Hoi,
There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the
gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It
is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the
bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of
impact should we study? Remember there is this "neutral point of view" and
remember Wikipedia is not about "original research" and that is what you
are calling for.

So consider what is it that makes any subject of relevance so that our
board has to study this, why could we not leave it to the researchers ...
or should we not first study the existing bias in our research ?
Thanks,
        GerardM


Op do 23 feb. 2017 om 18:24 schreef James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>

> Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
> obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-
> healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
>
> Christophe, does the Board agree that the Foundation should study bias
> in the wikipedias' economics articles and its impact on society?
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a
> large
> > proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
> >
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
> >
> > On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official
> who
> > recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> > Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications
> was,
> > "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
> > speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on
> how
> > the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
> articles
> > had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically
> > generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic
> > perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no
> reply.
> >
> > Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
> I've
> > asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been
> a
> > reply to that either.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
> >> measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with
> various
> >> conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
> >> different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.
> >>
> >> This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up
> with
> >> a
> >> lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
> >> detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_
> about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement
> >>
> >> I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> (User:The Land)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to