Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Metapedia & British National Party

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

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)

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)

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

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

Partial info

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Purpose of this article

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)

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

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)

RS Why article is so light

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)

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)

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)

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)

WHERES CHINA

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

"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)

Removed templates

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)

"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)

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)

(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)

UPD: I didn't read your last three comments, but it appears you understand my logic. For the record, 'The English Wikipedia' comes from this edit. Juliette Han (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dentren: @Juliette Han:: I've requested a Third Opinion on how to handle a situation where, despite an article's title, its actual coverage relates only to English Wikipedia rather than to Wikipedia generally. Through a template, retitling, nothing, or something else? NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Since there are three editors involved, and I'm plainly on your side, I've decided to start RfC instead. I hope you don't mind. Juliette Han (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han:: No problem. I just went and canceled my Third Opinion request. I of course have no objection to an RfC. NightHeron (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to have a thrid opinion. As NightHeron seem to be suggesting this article should with its current content either continue with the non-Global template or be renamed to reflect its focus on English Wikipedia. Dentren | ^Talk 08:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia vs. English Wikipedia in the article's content

See Talk:Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia#Removed_templates. On behalf of NightHeron: how to handle a situation where, despite an article's title, its actual coverage relates only to English Wikipedia rather than to Wikipedia generally. Through a template, retitling, nothing, or something else? Note that English-centered nature of such articles may be inevitable due to Wikipedia being a language-divided project, where different divisions may be covered unequally. Juliette Han (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't doubt that there's racial bias in the Russian, French, etc. Wikipedias, since RS amply document Racism in Russia, Racism in France, etc. But the question is whether there's RS that document racial bias in other Wikipedias besides the English one, something that editors of those Wikipedias are probably better able to determine than we are. Given that we're not likely to be able to make Racial bias on Wikipedia truly global, I don't see the point of just keeping a template there (that's been there for 5 years) that serves no useful purpose. I would not be opposed to changing the title to "Racial bias on English Wikipedia" (in which case we should also change the titles of Criticism of Wikipedia to Criticism of English Wikipedia, of Gender bias on Wikipedia to Gender bias on English Wikipedia, and so on); nor would I be opposed to doing nothing (except removing the template), since the first sentence of the lead makes it clear that the article is about English Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To have an article called "Racial bias on Wikipedia" focused primarily on "Racial bias on English Wikipedia" would we deceptive and in fact reflective of another bias Wikipedia has, being Anglocentric. As such I suggest to either rename the article to have the title fit the content ("Racial bias on English Wikipedia") or make a big effort. The other issue that makes this article non-Global is that its examples empjasis racial issues that are typical of the United States and not necessarily worldwide (mention of Black history, African-Americans, Neo-Nazis). Dentren | ^Talk 08:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to find RS that discuss under-representation of people of the Global South and people of color in Europe, both among editors and among subjects of biographical articles. I notified WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Latin America about this RfC. NightHeron (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Changing the title of the article to Racial bias on English Wikipedia would work. What is the main argument against it?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That title would definitely be better, but the template would needed to be kept, because the article has an overt focus on "White people" and African-Americans, and the racial spectrum editing or not editing English Wikipedia is abviously wider than the binary perspective in the article. Dentren | ^Talk 15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a little about Latinos and about geographical bias against the Global South. NightHeron (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Changing titles to specify English Wikipedia makes sense. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Per the failed RM below I take it that moving to "X on English Wikipedia" is ruled out. In any case, I see the issue here as a content one, not a naming one: we need to add content about biases in other-language Wikipedias, whatever article structure and titles we have. Foreign language sources are the way to do this. We can look to other language editions' coverage of their own Wikipedias as a starting point. — Bilorv (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support explicitly titling English Wikipedia as Wikipedia is multlingual. Issues that affect Wikipedia per se (e.g. reliability) should remain "Wikipedia and foo"/"Foo of Wikipedia"/etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Racial bias on Wikipedia → Racial bias on English Wikipedia
• Gender bias on Wikipedia → Gender bias on English Wikipedia
• Criticism of Wikipedia → Criticism of English Wikipedia

– These articles treat English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia in general. NightHeron (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Doesn't seem accurate. The gender bias article talks about more than the English Wikipedia. And I don't see any reason to assume it would be outside the scope of the other two. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's a very interesting point, but per Nohomersryan, these articles do attempt to cover other language Wikis, especially Criticism of Wikipedia. I'll also note that very closely associated articles to these three aim for coverage of other Wikis and even have various sections about events on other wikis; see for example the discussion of Croatian Wikipedia at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Moving them also creates the problem that we could end up with a plethora of these pages to maintain and keep track of whenever a small wiki gets criticised in another language. Better would be to make the coverage on the pages include more non-English sources, which are certainly plentiful. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Keeping the articles with the titles they have now would mean they would most likely need to be tagged as non-Global for their Anglocentric views and undue representations of examples. One option is to split articles into shorter "all-Wikipedia" articles (current names) and some longer articles focusing on the issues of English Wikipedia. Dentren | ^Talk 09:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. A quick perusal of the above three self-reflexive entries reveals them to be virtually entirely concerned with English Wikipedia. In fact, the lead sentence of Racial bias on Wikipedia starts with the sentence, "The English Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of non-white people within its editor base." Furthermore, self-criticism as well as racial and gender bias may represent entirely different cultural concepts to users and editors of Arabic Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, Malayalam Wikipedia or Swahili Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: As I mentioned in an earlier discussion, looking at the French and Spanish Wikipedias, I was unable to find any sources on racial or gender bias in those encyclopedias. I have no idea about the Arabic, Chinese, Malayalam, or Swahili ones. It's realistic to work on finding more sources on underrepresentation on English Wikipedia of different races and parts of the world, so as to improve global coverage. But I'm not optimistic about finding sources that criticize race or gender bias on non-English language Wikipedias. Does anyone know of any entry in any of those encyclopedias that discusses this? NightHeron (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any data about the proportion of editors of French Wikipedia from francophone Africa or about how many BLPs it has of African immigrants in France. Is there an RS that discusses this? NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Many statements in these articles are dubious to be truths valid to all Wikipedia versions. There are reasons to believe that many English-language sources in these articles seem to conflate their understand of English Wikipedia with Wikipedia as a whole. As such academics that show no evidence of having read or substantially studied Wikipedias other than the English language version are appropiating the discourse as to which the malaises of Wikipedia are. Usually this means projecting American concerns about African-Americans, Western gender theory and categories, "First Nations" in the Anglophone countries etc. Dentren | ^Talk 12:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now, unless a large amount of information pertaining to other language editions of Wikipedia (e.g. Danish Wikipedia, Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia or Scots Wikipedia) can be included. Zakawer (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, except that it should be "the English Wikipedia". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, except that it should be "the English Wikipedia" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article discusses bias in Wikipedia. Outside sources link this to the relative number of editors and the lack of representative participation from underrepresented groups. Moving the article (and related ones) only serve to make the articles harder to find, which makes addressing the issues more challenging rather than less. We support representation that matches the community we serve. The articles are helpful and appropriate - if bias exists in any part of the Wikipedia, it exists in Wikipedia. Being overly specific serves no useful purpose. Cypherquest (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• I specifically oppose the move of criticism of Wikipedia as many, if not all, of the criticisms listed there also apply to other language wikipedias. Perhaps "criticism of English Wikipedia" should be split off, but I don't support a move. Neutral on the others. buidhe 23:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  These really should be discussed individually not as a group. buidhe 23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Comment - Although the criticisms in Criticisms of Wikipedia (and also in Racial bias on Wikipedia and Gender bias on Wikipedia) most likely apply to other language Wikipedias, not just the English one, do our sources say that? Do those articles specifically cover any other language Wikipedias? How many of the sources treat any of the other Wikipedias? In Criticisms of Wikipedia, out of the 200 sources I see just one source concerning a privacy issue with German Wikipedia and one source about an alleged libel case involving French Wikipedia (references 49 and 133). I didn't find any references in the racial bias or gender bias articles that deal with non-English language Wikipedias. NightHeron (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  My understanding is that many of these sources are themselves biased as they conflate English Wikipedia with the whole of Wikipedia. No distinction is made, and the specific malaisses of English Wikipedia are projected, without any hesitation, to the whole project. One may invert the question and ask, what would people think about an article about the whole of Wikipedia written overwhelmingly relying on French sources citing France-related examples, and talking about French-Algerian bias issues in the lead, and over again in the examples further down in the article. Dentren | ^Talk 10:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good point. BTW, French Wikipedia seems to have zero coverage of racial or gender bias on Wikipedia (either English WP or French WP); at least, there's nothing in the article Critiques de Wikipédia or the article Préjugé and no relevant links from those articles. Some would argue that the failure to cover those issues itself indicates a problem of bias. NightHeron (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. These articles should be scoped and titled to cover all language versions of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support (first two), Split (for the last one). Lack of scope on other Wikipedias for racial and gender bias. I think the move should be deserved for the first two to not hurt the projects. For the last one (Criticism of Wikipedia), it should be split into Criticism of the English Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia (other Wikipedias that are not English), because there is more coverage of criticism to the other Wikipedias. About ideological bias, also Split, same reason as why Criticism of Wikipedia should be split. SMB​99​thx Email! 07:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: In earlier edit, I closed the discussion in favour of. I was asked by some experienced editors to relist the discussion. I closed the discussion with an understanding: "most of the support commentors felt the articles are primarily about the English wikipedia, and very little about wikiepdias of other languages; and in one case a split was suggested." I have also relisted the discussion, if any other admin wants to close the discussion, kindly feel free to do so. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (with thanks to usernamekiran for reopening the discussion.) For all three of these articles, the focus is not intended to be on one particular language version, but the Wikipedia project in general. They can be expanded to cover other languages if the sources are available, but this proposed change just adds an unnecessary disambiguator. We're not going to write separate articles for each language. – bradv🍁 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as not WP:NATURAL and limiting of scope. Visitors to the English Wikipedia would expect these articles are about the English Wikipedia unless otherwise informed. If there is ambiguity, handle it in the article text. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. One day, there might appear a single news article discussing racial bias on French Wikipedia. Where would it go? Racial bias on French Wikipedia would fail WP:GNG because there isn't significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. But it is absolutely appropriate to include the content in a general article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bradv. If research comes out on these issues within Spanish Wikipedia or Simplified Chinese Wikipedia or the like it should be included here. On the off chance these articles get very large as a result, we can consider breaking out English-only research, but we aren't there yet. SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The gender bias article also mentions other language versions, and there has been research comparing gender gaps on different language versions that should probably be added to the article. These articles do seem to be a bit English-centric (as many of our articles are), but the solution to that is editing the articles to counter this systemic bias, not artificially narrowing their scope. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I had missed this the first time around but saw it today with the requested move at Criticism; I'm glad it was reopened. King of Hearts captures my thinking well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This type of move, I believe, would be inconsistent with disambiguation guidelines. I also can see a potential notability issue arising with such specific wording. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still happening on Wikipedia

They've been blocking and later bullying me for years for fixing anti-black, anti-African articles. There should be a class-action lawsuit against Wikipedia. I have many screenshots of the bullying and racism. 2603:7000:9F00:D200:C11B:7A17:F2BE:EBFB (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious sentence

"The concerns on the talk page focused on neutrality because biases white people experience were not discussed and the disbelief of the existence of microaggressions, despite their prevalence at the time in academic journals"

Something is fishy in the copula "because", because I do not see logical cause-and-effect between the two joined phases. Does anybpdy ave an access to the references cited to see what they actually say in this respect? Not to say there is a bit of WP:SYNTH: only the first footnote may be related to the whole phrase, while the remaning ones possibly (judging from titles) support the piece "their prevalence at the time in academic journals" - which is a weird phrasing, too: prevalence of microaggressions in sci journals? Really? If so, I would like to read about this in Wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: I agree. That sentence is incomprehensible as written, and it's loaded with 4 references, two of which I could get access to. [14] does not mention Wikipedia at all. [11] does briefly, but it does not actually discuss racial bias on Wikipedia. Rather, [11] uses the difference between the talk-page on Microaggression and the talk-page on Stereotype threat to make a point about the difference between the way those two concepts are discussed by academics.

The problems with the first paragraph of the main body go beyond the garbled last sentence. The entire paragraph was added in a single edit by an inexperienced editor last 2 July with an edit summary stating that the paragraph is a "literature review". As far as I can tell, nothing in the paragraph clearly and correctly presents what's in the sources. Source [9] is cited in a confusing way, and in any case [9] is not about racial bias on Wikipedia. Rather, it concerns the approach to history on Wikipedia. At one point it discusses how a few editors with a pro-Southern POV on the American Civil War attempted to change the article Origins of the American Civil War to remove content concerning slavery and racism, and how other editors prevented those changes because they were unsourced or poorly sourced. The third sentence misrepresents reference [10], which is not about racial bias, but rather sexist bias on Wikipedia and the challenges of editing about women in history.

I think the whole paragraph needs to be either removed or completely rewritten. The simplest solution would be to delete it. NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I know what's going on: The top of the article has a tag "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." This is way not the first time I encounter "drive-by edits" by students on assignment. Students are taught to write essays, which actually encourage to draw their own conclusions, and that is right. However this contradicts Wikipedia's idea of WP:NOR. Since there is nobody to defend their contribution, I agree with the idea to delete the piece: it is not worth our time to make sense of something that as no sense. If the cited sources do say something on racial bias in wp, and if they are not primary sources (which is actually not the case), then just write from scratch, Lembit Staan (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

racist policing of articles

The article should make more of a point about the way that US-specific POVs, including colonial racist history imposed on articles without much explanation, affect not only English but translated articles. For instanceP:

The version of slave codes that User:materialscientist restored at [2] is inaccurate for omitting a large chunk of history, probably deliberately to reflect a US POV in which slavery is denied as a factor in both the Revolution and Civil War. The version he removed [3] had good references including Smithsonian, US archives, Smithsonian, and linked articles with high quality comprehensive references that yours now omits.

This appears to be a racist policing of the article. The article does not, but probably should, make mention of the historical controversy about the centrality of the slave codes in US history, e g 1619 project. If the controversy continues, then, the "policing" itself likely will get more attention. I'd prefer that someone who understands history simply have a look at it and comment on the talk page, or simply restore and improve the version here. [4]

I have no particular agenda about this article other than that it actually link to the articles about the events, all the relevant events, and that it not omit huge chunks of history to serve a POV. It may be an eampl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.40.68 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the right place to raise this issue, since the episode you describe is internal to Wikipedia, has not been covered in RS, and so can't be put into the article Racial bias on Wikipedia. This talk-page is for improving that article, not for other things. You should first try to resolve this at the slave codes talk-page, if necessary using dispute resolution and possibly also at WP:RSN if you feel that the main issue is a disagreement over what sources are reliable.

Please also be aware that accusing another editor of racism is a serious violation of WP:NPA, and should never be done. NightHeron (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If wikipedia cared about combating racism, then the first thing to do would be to not ban combating racism. Josslined (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Basis section

@BlackAmerican: thanks for your addition to the article. I find the second quote from Liriano to be a good encapsulation of a potential positive response to bias, and am thinking it might fit well in the Responses section near the mention of Schomburg Center's edit-a-thon. That said, I feel that most of the racial bias content in the Basis section is well-covered in the article already. If you re-read the article, do you feel there's content in your addition that isn't addressed? The info on gender bias is off-topic here, and more appropriately covered at Gender bias on Wikipedia. There too, I recommend ensuring your efforts are not duplicated existing content. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Racial bias on Wikipedia → Racism on Wikipedia – 'Racism' is the most commonly used word to describe racial bias. I do not know of many articles about racism that use 'racial bias' instead of 'racism'. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.

Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia

Addressing Racism and Sexism in Wikipedia: A Panel Discussion Desertambition (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article discusses aspects of Wikipedia that are better reflected by the term "racial bias" than "racism". For example, this article discusses the fact that less African, Asian, and South American editors are on Wikipedia, Wikipedia citing English-language sources, and there being less published scholarship on certain areas than others. That is better reflected by the term "racial bias" than "racism". --Spekkios (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see why 'racism' would not apply to that as well. How is 'racial bias' the WP:COMMONNAME? Please expand. Evidence seems to suggest 'racism' is used much more often than 'racial bias'. Desertambition (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Neo-nazis and white supremacists editing articles to align with their beliefs is racism while Wikipedia reflecting the lack of scholarship or English-languages sources in certain areas is racial bias. This article covers both, and therefore should remain at racial bias. --Spekkios (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, racial bias is not a separate topic from racism. They mean the same thing. You still have not provided proof 'racial bias' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Almost every mention of 'racial bias' uses the word racism instead. Including in the sources I linked. Desertambition (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree for reasons I stated above. --Spekkios (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Racism is an inflammatory term because in common usage it implies intent. Some of the forms of racial bias covered in the article result from policies and practices that were instituted for reasons unconnected with race; from underrepresentation of certain races, ethnicities, or nationalities among editors; or from racial bias that exists in the source base that editors use. For example, a minor event in US politics or popular culture might get more coverage than a major event or cultural phenomenon in Africa, in part because there are far more US editors than African editors, and in part because mainstream sources tend to give a lot more coverage to the US than to Africa. That's certainly a form of racial bias, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors are guilty of racism. NightHeron (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Why do English language sources frequently talk about 'racism on Wikipedia' and not 'racial bias on Wikipedia'? As far as I understand racism and racial bias mean the same thing. Academics use the term 'systemic racism' and not 'systemic racial bias' for issues like you are describing. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is leading the charge in describing racism this way. Desertambition (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Spekkios has explained this well in the first Oppose post above. These two terms do not mean the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think there should be a separate article on Racism on Wikipedia since apparently this article does not encompass that? Desertambition (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Racism and racial bias are not interchangeable terms, but racism is a subset of racial bias. So to the extent there is racism on Wikipedia, that can be included within this article. There is no need for a separate article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, Racism is NOT a subset of racial bias. They are independent things. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how 'racism' is used in the media or in academia. I do not know where you are getting this information. Desertambition (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think the proposed title is a bit too harsh and narrow.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Why do reliable, English language sources frequently talk about 'Racism on Wikipedia' and not 'Racial Bias on Wikipedia'? Desertambition (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Laziness, sloppiness, clickbait, to push a narrative or agenda. There are all sorts of potential reasons one can think of. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please explain how the sources I linked are examples of laziness, sloppiness, clickbait, and an attempt to push a narrative or agenda. You have not done so. Desertambition (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. "Racism" and "racial bias" are not interchangeable terms. According to our article on racism, "Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.". That's not primarily what this article is about. Using the term "racism" in the title of this article would be less accurate and potentially misleading or confusing to readers Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Do you support the creation of a Racism on Wikipedia article? If it is a different topic entirely then it should have its own article. Desertambition (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's unnecessary. Actual racism on Wikipedia can be included within this article, as racism is a subset of racial bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, where are you getting this information? It contradicts most reputable sources I can find. Including the sources I have linked. Desertambition (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Desertambition: I took a look at your two linked examples of the word "racism" used in preference to "racial bias" when discussing the situation on Wikipedia. In the first, the WIRED article, the word "racism" is only in the title, not in the article itself, which uses the word "bias". (From what I know of the publishing industry, article titles are often chosen by editors, not by writers, for what it's worth.) For the second, the panel discussion video, "racial and gender bias" appears in the description, and both "racism" and "bias" appear in the transcript. So I'm not convinced from these examples that this article should be moved, but if you have other examples published in reliable sources I'm willing to look at those as well. Funcrunch (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Funcrunch: Indeed, per WP:RSHEADLINE, headlines are not reliable, because they "are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this article describes the bias in coverage rather than its coverage of racism or acts or racism in general or acts on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Bias" is an objective, demonstrable fact. "Sexism" is an imputed motive for that fact that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral The new title is more conscience, but the opposers listed problems with it. 209.201.121.4 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BIPOC version of Women in Red

Is there a BIPOC version of Women in Red? Women in Red is reducing systemic bias against women. I looked around for a similar group and didn't find one but maybe I missed it...I would like to join forces on creating and expanding articles for Black, Indigenous and People of Color. It's important for BIPOC to see themselves represented online. TheTypingKat (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

What is BIPOC? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you're asking that in good faith and can't access BIPOC for whatever reason, it means Black and Indigenous People of Color. Desertambition (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I live in a country where, believe it or not, the term people of colour is never used. (I suspect that would be true of most of the world's nations.) Nor, therefore, is BIPOC. This is a global encyclopaedia. Writers should never assume all readers live in the same culture they do. BIPOC wasn't Wikilinked in the OP's question. I really shouldn't have to look it up for myself. But thank you for explaining. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's true that in many countries people of color are the majority, and therefore, is an unneccesary term. The term BIPOC is often used in conversations about racialization. My apologies as this post should be on the talk page of Women in Red and WP:TEAHOUSE. TheTypingKat (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the term "BIPOC" is an Americanism; as is POC. In most parts of the world the thought to lump black and indigenous people together in such a term would be unlikely to figure, whereas the constituent term "POC" seems to refer to the entirety of the non-white population ("non-white" is hence a clearer and perhaps more global term to use). Regarding the first point of both terms being Americanisms, to give another example, the word Coloured has a particular ethnic meaning in South Africa, but to use it in relation to populations in other countries wouldn't make sense. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the relevancy of both comments in relation to asking what BIPOC means. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM and this is the talk page for discussion of the article, not your personal thoughts on the acronym BIPOC. Desertambition (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition My apologies, I only commented to express agreement with HiLo48. It does matter, however, that Wikipedia articles that aren't nation-specific avoid using (largely) nation-specific terms. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

...though this article doesn't seem to use at least one of the terms in contention anyway. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and this is all happening under a user who is requesting guidance. Perhaps they would be better served elsewhere but that discussion is not even taking place. Desertambition (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @TheTypingKat:, I am not sure if there is a BIPOC Women in Red but you may be better served asking your question in the WP:TEAHOUSE where experienced editors kindly assist newer editors who need help. This talk page is focused on the content of the racial bias on Wikipedia article. Desertambition (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually the best place to ask this would be on the talk page for the Women in Red project. 17:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a good place to ask as well but I am sure that editors would be willing to help at the WP:TEAHOUSE and it's good to let newer editors know they can ask questions there if they need to. Desertambition (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition - Thank you for pointing me to the WP:TEAHOUSE. I will definately post to the WiR talk page. I am finally understanding talk pages more. There's so much to learn! TheTypingKat (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Judgement made in first few sentences

The first few sentences seem to present the criticisms as fact and the article (at least at a brief glance) doesn't seem to present any differing perspectives (if they have been presented). Is there any kind of debate around this subject that would warrant inclusion for the sake of balance and could any part of this article be editorialising? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Racism throughout this page

This article is in dire need of help from an admin. It seems to have been been largely edited by and written by individuals that have racially motivated agendas - made clear by the talk page, and the frequent misuse of terms such as “mongoloid”, “caucasoid”, etc which don’t belong on a wikipedia page which by policy should maintain a neutral point of view, and certainly not racially motivated ones. 175.36.199.109 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias?

Can we really consider it a bias or inequality that less black people than white people edit Wikipedia? I mean, most people from developed countries with internet access are white. This page also solely addresses the projects on Wikipedia made for black people and the ratio of white and non-white people on the platform. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Native perspectives

Kyle Keeler just published a great scholary article, "Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia", and I would like to incorporate some of it into this article, which currently seems exclusively focused on Black-white interactions. Where would the best place to insert non-Black-white interactions into this article? Yuchitown (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yuchitown, I just saw this note, and agree that the article would be improved by including Native American and First Nations perspective. In addition to Keeler, it seems there would also be additional scholarly writings about this matter. Netherzone (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a great nor scholarly article. As far as I know the author never interviewed any of the Wikipedians he maligns in his paper, and as indicated by this lack of communication he seems wrong on almost everything he wrote. His attempt to meld out-of-context quotes, assumed motives, and criticisms of character into a preconceived narrative didn't go well, which should be obvious to anyone who fact-checks the work. Tamzin covered this well in a recent Signpost essay. For Wikipedia purposes, is there a reputable source which quotes Keller's paper and affirms its accuracy and journalistic responsibility to report truthfully? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, let's forget about Keeler for the moment. Do you think this article on Racial bias on Wikipedia could be improved by including an Indigenous perspective, meaning First Nations, Native American, including Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians? If so, would you be interested in helping out? Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is substance to the claim that this bias exists, of course it should be included. I'm not knowledgeable about the full extent of perceived or real racial bias on Wikipedia, and will leave its analysis to others. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an important topic, but please remember that indigenous or native doesn't just mean American. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the point of this statement. No one has ever said that Indigenous or Native is equal to American but this article was written by an American scholar about Indigenous people in America or Native American's and the racial bias that is built into the foundation of the encyclopedia. The bias against Indigenous people on Wikipedia is not solely an American issue or even an English language issue. As long as we are remembering things let's remember that some of the tactics that have been employed in recent discussions about Indigenous people are based a very old, very tired racist agenda to marginalize Indigenous people and others. While none of the editors involved may hold specific racist views against Indigenous people, I would hope none do, they support positions which are inherently racist towards and detrimental to Indigenous people and communities. Before anyone says that isn't Wikipedia's problem, I dare say it is everyone's problem, including Wikipedia. Else just acknowledge the racial bias and declare you have no intention of allowing those sources to be considered reliable and Indigenous voices aren't welcome and let that be that because that's the message you are sending when an Indigenous person comes here and sees that they are basically treated the same as a rock or plant and when they speak up about it the logic used against them is that they are just seeking favoritism over "colonial" and "religious" people. We all know who has been the favored ones out of that grouping in recent past. --ARoseWolf 12:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't agree with Keeler on a lot of what he said, especially the motives behind CV losing the mop and even her off-wiki harassment. That was tragic as is. I don't think it had anything to do specific to her work on Native American topics. But I also recognize she upset some people with her staunch support and the way she protected those articles. I will always applaud her work in this area. --ARoseWolf 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Funding of wikipedia

Just about to donate, but now wont. Excuses for racial biases on wikipedia NOT acceptable in the 21st century. There is always someone, somewhere EXCUSING SHIT. 2A02:C7C:7A89:3E00:9CF0:94B1:F51A:A6A5 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are immigrants deciding Black American lineage?

Black Americans are a distinct lineage created in North America, a product of several ethnicities and races. This fact threatens all non-Black Americans.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tariq_Nasheed This page incorrectly describes FBA or Foundational Black Americans. FBA is a lineage not an ideology. The people freed by the Emancipation Proclamation are foundational to America and not immigrants in any way shape or form. The Black American lineage was created in the United states of America.

https://www.science.org/content/article/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ethnogenesis#:~:text=The%20ethnogenesis%20of%20African%20Americans,to%2012.5%20million%20African%20slaves.

https://officialfba.com/https://www.science.org/content/article/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Tariq_Nasheed#Tariq_Nasheed_FBA_mischaracterized 2600:8802:3A09:6400:FC66:3858:AE10:A42B (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)