4 ms·

Wikipedia and Inherent Open Source Bias

15 points by spxdcz 16y ago

alxp 16y ago
I think the open source projects just have more people who would take notice and revert the vandalism of the filthy deletionists.
- spxdcz 16y ago
  Not in this case: both open source and proprietary listings tend to notice + argue their cases, if they're flagged for deletion. It just seems that proprietary systems get a harder deal of it. For example, check out the history of the PivotX listing mentioned in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=... - although it was flagged as 'non notable', it got away with staying on the list just by deleting the 'spam' flag and saying 'but we're not a blatant advert' (but not dealing with the notability argument at all). After that, nothing has been said. Compare that with the attention that Ektron (a well known proprietary system) received: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ektron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...
hugh3 16y ago
It's true that wikipedia is imperfect. One of the ways in which wikipedia is imperfect is inconsistent treatment of subjects whose notability is borderline. Luckily this doesn't impact too badly on the usability of the encyclopaedia for most people since the borderline-notable articles are the ones that are least read. The article suggests that this should be fixed by making wikipedia easier to edit, allowing people who can't quite grok the complexities of the existing interface or difficult guidelines like "Verifiability" to make their own entries. I am extremely unconvinced that this would raise the overall quality of wikipedia. Overall I think there are two schools of thought about wikipedia. I join the school of thought which thinks it's like a dog walking on its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's doesn't work perfectly we should be amazed that it's done at all. This guy seems to be in the school of thought that thinks the dog might walk a lot further if we gave it shoes.
- spxdcz 16y ago
  That's quite the metaphor you've got going on there... Not at all: what I'm saying is that it would be better if it had a more diverse, representative audience contributing to it. That just makes sense. Why wouldn't you want older, more experienced people contributing to an encyclopedia? Or women!?? I agree that given the current complexities of the system, a wider audience would currently not be able to easily improve the quality - there would be plenty of mistakes. But this is the fundamental problem, and some would say responsibility, that Wikipedia now faces.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    I'm intrigued by criticisms of Wikipedia, because most of them are terrible. Often poorly constructed, illogical or just plain demented. This one however is a genuine problem. I first read about it on Wikipedia a few years back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias The origins of Wikipedia's bias The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer.[1] They've got various projects to counter this imbalance and it all seems worthwile. I'm glad to see coverage of things like the Second Congo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War) which were mere stubs when I first looked at them have been thouroughly fleshed out. I will say though, that no matter how many non-white, blue-collar, elderly woman from developing nations sign up for Wikipedia I doubt many will be interested in baby-sitting a list of Content Management Systems.
mkramlich 16y ago
I tried adding my zombie game Dead By Zombie to Wikipedia in a list of, oh, zombie games, but it was deleted for not being notable. I thought that many of the games that were listed were, well, not notable and insignificant. I also dug around and learned that the person who single-handedly rejected my game was a teenager. From that experience and reading about other folks experiences I concluded that it was futile unless I wanted to game their system.
adbge 16y ago
I have to disagree with the author's premise. Just because the majority of Wikipedia editor's are male, this doesn't inherently mean the system will be biased. The writer points out that many editors are not university educated like this means that their edits are of less worth than those with a degree. That's laughable. To summarize: more FUD aimed at Wikipedia.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Wikipedia is rapidly becoming irrelevant - because of the deletionists. Looking on Wikipeidia is by definition looking for little-known or obscure facts. These are exactly what get deleted. It will soon be a shrine to the obvious.

15 points by spxdcz 16y ago

alxp 16y ago

I think the open source projects just have more people who would take notice and revert the vandalism of the filthy deletionists.

spxdcz 16y ago
Not in this case: both open source and proprietary listings tend to notice + argue their cases, if they're flagged for deletion. It just seems that proprietary systems get a harder deal of it. For example, check out the history of the PivotX listing mentioned in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=... - although it was flagged as 'non notable', it got away with staying on the list just by deleting the 'spam' flag and saying 'but we're not a blatant advert' (but not dealing with the notability argument at all). After that, nothing has been said. Compare that with the attention that Ektron (a well known proprietary system) received: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ektron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...

hugh3 16y ago

It's true that wikipedia is imperfect. One of the ways in which wikipedia is imperfect is inconsistent treatment of subjects whose notability is borderline. Luckily this doesn't impact too badly on the usability of the encyclopaedia for most people since the borderline-notable articles are the ones that are least read. The article suggests that this should be fixed by making wikipedia easier to edit, allowing people who can't quite grok the complexities of the existing interface or difficult guidelines like "Verifiability" to make their own entries. I am extremely unconvinced that this would raise the overall quality of wikipedia. Overall I think there are two schools of thought about wikipedia. I join the school of thought which thinks it's like a dog walking on its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's doesn't work perfectly we should be amazed that it's done at all. This guy seems to be in the school of thought that thinks the dog might walk a lot further if we gave it shoes.

spxdcz 16y ago
That's quite the metaphor you've got going on there... Not at all: what I'm saying is that it would be better if it had a more diverse, representative audience contributing to it. That just makes sense. Why wouldn't you want older, more experienced people contributing to an encyclopedia? Or women!?? I agree that given the current complexities of the system, a wider audience would currently not be able to easily improve the quality - there would be plenty of mistakes. But this is the fundamental problem, and some would say responsibility, that Wikipedia now faces.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I'm intrigued by criticisms of Wikipedia, because most of them are terrible. Often poorly constructed, illogical or just plain demented. This one however is a genuine problem. I first read about it on Wikipedia a few years back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias The origins of Wikipedia's bias The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer.[1] They've got various projects to counter this imbalance and it all seems worthwile. I'm glad to see coverage of things like the Second Congo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War) which were mere stubs when I first looked at them have been thouroughly fleshed out. I will say though, that no matter how many non-white, blue-collar, elderly woman from developing nations sign up for Wikipedia I doubt many will be interested in baby-sitting a list of Content Management Systems.

mkramlich 16y ago

I tried adding my zombie game Dead By Zombie to Wikipedia in a list of, oh, zombie games, but it was deleted for not being notable. I thought that many of the games that were listed were, well, not notable and insignificant. I also dug around and learned that the person who single-handedly rejected my game was a teenager. From that experience and reading about other folks experiences I concluded that it was futile unless I wanted to game their system.

adbge 16y ago

I have to disagree with the author's premise. Just because the majority of Wikipedia editor's are male, this doesn't inherently mean the system will be biased. The writer points out that many editors are not university educated like this means that their edits are of less worth than those with a degree. That's laughable. To summarize: more FUD aimed at Wikipedia.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

Wikipedia is rapidly becoming irrelevant - because of the deletionists. Looking on Wikipeidia is by definition looking for little-known or obscure facts. These are exactly what get deleted. It will soon be a shrine to the obvious.