Gerard,

Are there any other areas where systemic bias on the wikipedias might
reasonably expected to cause serious damage to society? If we are
missing articles on notable women, or rural landmarks, or we have
Japanese islands with Korean names or vice-versa, that is bad, but is
it likely to cause as many actual, real-world problems as, for
example, repeated implications that lowering taxes on the rich will
improve conditions for most people?

The Foundation and volunteers frequently address issues where
individual companies are the subject of organized advocacy. Why
shouldn't socioeconomic class be subject to the same scrutiny?

Researchers have studied the topic, but not in a systematic way. The
few systematic studies of political bias on Wikipedia have either
focused mostly on social issues or geocentric bias, with economics
playing a very small part. It would be great if the Foundation would
fund such more specific studies by independent researchers with a
history of studying bias in economics sources. Mark Blyth and David
Stuckler at Oxford and Sanjay Basu, an M.D. at Stanford, have all done
very good work in this area.


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>

_______________________________________________
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