. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 30 July 2021
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion → Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force – Given that this WikiProject has been inactive for a while and the talk page redirects to WT:CSB it should probably be turned into a task force like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support, a common sense association of a task with a project. BD2412 T 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional support - do you plan to revive the project/start the task force? If so, absolutely, do whatever you need to do and ... godspeed, so to speak. If not, I'm against rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Articles about failed or failing projects
I feel we have yet another type of systematic bias, but I don't know how to characterize it. When a big new project or system is under development, an article is written by enthusiasts, generally with an unconscious or even a deliberate pro-project bias. At this stage the sources are often filled with marketing hype. As the project encounters difficulties, the project ceases to be interesting to these editors and the article becomes neglected, leaving it in a state that no longer accurately reflects the actual situation. I have personally worked fairly extensively to repair this bias for Itanium and Zumwalt class destroyer, which I feel have already reached the "failed" state. I am working on Space Launch System, which I feel is currently in the "failing" state.
This bias would also occur for a subject that was successful at the time the article was written but whose status has since deteriorated.
My interests are fairly narrow, but I suspect that there may be quite a few articles in areas I do not care much about (e.g., bands, movies) that fall in this category. If so, how should we identify these articles and how should we address them? -Arch dude (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- That does happen, unrelated sources don't cover failing projects very much, unless they're true fiascos, so there will be a lot more on the launch, and little or sometimes even nothing on the failure. I don't have a great solution, but if there isn't interest in the articles, at least you won't have as many people opposing you when you try to clean up the WP:HYPE. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of work on addressing this aspect in coverage of Nazi Germany and the Second World War on WP:MILHIST in the last few years. A number of users have done some seriously impressive work on this but it certainly still a real problem. I, for one, would advocate a more explicit policy against WP:FANCRUFT. I think the best policy we have now for this kind of thing is probably WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)