Chris, This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large proportion of the peer reviewed literature: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official who recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications was, "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on how the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden articles had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no reply. Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study? I've asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been a reply to that either. Best regards, Jim On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and > measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various > conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and > different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that. > > This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with > a > lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any > detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_about_the_impact_of_… > > I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views! > > Chris > > (User:The Land)

Hoi, There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of impact should we study? Remember there is this "neutral point of view" and remember Wikipedia is not about "original research" and that is what you are calling for. So consider what is it that makes any subject of relevance so that our board has to study this, why could we not leave it to the researchers ... or should we not first study the existing bias in our research ? Thanks, GerardM Op do 23 feb. 2017 om 18:24 schreef James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention....

I wouldn't place it high up the list of things WMF ought to be worried about.

I remember hearing something vaguely about studies looking at "left-right" bias among academic economists and in media coverage of economics.