Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Enhanced interrogation techniques listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Enhanced interrogation techniques to be moved to Use of torture under George W. Bush. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge discussion at WP:FTN

There is a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard about the articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Please consider joining the discussion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WOW people are being so awful. Sad that this is even up for discussion. PersusjCP (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Head of state

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Head of state regarding representation of countries in the lead photograph of the article. The thread is NPOV. Thank you. GeebaKhap (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia institutional bias and Covid-19

There is a conflict of interest when the scientific establishment itself is the subject of an article. Many topics about COVID-19, for example, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and COVID-19_lockdowns#Protests, challenge the biomedical and public health authorities themselves, which creates the possibility of a conflict of interest in the sources that are saying these hypotheses are lacking evidence.

OK, so there is no evidence in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. But those are the same institutions that benefit from the prevailing narrative due to their reliance on governments and drug companies who fund their research and refuse to allow certain investigations to be conducted.

Furthermore, there is a social pressure within the scientific community to not question the public health authority's recommendations due to the perception of an emergency that requires uniform compliance in order to save lives.

The politicalization of public health measures, including mask mandates and lockdowns, led to skepticism of dissenting voices, which were sometimes perceived as politically motivated or conspiratorial.

Publication bias occurs when research that aligns with the prevailing consensus is more likely to be published, while studies that challenge the mainstream narrative may be overlooked or rejected. Even well-credentialed scientists who challenge the mainstream view may struggle to have their work disseminated and may be dismissed by the public as dissenters or even conspiracists.

Scientific opinions that diverge from the official viewpoint are often perceived as politically motivated, which further reduce their acceptance in the mainstream.

The dominance of institutional bias, media influence, and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic created an environment where alternative perspectives were less likely to be incorporated into the mainstream narrative.

Key health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), shaped the public discourse, often marginalizing dissenting views. This institutional authority, coupled with the widespread media reliance on these organizations for guidance, led to the amplification of the prevailing narrative while sidelining other perspectives.

Furthermore, the media’s framing of certain issues, including vaccine efficacy and the severity of the pandemic, often reinforced the consensus view and downplayed criticism or alternative theories.

As a result, despite valid concerns raised by biomedical professionals, these factors collectively limited the visibility and influence of alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Systemic bias in Wikipedia discussions, in light of prejudice

Hi, I only recently came across this project - interestingly, it didn't come up in the research I did for a very relevant essay. I guess Wikipedia is such a huge place that it's hard not to miss a lot (and WikiMedia is even bigger)!

Something I've been wondering about is whether Wikipedia has any functioning mechanism to counter the tendency for editors to get burned out on editing particular pages due to the behaviour of other editors. For example, bullying, chauvinism or outright bigotry have a well-established tendency to push out people belonging to relatively marginalised groups - something I have observed on Wikipedia's autism-related pages over a number of years. I imagine this also helps explain the perennial male-dominance of this site!

Of course, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that consensus should be reached among the editors who show up to a page, and that, for example, "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" is considered inappropriate. But faced with prejudice, stonewalling and so on, editors from more marginalised groups tend to just stop showing up over time. Do we have a way of countering that, besides the laborious dispute resolution mechanisms and obviously the slow influx of new editors over time? Oolong (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)