This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Wikipedia Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. African diaspora Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Countering systemic bias Unassessed This article 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Some ties between Metapedia, the British National Party and Wikipedia [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say that it's better they dedicate their efforts to writing POV articles about the BNP on an "encyclopedia" that no one but far-right loons read, rather than spending it trying to introduce that same POV into the Wikipedia article on the BNP. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The systemic racial bias that does exist among Wikipedia's editors is clearly pointed at White, Western peoples. EyePhoenix (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and most of them from the United States.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But certainly not ALL white, western peoples, not even those from the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing here statistical data on the (presumed) racial bias in WP: what is the percentage of "racial" articles, who are the contributors by race (Black, Yellow, White, otherwise), why we edit or do not edit, also grouped by race, etc.

Are there any WP:RS third-party articles that have studied these? Zezen (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some people have not understood the difference between an under-representation caused by different proportion of interested individuals from a racial group and under-representation caused by hostility toward a racial group. I hope all kinds of people jump in and edit Wikipedia responsibly, but the lack of diversity among the editors is not automatically an evidence of animosity by existing editors. Pete unseth (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this common-sense argument, Pete unseth. Still, do we have hard RS data ? Zezen (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute BS. Black people have been hounded from this project for years. Ganging up on certain Black editors, stalking, canvassing and leaving nasty comments about them on certain talk pages in an effort to discredit them are just some of the strategies used. When they raise concerns in the relevant noticeboards, they are ganged upon by the White Wiki Clique in order to diminish their concerns and ridicule them. I have watched countless of great Black and African editors hounded from the project by the White Wiki clique - most of whom are from North America. Even new Black or African editors interested in the project and pushed aside and driven off the project. Asking for a biased and dubious statistics in order to play down the issue is just silly. Many great editors who have been working on African and Black projects which I'm interested in have left the project because of what they had to endure thanks to the white Eurocentrics POV here. This has been my biggest headache here, because we have lost several great editors knowledgeable about the subjects I'm interested in. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding

undated comment added 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to create an article about that "White Wiki Clique"? This is a serious question. I would be interested to know who's in it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You see if I come and say this is also my experience on Wiki then I am the Race pusher, and marginalize. It is all in our head. We all have a chip on our shoulder which White editors brush aside.--169.0.4.160 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely the case here, unfortunately. There are racist Eurocentric editors on here. Not just from the U.S., I have had some very poor experiences with British editors here as well. Most everyone I know who was passionate about creating articles here is either blocked or no longer participate, due to hounding and the behavior depicted above. There should be a form of arbitration, but I am afraid the tendency will always be to protect the white racist contributors since that is what I have seen happen here from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.131.149.178 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But ...178, surely you must agree that data is still needed? Or at least useful? You can't just make claims based on personal experience. You risk putting yourself in a situation where you never believe any data because most data was collected by x and x is biased against y (according to your worldview). And you'll never change that worldview because you'll always view contrary data as biased so there will never be any way for you to change your mind. As long as they are statistics (objective info) and have some kind of peer review or fail safe, you should be open to accepting it. Nate Hooper (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page represents an (imperfect) equality of outcome approach, where the representation of each group in wikipedia articles should be proportional to their share in the society. That is, the problem - as stated - is that percentage of wikipedia content devoted to black people (in general) is smaller than the percentage of black people in some unspecified society (wiki users? world as a whole?).

Then, the problem statement leaves out exact definitions:

• what proportion is the defining factor here
• why other (non-black) groups of people are not represented here
• how exactly (if at all) is the "underrepresentation" measured

Then, it is not stated at all:

• why it is bad to have the certain groups of people underrepresented in wikipedia articles
• why the problem is one-sided, no opposing views are presented

Finally the "analysis" section does only the part that depends on the problem statement to be correct -- no analysis is made on whether the problem is real, who is affected and how.

I can see it going forward four ways:

• we describe the policies, content percentages and editor percentages (perhaps laying out the corresponding global population percentages), and let readers make their own minds on what and why
• we try to show what is the problem in "problematic" view of WP for certain groups (my take is that is it does not go along equality of outcome). IOW why people think WP is racist.
• you redefine the problem to actual intersectional oppression of WP editors, trying to push it even farther to the left
• nothing changes, we are left with this misleading stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.143.125 (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agree. this article is cited in deletion discussions for no reason very often. Clone commando sev (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too. Even if it was legitimate to claim inequality of wikipedia articles = discrimination, they haven't even included any data which shows that such under representation has taken place. Horrible article, this is. Nate Hooper (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to add any content to expand this article because there is a loop. Wikipedia is White dominant, African editors are pushed out. When they add ref reflecting either evidence of racism on wikipedia it is not a R.S. So we have a loop going. How do you write an article on Wikipedia about a problem with Wikipedia which is being accused of Racism? It creates a paradox. Esp when WIki policy on so-called RS marginalizes non-White publications, and content from independent sources. And all of this is moderated by the very people being accused of racism.--169.0.4.160 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a proper source, but guess what it fails Wiki Whites criteria. So all of this African opinions are marginalized as the opinions of crazy disgruntled editors . Keep it up. [Wiki is Racist in Full color https://medium.com/@kamy1/racist-wikipedia-da005c564d13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.160 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all sure how people can be certain about racism claims since most editors are anonymous. If some editors are truly being hostile, report them. We want Wikipedia to be open and welcoming. That is our aspiration, at least. Pete unseth (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with the IP. Pete, their are various ways of determining that e.g. editor's interest, location, editing habits, etc. Anonymity doesn't mean anything hence why we have an essay on Wikipedia:Systemic bias. There is no point reporting other editors to others who share the same racist and Eurocentric POV. We can delude ourselves all the day by saying Wiki is inclusive etc., but it is not. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

surely it would be possible to get a bot that auto detects racial slurs and removes them and warns the poster of them? would that work?Clone commando sev (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not everything is black or white WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.238.22 (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is China?" China is in Asia. Stop comparing yourself to Black people. If you feel there is something missing, be bold and add it there rather comparing yourself to others who have been the subject of descrimanation. Tryimg to undermine the struggles of those who have been discrimnated rather than targetting those who are discriminating comes of as jealousy, foolishness and disingenous. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templates. The first one (from 5 years ago) complained of poor global coverage. The comments cited in the article relate to English Wikipedia, and not exclusively to US editors. Of course, there's room for improvement in this area, but the template didn't seem to be serving any purpose. Neither did the other one (from 3 months ago), claiming "possible OR". The article is heavily sourced, and I don't see where the "possible OR" is. NightHeron (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The comments cited in the article relate to English Wikipedia", nope the article is about Wikipedia not just English Wikipedia. The use of US-souces and US-based opinions is disproportionate. Dentren | ^Talk 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the template, what's the solution? The first sentence of the article starts: The English Wikipedia has been criticized for... So it's obvious from the start that the article is about English Wikipedia. Should we retitle the article Racial bias on English Wikipedia? I checked a couple of other languages. I could find no article in French or Spanish Wikipedia about racial bias on Wikipedia. Spanish Wikipedia does have a subsection Critica a Wikipedia#Prejuicios raciales but no separate article, and the subsection just treats criticism of English Wikipedia, using English language sources.

Note also that the article Criticism of Wikipedia similarly treats only English Wikipedia. Should that also be retitled Criticism of English Wikipedia?

My point in removing the 5-year-old template was that it wasn't serving any useful purpose. NightHeron (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × previous comment) @NightHeron: Hi! This article indeed contains no original research whatsoever^{[at the moment]}, so I removed the relevant tag. As for Dentren's comment on the other one - seems like this is the case for every other article in this category (e.g., Criticism of Wikipedia or Gender bias on Wikipedia, where all of the content mainly relates to the English Wikipedia), and I'm not sure if this is actually avoidable. You may want to request additional comments from other editors to discuss the second tag more thoroughly. Juliette Han (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]