The specific examples you started with are not to my knowledge "problem POVs" -
unless one of the White Power groups showed up while I wasn't paying attention. It
would seem much more of the "not gotten there yet" or "not (yet) well
covered in reliable sources" for the specific ones.
Am I misunderstanding?
Unless I did miss something, it seems to me that the specific examples were poorly chosen
and did not either clearly identify or illustrate the problem you are now getting at.
Which is a real but very complicated problem.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
George
Thank you for your interest.
It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.
I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and
what the POV are that lead to that behavour.
Rui
On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let me pose a set of questions -
1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
reached creating some articles?
3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David
I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
bias [which] is a serious problem"?
Rui
On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <correia.rui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
and
> only
after that showing that you somehow agree.
No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
This is not a useful definition.
Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
going to solve it.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>