Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
[...] it seems people are focusing on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning, and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
[[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
Stan
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
-kc-