 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
WikiBigotry is an extreme form ofbias towards a particular kind, type, or category of article, content, or user. Regardless of the intention (or lack thereof) or the justification, this concept manifests itself in one of several forms such as the selective application of Wikipedia policies, the stringency of the application (light for articles favored, heavy or by strict "letter of the law" for those not favored), or the veiled objection to an article or particular content based on personal bias.
The concept of WikiBigotry is based onbigotry, the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of theirprejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person'sopinion,ethnicity,race,religion,national origin,sex,gender,gender identity,sexual orientation,age,disability,socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
Often the bias is sincere with the user genuinely believing in their stance and thus feeling justified by their motive. This ultimately leads to content or entire articles that is/are biased and that give the desired viewpoint anunbalanced amount of attention.
TheWikipedia project strives for aneutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited bysystemic bias that discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics, or, ignorance of or the lack of a basic factual understanding. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects, or their systematic elimination on Wikipedia which is a form ofcensorship.
Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. Anunfounded orspeculative accusation of WikiBigotry isaspersion-casting and could be considered aWP:Personal attack.
Observable viaedit summaries, talk pages, and article reversions, there appears to be a bias againstIP editors on Wikipedia. There are a number of legitimate, plausible, and/orgood faith reasons as to why an editor does not have an account or is simply not signed in if they do, but edits, comments, and contributions made by IP editors do seem to be challenged or reverted more easily than by registered users.
From a practical perspective, there is a clear bias againstnew editors because of their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. The assumption being that because they are new to the site and community, therefore they are ignorant and inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia and unfamiliar with some (or most) of the more commonly applied policies.
But given the growing popularity of Wikipedia and the increasing availability of Internet access around the globe, it's not only possible but likely that many new users will have access to or knowledge ofhigh quality references as well as be inspired to edit based on those references. As such, this bias will ultimately harm Wikipedia, lower the quality of article content, and drive away potentially valuable editors.
Whether based on perception or confirmation by the subject, many real world biases are present in the Wikipedia community. According to various reports and studies, the Wikipedia community isas much as eighty percent (80%) male with the balance being female ornonbinary.
Some of the areas where this is especially perceived as "problematic" are in articles about female subjects (WP:BLP or otherwise) as well as subjects that are feminine orfeminist in nature.
The Noticeboards that will likely be involved are those for:Reliable sources,Biographies of living persons,Edit warring, and/orNeutral point of view. In more extreme cases it may involveDispute resolution orGeneral sanctions whichinclude, but are not limited toArticle ban or page bans,Topic bans,Interactive bans (between users), orSite bans. The latter are in increasing order of severity. It is HIGHLY recommended that a user utilize a method that is appropriate to the kind and level of infraction committed.
If in doubt,ask the community!
Subject-based WikiBigotry is nearly impossible to prove without a direct admission by a user, but it can be observed or demonstrated through the review of contribution history for a suspected user. Some users will openly admit to their bias on talk pages while others will endlessly debate or fight over a topic that they have a personal bias towards, but attempt to hide it through a variety of means.
Common subject areas where WikiBigotry may be observed usually relate topolitical,religious, orhuman sexuality topics where beliefs are based onmorals andsocietal norms. Instead of a clinical reporting of facts or data fromreliable sources, personal beliefs invariably enter into the editing of the article and often createedit warring or intense unending and often circular debateof the subject versus simply talkingabout the subject.
Wikipedia policy does an excellent job of defining what areliable source is or is not. But when it comes to the application of those policies, there is often either great debate or mass confusion regarding specific sources, their reporting of facts and data versus opinion or editorial material, and/or the efficacy of their fact checking or information sources.
This template can be very helpful. Just fill in the topic and place it on a talk page or similar space:
{{Find sources|insert subject here}}
It results in this...
Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL
Many editors contribute to Wikipedia because they see Wikipedia as progressing to (though perhaps never reaching) the ideal of a repository of human knowledge. More pragmatic editors may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view" or "God's-eye view". Thus, the idea ofsystemic bias is more troubling than intentionalvandalism; vandalism is readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion at hand but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia and its contributors with the world at large.
The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is very likely permanent. As long as the demographic of English-speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world. Thus, the only way systemic bias would disappear entirely is if all of the world's population spoke English with the same fluency and had equal access and inclination to edit the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias can be mitigated with conscious effort. This is the goal of theCountering Systemic Bias Project.
In an instance where an editor is strictly or sternly applying Wikipedia policies towards an article or particular content, the resulting activity (including conversation on the respective talk page) usually garners attention from other users. This additional scrutiny can result in more editors working on the content or article, finding additional or better references, and/or the content or article being balanced and more complete.
Quite simply, be more open-minded.
Learn to understand whatyou don't know
This is as difficult of a concept to explain as it is to apply, but it is critical (if not vital) to reducing Systemic Bias.
The list can go on and on, but hopefully this is sufficient to convey the idea. The objective of this concept is to minimize bias and perhaps even unintended vandalism of an article because an Editordoes not understand what they do not know.
This is a large project, so work where you can best serve the central content and behavioral expectations, particularly those related toWikipedia's policy relating to neutral point of view.