514:" That seems to accuse editors of selection bias, rather than a bias toward solely using RS and trying to summarize what they say. I'm not saying that it can't be a problem. It certainly can be, but the wisdom of crowds tends to neutralize it because editors with opposing POV will tend to use the opposing view sources they are familiar with, thus covering any gaps caused by the ignorance or natural biases of other editors. We are all imperfect humans. The following is in a box on my talk page: "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." by Valjean. From
439:. Editors should never be the source of the bias in the content. They should not allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the source and the content based on that source. They should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that content will reflect the bias found in the source unless an editor has violated policy by censoring, whitewashing, or neutering what the reliable source says. When controversial, the content will normally include
557:" Definitely a problem, and one that cannot be fully solved. It is normal that different language Knowledge's will cover some of the same topics quite differently, especially when some editors are only allowed a censored view of sources due to government control of information. We welcome when editors can translate RS from other languages. I sometimes edit Scandinavian language articles because I'm fluent in one of them and understand the others. I come into contact with language bias affecting content.
986:
155:
290:
262:
124:
354:
390:
276:
806:, cofounder of Knowledge: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." That means that it is part of Knowledge's function to document biases, opinions, and points of view. They are part of "all human knowledge", and we find them in the reliable sources we use.
452:. NPOV does not mean equal treatment of the POV on a topic. (Some POV are better and more factual than others.) It means we document the often unbalanced way that most RS treat a topic, and such an article will appear unbalanced to readers. We are not allowed to try to create a false balance to please them (or ourselves). We should let it be as is.
1008:
204:
186:
817:. Editors should never be the source of the bias in the content. They should not allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the source and the content based on that source. They should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases.
486:
false balance. If our articles seem "biased" in favor of science over pseudoscience, that's not a problem. But if our articles are biased in favor of, say, the UK over France, due to
English-speaking editors tending to cite sources from English-speaking countries, that often is a problem and something we should work to avoid.
524:" No, it's just as much a behavioral as content policy. It's about editorial attitude in the editing process, hence the prohibition against including "editorial bias". It's about how to deal with biased sources. We should not censor or neuter them. The "nutshell" is largely about behavior in how we deal with content.
679:
policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the sources and the content. Editors should put their own
485:
In my view, if a
Knowledge article is biased due to systemic bias influencing our selection of sources, the solution is often to look for a wider range of sources. In some cases, of course, an article may appear biased to a reader because the reader is biased, and that doesn't mean we should create a
481:
My edit summary may not have been clear, so let me try to lay out my main concern. To my eyes, it felt like the paragraph you added implied that when an article is biased due to a biased selection of sources, that's okay as long as the editor has accurately reflected the sources they're using. (That
455:
Some readers will perceive a bias (usually those who are fringey, whose preferred version is contrary to what RS say), and that's okay, as that is the mainstream RS bias the article should have. Readers just need to know that the bias comes from the sources and not from the editors. Editors are not
596:
Well, that's my question – what is "it" that you're trying to cover? Is your main point that bias (or apparent bias) in articles is sometimes a reflection of the sources? That's what the "External factors" section is already about. Or is your main point that it's against policy to misrepresent or
621:
my main points is to make it clear that not all systemic bias is from editors but rather from sources. Sources also have biases, and that form of systemic bias should not be "corrected" or removed. It's the nature of the beast, part of the "sum total of all human knowledge" we are supposed to
482:
might not have been your intention, it's just how the paragraph came across to me.) I don't think that's right – NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy. It requires that our content fairly and proportionately reflect the reliable sources that are out there.
597:
distort sources in the name of fighting bias? If so, I agree with you, and I can see the value in covering that on this page, but I think the paragraph would need adjustments to convey that more clearly and precisely. Or is your main point something else? —
456:"taking sides", just documenting all relevant sides according to their due weight, and that means some aspects have more weight than others. That creates a perceived bias. That's what the section above addresses, and I'm sure it could use improvement. --
705:
I like it! You have captured my point very well. There was an edit conflict, so I dumped what I had written below. Please take a good look at the new paragraph introduction and see if some of it can be incorporated. Thanks so much for your help. --
680:
opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Knowledge content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources.
820:
That means that content will reflect the bias found in the source unless an editor has violated policy by censoring, whitewashing, or neutering what the reliable source says. When controversial, the content will normally include
825:
to the author of the source, maybe even using exact quotes, so readers can see that editors are not the source of the bias in the article. If a reader is still unhappy with that bias, their dispute is with the sources, not the
443:
to the author of the source, maybe even using exact quotes, so readers can see that editors are not the source of the bias in the article. If a reader is still unhappy with that bias, their dispute is with the sources, not the
489:
I suppose my question for you would be, what are you trying to convey with this paragraph beyond what's already covered in the "External factors" section? Maybe we can find a solution that would address both of our concerns.
668:
is discussed in the section, yes. For example, the section says that "Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of
889:
Knowledge, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that's for all of us to imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
672:
I think "Content will reflect the bias in a source" is fine as a heading; my concern is about the paragraph itself. How about something like this (a modification of your original version):
814:
436:
1044:
750:
Thank you. I hope to work with you in the future. This was a pleasure, an exercise in AGF, rather than the often painful and confrontational process we often see. Have a great day. --
448:
Your edit summary mentions "editors' responsibility to use a range of sources to avoid bias in articles". That is not our "responsibility" and sounds like an encouragement to create a
1054:
367:
334:
1049:
1039:
396:
115:
52:
228:
211:
191:
1064:
87:
918:
344:
297:
111:
93:
928:
224:
1059:
741:
696:
608:
501:
306:
640:. That would prime the reader to understand that the section addresses "editors are not the source of the bias in the article." --
948:
419:, do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias, so I added the following section:
907:
220:
33:
275:
82:
267:
166:
938:
73:
123:
106:
562:
what are you trying to convey with this paragraph beyond what's already covered in the "External factors" section
310:
134:
871:
363:
216:
37:
215:, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Knowledge. Please participate by editing
822:
735:
690:
602:
568:" If we do cover it, then my addition would be duplicative or superfluous. So do we cover it? Where? --
515:
495:
440:
172:
63:
1020:
1001:
974:
841:
761:
717:
651:
579:
467:
139:
78:
835:
755:
711:
645:
573:
461:
59:
965:
as the template's creator. I don't think this would be controversial, but I could list it at
877:
802:
The entire premise of
Knowledge started with a vision, a "radical idea", later expressed by
731:
686:
598:
491:
414:
302:
136:
813:
policy does not require either sources or content to be neutral. Instead, it requires that
566:
Do we address this topic at all? I didn't notice it mentioned as a cause of perceived bias.
435:
policy does not require either sources or content to be neutral. Instead, it requires that
960:
305:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
625:
I don't see that angle mentioned in the "External factors" section. Do you? If so, where?
810:
676:
555:
due to
English-speaking editors tending to cite sources from English-speaking countries
432:
985:
1033:
1016:
997:
970:
449:
1024:
978:
966:
849:
831:
769:
751:
745:
725:
707:
700:
659:
641:
612:
587:
569:
505:
475:
457:
138:
565:
561:
554:
521:
511:
867:
803:
389:
353:
289:
261:
564:" That's why I included it in that section. I started this thread by asking "
622:
document. We document biases and opinions all the time, and that's proper.
730:
Great! I've added that paragraph plus your new introduction from below. —
675:
Knowledge content reflects the biases in the sources it uses. The
399:
if you have a question about systemic bias in
Knowledge articles.
543:
301:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
203:
185:
384:
148:
140:
28:
15:
798:
Sources, not editors, introduce bias that should be preserved
666:
not all systemic bias is from editors but rather from sources
638:
Sources, not editors, introduce bias that should be preserved
352:
992:
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and change it, and fix all the
395:
This page is to discuss the essay. Please go to the above
546:. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
793:) Here's another attempt with a better introduction.
522:NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy.
912:) be the Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar? Consider:
904:Shouldn't the project's barnstar (currently the
685:Would that accomplish what you're looking for? —
1045:NA-importance Countering systemic bias articles
1055:High-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
512:is biased due to a biased selection of sources
237:Knowledge:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
1050:WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles
240:Template:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
8:
370:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
1040:NA-Class Countering systemic bias articles
256:
180:
630:Content will reflect the bias in a source
424:Content will reflect the bias in a source
408:Content will reflect the bias in a source
165:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
542:the sides, fairly and without editorial
212:the Countering systemic bias WikiProject
859:
634:Bias can come from sources, not editors
258:
182:
665:
7:
154:
152:
171:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
1065:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
325:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
309:. For a listing of essays see the
219:, and help us improve articles to
14:
1004:) 15:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
969:if it deserves more attention. –
295:This page is within the scope of
243:Countering systemic bias articles
1006:
984:
815:editors edit in a neutral manner
632:. Maybe it should be tweaked to
437:editors edit in a neutral manner
388:
288:
274:
260:
202:
184:
153:
122:
53:Click here to start a new topic.
1025:16:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
979:23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
919:The Anti-Wikibullying Barnstar
628:The proposed heading above is
1:
923:not the Wikibullying Barnstar
50:Put new text under old text.
811:neutral point of view (NPOV)
677:neutral point of view (NPOV)
433:neutral point of view (NPOV)
397:WikiProject discussion board
339:This page has been rated as
319:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
298:WikiProject Knowledge essays
929:The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
322:Template:WikiProject Essays
58:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1081:
953:not the Flammable Barnstar
933:not the Vandalism Barnstar
209:This page is supported by
1060:NA-Class Knowledge essays
360:
338:
283:
197:
179:
88:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
850:15:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
770:16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
746:16:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
726:15:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
701:15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
660:15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
613:15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
588:04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
532:This page in a nutshell:
506:03:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
476:21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
234:Countering systemic bias
227:standards, or visit the
192:Countering systemic bias
21:
1015:. I think that's it. –
949:The Anti-Flame Barnstar
908:Systemic Bias Barnstar
873:The birth of Knowledge
364:automatically assessed
357:
345:project's impact scale
83:avoid personal attacks
943:not the Spam Barnstar
362:The above rating was
356:
116:Auto-archiving period
939:Anti-Spam Barnstar
538:sides, but should
534:Articles must not
358:
167:content assessment
94:dispute resolution
55:
403:
402:
383:
382:
379:
378:
375:
374:
371:
255:
254:
251:
250:
231:for more details.
147:
146:
74:Assume good faith
51:
27:
26:
1072:
1014:
1010:
1009:
995:
988:
964:
952:
942:
932:
922:
911:
892:
891:
886:
884:
864:
844:
764:
720:
654:
582:
567:
563:
556:
523:
513:
470:
418:
392:
385:
361:
327:
326:
323:
320:
317:
303:Knowledge essays
292:
285:
284:
279:
278:
277:
272:
264:
257:
245:
244:
241:
238:
235:
229:wikiproject page
206:
199:
198:
188:
181:
158:
157:
156:
149:
141:
127:
126:
117:
29:
16:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1030:
1029:
1007:
1005:
994:What links here
993:
958:
946:
936:
926:
916:
905:
902:
897:
896:
895:
882:
880:
870:(August 2006),
866:
865:
861:
842:
830:How's that? --
762:
718:
664:The angle that
652:
580:
468:
412:
410:
324:
321:
318:
315:
314:
311:essay directory
273:
270:
242:
239:
236:
233:
232:
143:
142:
137:
114:
100:
99:
69:
12:
11:
5:
1078:
1076:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1027:
955:
954:
944:
934:
924:
901:
898:
894:
893:
858:
857:
853:
828:
827:
818:
807:
800:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
683:
682:
681:
670:
626:
623:
591:
590:
558:
550:
549:
548:
547:
526:
525:
518:
516:WP:NEUTRALEDIT
487:
483:
446:
445:
428:
427:
426:
409:
406:
401:
400:
393:
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:
372:
359:
349:
348:
337:
331:
330:
328:
293:
281:
280:
265:
253:
252:
249:
248:
246:
207:
195:
194:
189:
177:
176:
170:
159:
145:
144:
135:
133:
132:
129:
128:
102:
101:
98:
97:
90:
85:
76:
70:
68:
67:
56:
47:
46:
43:
42:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1077:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1003:
999:
991:
987:
983:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
962:
950:
945:
940:
935:
930:
925:
920:
915:
914:
913:
909:
899:
890:
879:
875:
874:
869:
863:
860:
856:
852:
851:
847:
846:
845:
837:
833:
824:
819:
816:
812:
808:
805:
801:
799:
796:
795:
794:
792:
791:edit conflict
771:
767:
766:
765:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
740:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
713:
709:
704:
703:
702:
698:
695:
692:
688:
684:
678:
674:
673:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
656:
655:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
610:
607:
604:
600:
595:
594:
593:
592:
589:
585:
584:
583:
575:
571:
559:
552:
551:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
519:
517:
509:
508:
507:
503:
500:
497:
493:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
463:
459:
453:
451:
450:false balance
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
416:
407:
405:
398:
394:
391:
387:
386:
369:
365:
355:
351:
350:
346:
342:
336:
333:
332:
329:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
294:
291:
287:
286:
282:
269:
266:
263:
259:
247:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
208:
205:
201:
200:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
178:
174:
168:
164:
160:
151:
150:
131:
130:
125:
121:
113:
110:
108:
104:
103:
95:
91:
89:
86:
84:
80:
77:
75:
72:
71:
65:
61:
60:Learn to edit
57:
54:
49:
48:
45:
44:
39:
38:Systemic bias
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1011:
989:
956:
903:
888:
881:, retrieved
872:
868:Wales, Jimmy
862:
854:
840:
839:
829:
797:
790:
788:
760:
759:
738:
716:
715:
693:
650:
649:
637:
633:
629:
618:
605:
578:
577:
539:
535:
531:
498:
466:
465:
454:
447:
423:
411:
404:
340:
296:
210:
173:WikiProjects
163:project page
162:
119:
105:
32:This is the
883:December 5,
823:attribution
804:Jimmy Wales
732:Mx. Granger
687:Mx. Granger
599:Mx. Granger
492:Mx. Granger
441:attribution
415:Mx. Granger
341:High-impact
271:High‑impact
217:the article
1034:Categories
961:FormalDude
855:References
669:coverage."
307:discussion
996:links. –
878:TED Talks
96:if needed
79:Be polite
34:talk page
1017:Reidgreg
998:Reidgreg
990:Doing...
971:Reidgreg
900:Barnstar
826:editors.
742:contribs
697:contribs
617:I guess
609:contribs
502:contribs
444:editors.
107:Archives
64:get help
843:PING me
832:Valjean
763:PING me
752:Valjean
719:PING me
708:Valjean
653:PING me
642:Valjean
581:PING me
570:Valjean
540:explain
469:PING me
458:Valjean
343:on the
120:90 days
619:one of
366:using
316:Essays
268:Essays
169:scale.
967:WP:RM
957:Ping
161:This
92:Seek
40:page.
1021:talk
1012:Done
1002:talk
975:talk
885:2015
836:talk
809:The
756:talk
736:talk
712:talk
691:talk
646:talk
603:talk
574:talk
544:bias
536:take
496:talk
462:talk
431:The
368:data
335:High
223:and
221:good
81:and
838:) (
758:) (
714:) (
648:) (
636:or
576:) (
464:) (
225:1.0
1036::
1023:)
977:)
951:}}
947:{{
941:}}
937:{{
931:}}
927:{{
921:}}
917:{{
910:}}
906:{{
887:,
876:,
848:)
768:)
744:)
724:)
699:)
658:)
611:)
586:)
504:)
474:)
118::
62:;
1019:(
1000:(
973:(
963::
959:@
834:(
789:(
754:(
739:·
734:(
710:(
694:·
689:(
644:(
606:·
601:(
572:(
560:"
553:"
520:"
510:"
499:·
494:(
490:—
460:(
417::
413:@
347:.
313:.
175::
112:1
109::
66:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
