"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
charles matthews wrote:
- The real issue with systemic bias is not that
it contributes to
_systematic_ bias. WP policy directly targets systematic bias, since the
NPOV policy says quite clearly that it is not acceptable. It may be
but it is not acceptable in the encyclopedia.
Steve Bennett wrote:
English Wikipedia is purely and simply, generally
sympathetic to an
American point of view. The Arabic Wikipedia is probably more
sympathetic to a Muslim point of view.
Who is right?
Is the english Wikipedia supposed to have an American point of view,
or is systemic bias whatsoever not acceptable in the encyclopedia?
Well, I think you may still be missing the key distinction.
Systematic bias: this means the kind of thing that is talked about,
generally, in discussions of 'media bias'. I happen to think that the whole
'media bias' debate is a serious dumbing down of political discussion: as if
all that mattered was to establish that one kind of media is 'propaganda',
and another is 'truth-telling'. But, in effect, systematic bias means
something like a propagandistic, party line effect on content. As I have
said, this is unacceptable under NPOV, article by article. Whether what
Steve writes is true or not, that would contradict fundamental policy.
Systemic bias is something else. For example if we have more males than
females editing WP, which is likely, then we get more coverage of
traditional male-interest things than traditional female-interest things.
Our discussion of haute couture fashion supposedly reflects that. (I find
that much easier to believe than what Steve says.) It has nothing to do
with whether people are editing to make a propaganda point. Since on a
wiki, what it written reflects ultimately the community writing it, there is
no obvious policy such as NPOV that is effective.