Countering systemic bias

This template is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias articles

I think the fact that we have no infoboxes to indicate that assertions of NPOV may be driven by editors' systemic biases is a failure of self-reflection. Suggestions welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is an omission. After all, it is a serious accusation to say about an editor that he is biased. It would need proof also. And even then I think this would hardly fit in our Wikipedia's self-image of "political correctness". Debresser (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is for systematic bias in editors. And for systematic bias in Wikipedia itself we do have {{Systemic bias}}. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making accusations. I'm saying that the systemic bias of wikipedia editors needs to be acknowledged somehow, on the proverbial ground -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream is defined as "the current thought that is widespread" or "that of the majority". According to Wikipedia, mainstream is opposed to cult followings and fringe theories.

• since mainstream then, does not mean propaganda, and Wikipedia is not censored
• since corporate media and their news organizations may be subject to systemic bias, which may contain potential propaganda
• since corporate media and their news organizations are generally not suited for academic topics: "for information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports"
• since corporate media through their news organizations often propose opinion content (editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces which Wikipedia regards as primary sources): "rarely reliable for statements of fact"
• since watchdog journalism can fail

I suggest we improve Template:Systemic_bias to encompass these concepts. This is the stub of a potential new version of the template:

The Template:Systemic_bias#When and how to remove documentation page new section linked from "conditions to do so are met", should mention that:

• help to improve can be given by suggesting reliable indipendent sources from either corporate media news organizations, or else (especially if academic topics are the cause of dispute), in order to counter-balance the biased views

I believe quite a few controversial topics could benefit from it. Possibly, the issue must have been previously acknowledged by consensus on the Talk page of the relative article, or maybe anyone can raise it with appropriate new section on the Talk page.. not sure about this. And the goal is not only to fix it, but also to inform the reader about it.

It's clear, if you get into Wikipedia policies and article's building, you slowly realize (consulting editing and talk page histories) that some controversial articles either jump straight on the Propaganda model or start with balanced views but then the POV falls on systemic bias with a propagandistic accent, on corporate media and institutional versions of evidence, when in fact reliable indipendent sources often speak of an opposite mainstream POV.

I happened to read the above linked articles thanks to a mighty suggestion (which I sincerely invite you to consult too, in order to understand the "new version" I'm proposing) and I think the faulty process described takes place because of the weight given to the above cited entities being regarded as the most peer-reviewed and/or respectable sources, thus given too much weight over entirely plausible counter views. I think you would agree that publishing this type of potentially biased information without some sort of disclaimer is deceptive to the reader and counter-productive for the project. I believe this template's "new version" helps editors spot issues and consequent fixes better when it comes to systemic bias, and readers to gain the most from the article by duly being in the position of reaching their own conclusions.

Note: This debate has been linked in the WikiProject Countering systemic bias Talk page and in its Global perspective task force Talk page. 82.132.244.126 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Much too long! Debresser (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that. I understand as it took me days to read and elaborate all the concepts. But here you have them tidily layed out.. it should be faster. Could not find a shorter way to explain. 82.132.244.126 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the text of the template is much too long. We try to make maintenance templates as concise as possible. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. As stated it is just a stub. It could be used the small "Learn how to remove this template" message as it is in many templates (look at these for example) after the bold statement of policies violation, and remove all that comes next. I guess a good solution would be to then add specific info on how to remove it in this section. Otherwise creating a new section describing how to remove it on its documentation page, linked by a message like "Don't remove until conditions to do so are met" as it is for Template:POV. 82.132.216.240 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited into a shorter template according to the second solution. 82.132.216.240 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it make sense to anyone? It does quite a bit to me. I can only agree with it. 2A00:23C4:7100:C300:41F:8A3C:3779:4950 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]