Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 3

Limited geographic scope

This section's name has already been changed once today, for the better (substituting "limited" for "overly narrow"). However, in my opinion, having "geographic" in the title might lead readers to believe that the only problem with these articles are that they don't mention enough countries. As I've explained in the case of Adoption, the problem I'm having with it is not at all the lack of information on practices in specific countries, but rather just the general perspective, which is limited to a developed world viewpoint. Adding information about lawyers in twenty different African countries might not be the best way to deal with Lawyer either (although surprising and very refreshing...)

I do know that this is reasonably well explained by the text under the headline. It's just that if the headline points you in a certain direction you might miss that. My best suggestion for the moment is to call the section just "Limited scope" or maybe "Limited scope and/or perspective", and to change the reference in other parts of the text accordingly. Alarm 15:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title "Limited scope/perspective", given the systemic bias, may lead people to think that, for instance, Adoption does not have enough on either US liberal or US conservative views of adoption — so I think some mention of geography might be needed. I agree the current title is not quite right though. --Xed 16:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've got a point there. Do you think that "Limited geographic scope and/or cultural perspective" covers it? (Although, in principle, I'd like something shorter.) Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing while we're on the subject. Under "6.6 Topics to add" above, we seemed to reach consensus on creating two templates, one for limited geographic scope and one for limited cultural perspective. Ideally, they should in some way refer to the CSB page, which might be an excellent way to attract attention to this project and the need for it. Considering the controversy around the Important Stub template mentioned above, I'd like to ask those of you who've been around the Wikipedia longer than I if it would be OK to create those templates and start slapping them on articles en masse, or if we should initiate some kind of discussion about this, e.g. on Village Pump. Also, since I have no experience in creating and handling templates, if someone else could assist with this task, I'd really appreciate it! Alarm 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've created the template {{Limitedgeographicscope}} . What do people think? Can you think of a better wording?

Do we need more specific templates? Is it worth seperating out in American, Anglo-American, Developed world limitation of scope. Are there any more significant ones? It would be easy enough to create three or more templates and it would mean the category system wouldn't get overloaded. I could easily see that using these templates would lead to thousands of articles being rightly tagged.We have to be careful about this or any templates will be used as part of the NPOV debates from partizans. I think we are fine with geographical or cultural scope; but we must avoid any suggestion of political or religious bias. A question is there a difference between geographical and cultural scope?

To amend the template click [1] and edit as normal. To create another template just copy that template content to another template page, e.g. [2] and paste, then amend the wording as normala and save.

We also need to consider the category system. I've created the category Wikiproject Countering systemic bias as the top category with limited geographic scope below. Any change in number of templates implies a number of sub categories.

We should announce it on village pump once we are happy with the wording and have decided on the number of templates, before we use it in a widespread way. :ChrisG 21:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Have you noticed that this one is already listed on the Templates for deletion page? I don't know what to say there, since I don't know how that process works, but it seems to me that they are moving a little too fast. - Strangeloop (talk) 23:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The limited geographic scope template has accidently ended up on votes for deletion. One comment they made was that it was a bit too wordy. So any suggestions for reducing it to two lines would be appreciated. There are also a few other issues that that need to be decided. See below and give answers

Template issues

Wording

One comment in Votes for deletion is that it is a bit wordy. Any suggestions for reducing it to two lines? Currently the limited geographical scope template is very general. However do we want to split it up into more specific templates?

• Americo-centric
• Anglo-american centric
• Developed world centric

This subdivision would provide more information and would mean we would have three categories of articles rather than just one, which might be useful if as I expect we tag lots of articles.

I don't really see the value of further division into geographic subcategories, but if anyone can explain the benefits I surely won't veto. There will be quite a number of borderline cases (e.g. most of the article talks about the U.S. only, but someone has added a single sentence on the situation in Poland).

On the other hand, I would say it is often possible to distinguish two slightly different types of internal bias: 1. The article talks about a general term and pretends to deal with it from a general perspective, without giving any geographical references at all, but it is obvious that it is written from a Western cultural perspective (e.g. Adoption). 2. The article deals with the situation in specific countries, but examples are limited to a few countries, normally in the developing world (e.g. Freedom of speech). (There will be some cases where both 1. and 2. applies, i.e. where there is a general definitition written from a Western perspective, followed by examples from the U.S. and the UK only.) I propose the following two template texts, based on this distinction:

1. This article needs attention: it currently deals with its topic mainly from a developed world perspective. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.

2. This article needs attention: the examples currently provided represent a limited number of countries in the developed world only. See the talk page for further explanation. If you can widen the perspective of WikiProject Countering systemic bias, please consider editing the article.

The proposed texts have the benefit that they are both slightly shorter than the original template text. I've added "See the talk page for further explanation" since my opinion is that we should strongly encourage anyone adding the template to an article to further explain the reasons for doing so on the article's talk page, to prevent misunderstandings. Such talk page comments could also refer to our project page for further information. This would have the added benefit of being an excellent way to advertise the CSB project. Alarm 13:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amended the template to version 2 while adding mention of need for global perspective. Couldn't see the point of two templates which differ so little in content. :ChrisG 18:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for creating the template. You're probably right in advocating using a single one. However, with the hope of not seeming overly stubborn, I would like to conserve a bit more of the wording from version 1 in the merged version. I think that only mentioning examples in the first sentence might give a casual readers the impression that the best, or even the only, way to give the article a "more global perspective" is to add country-specific examples from the developing world. In several cases this would be a misunderstanding, since the main problem is that the general definition is written from a Western perspective assumed by the author to be globally applicable. Although it might seem a minor change, I still would think it to be an improvement to say This article needs attention: the general perspective and/or specific examples represent a limited number of countries in the developed world only. Alarm 16:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias important article template

Do we need a template to say this article is important because it represents systemic bias within Wikipedia. Some variation on the {{importantstub}} template, i.e., to the right.

This particularly template is controversial; because it says something is important without saying why; but can we think of a more acceptable wording that adds our concern that it is a poor article because of systemic bias within Wikipedia?

Would it be acceptable to refer to the CSB project and just say we've chosen to target it, instead of expressing the value judgement that it is important? Hence, something like:

This is an article targeted by the WikiProject Countering systemic bias as in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. If you know anything about X, please consider editing the article.

With this wording, it will also be possible to apply the template to non-stubs. Alarm 13:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The wording seems OK. Would this potentially go on all articles where there is bias (95% of Wikipedia)? Or just on the weeks chosen articles? Also, in regard to the Limited Geographic template above, would it not be better to have an template for each of the sections in systemic bias (Developing, female, agriculture, limited geographic etc), all having a standard 'systemic bias' template design? That might make it easier to understand. --- Xed 15:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by standard design - text content or style attributes (color etc.)? Regarding the latter, I agree, but that seems more or less to be the case already. As for the former, I have no problem amending the "in need of expansion" template with categories, e.g. "This is an article dealing with the developing world, targeted ... etc. However, I think the "limited scope" category is of quite a different art, calling for a different text (and referring to the corresponding talk page for further explanation) in both the "developed world perspective" and the "limited number of countries" case. Does this make sense to anybody else? Alarm 20:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The text you proposed ('This is an article targeted by the CSB...') looks fine to me. It is put nicely and avoids the chance of being misused. And I agree with you on the fact that the (important) limited scope category is something different entirely. However, I don't know about reusing the old importantstub template. And I think there's something in what Xed is saying too. Maybe there should be a set of systemic bias templates: one template for articles that simply need expansion, another template for articles with limited scope, etcetera. In that case, I wouldn't build upon the old importantstub but create a brand-new consistent set of systemic bias templates (of which your still adequate wording would form a part). - Strangeloop (talk) 20:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus. Could some template wizard put together a template for the CSM collaboration of the week, to put at the top of Congo Civil War, using the following wording (adapted from Alarms suggestion): This article is the WikiProject Countering systemic bias Collaboration of the Week, and has been targeted as being in need of expansion. Please see the project page for more information. Please consider editing the article.? The other articles in the To Do list need Alarms exact wording. - Xed 12:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added template for CSBArticles and CSBCollaboration. Do people like the image that goes with it or should we remove it? :ChrisG 18:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On my browsers (IE and Safari, Mac OS X), the image has an unsightly white border on the top, left and bottom (but not right) for some reason. I tried fiddling with the markup (using preview not save), but I couldn't get it to work. I originally threw the image together for the Limited Geographic Scope section, but if it's suitable as a general CSM badge that's fine. - Xed 22:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I get the white border too, and it doesn't look at all good. But if it is possible to fix that, it would look good in the template. Alarm 16:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really like the symbolism of the image and suggest we adopt it as the emblem of the project. :ChrisG 17:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that {{importantstub}} is being deprecated ready for deletion - it has never been heavily used, and serves an identical purpose to {{expand}}. I have taken the liberty of removing it from the discussion above and replacing it with a text version - I apologise if this causes any concerns. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates ready for announcement?

I notice the wording on the Limited geographic scope template has now been changed according to my suggestion. I think all the templates are fine now. If there is consensus on this, maybe they should be announced on Village Pump, as was previously suggested, before we start using them widely? Alarm 18:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've given them a new lick of paint and think they're ready. A couple of questions below though--Xed 20:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the new look - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I might make the logo a little larger later, about the size of the logo here: Template:PD-USGov-NASA, but I think it's ready to go live now. - Xed 08:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Limitedgeographicscope

Does this go on all articles which match this description, or just ones on the to-do template, or all articles in Limited Geo section?

I think it should go on all the articles that are in the limited geographic section. This template is particularly good for pointing out to existing contributors that it has limited perspectives, and involving them. It is also a good advert. :ChrisG

I agree with ChrisG. Alarm 07:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you two - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:CSBArticles

All CSB articles, or just ones being targeted by the To-Do template?

All CSB articles other than Limited geographic which is more specific. :ChrisG 00:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, I agree with ChrisG. Alarm 07:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisG and Alarm - Strangeloop (talk) 08:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:CSBCollaboration

{{CSBCollaboration}}

WikiProject Countering systemic bias template SPAM

I posted the following onto the village pump on the 19th Oct: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias appears to have decided 1 to plaster templates 2 on any page which the small number of participants on that project feel come within their remit. Example 3. Which is, presumably, anything which might fall into the categories listed on the project page 4. I cannot say I'm teriffically thrilled about this for the following reasons:

• I deplore wholscale annexation of pages by single issue groups. I recall the Alternative Medicine project used to do this srt of thing.
• I supsect that these templates, once placed on a page, may well remain there forever, as a form of spam which serves more to advertise the project than to promote editing of the page.
• I'm unhappy that a single small goup has taken it upon itself to be the judge of pages.
• Where the community has decided that such notices are of use - e.g. Collaboration of the Week - the template used is discreet and temporary; in contrast the CSB template is relatively large and imo sinister looking.

I wonder if the community has thoughts about the matter. --Tagishsimon

Agreed, if these templates are to be used they must be placed on the talk page. - SimonP 17:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I assume the complaint is directed at the three-lineTemplate:Limitedgeographicscope, Template:CSBArticles and/or Template:CSBCollaboration templates and not the gigantic Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks? The latter is used only on this project page and various user pages.

I don't think the three lines are excessive, but that's pretty much purely an aesthetic preference, isn't it?

What if we agreed that the rotating weekly articles should have the appropriate template at the top of the article itself, but that the template should be moved to the Talk page or removed entirely when the article rotates off the list? This way it is more like COTW and less like perma-spam.

Jill Ker Conway has never been a weekly featured item as far as I know, but has Template:CSBArticles at the bottom because it's on our general list. If we were to agree to put it on the Talk page instead in these cases, and if we were to <broken_record> come up with a policy for doneness and template removal </broken_record> would that address proliferation concerns? —Bsktcase 18:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestions would allay my concerns. I've no problem with anything being put on the Talk page, nor with a COTW temporary placement. My problem is only with long term branding of pages. --Tagishsimon

Given that you've been opposed to this from the start and stated that the idea the the Congo Civil War being more important than Babylon 5 was just a meaningless value judgment, I'm not prepared to take what you say too seriously. - Xed 22:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

suggestion for 'flexible' template

(first let me say that I think 'humble man' -- see above -- has some good advice. don't read the following until you read that comment, because I think it really bears reading, and I only slightly touch on the same subject. Really, go read that first.

Ok, now you kinda know where I'm coming from with the following... this became really long while I wrote it, so just to warn you in advance, it is long. I put a lot of thought into this, and I welcome feedback.Pedant 12:42, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

I agree that the template could bother a lot of people as it stands. I think any logo added to the template, if we use one within the template, should be a symbol of incompleteness, such as a pie with part missing, or a page of text with the bottom half blank, or something that similarly conveys the concept of a partly-written article in need of something that is missing from it.

I also agree we need to actively recruit. It already is a stated goal of the CSB project to actively recruit anyone who might have particular expertise on any article which has a perceived bias, or lack of completeness. I believe this is a very important aspect if the goals of the CSB project are to be effectively met.

I propose that we keep track of every page with a CSB or 'incomplete' notice... or even that is listed in some master list of articles in need of CSB help... and actively solicit contributors by drawing their attention to any specific article or articles in need of their attention... both from within the "extant wikipedia community" (for instance through their embassy, if they are on another wikipedia -- did you know we have a wikipedia embassy, with ambassadors on most of our sister projects?) and from any other resource (chambers of commerce, cartographic institutes, AIM, NOW, NAACP, heads of foreign states -- or their information offices, recruiting posters on your website etc)that the resourceful wikipedia community can come up with.

The new templates are nice and all, but I further propose a less 'aggressive' and 'more flexible' wording. I'm not a template wizard, so, I'm not sure it's possible but could there be something like:

Proposal in lieu of 'template creep'

"This article is incomplete due to a lack of"<however this part should be coded to make it work>"If you feel that you can add to this article and would like to help make it more complete, you are encouraged to edit the article, or to discuss what should be added on the talk page. ([[the page that explains what incomplete means in the context of this notice|more information about this notice]])"

---

someone tell me if there is a way ? (and I think there is), to make a template like for example " {{lacks}} " to be used like:

{{lacks}}Jewish perspective

or

{{lacks}}lack of Chinese perspective on events mentioned in this article. The Black Dragon fire is not even mentioned in the article, and it destroyed 10% of the world's timber reserves.

or

{{lacks}}information about traditional nutrition and food preparation culture in developing nations

or

{{lacks}}mention of board games in non-English speaking countries

or

{{lacks}}viewpoints from female surgeons

or

{{lacks}}case law citations

or

{{lacks}}information on organic production methods

or

{{lacks}}any mention of picasso's blue period

which would then render as:

This article is incomplete due to a lack of any mention of Picasso's blue period. If you feel you can add to this article and would like to help make it more complete, you are encouraged to edit the article, or to discuss what should be added on the talk page.(more information about this notice)

This article is incomplete due to a lack of Chinese perspective on events mentioned in this article. The Black Dragon fire is not even mentioned in the article, and it destroyed 10% of the world's timber reserves.. If you feel you can add to this article and would like to help make it more complete, you are encouraged to edit the article, or to discuss what should be added on the talk page.(more information about this notice)

or

This article is incomplete due to a lack of case law citations. If you feel you can add to this article and would like to help make it more complete, you are encouraged to edit the article, or to discuss what should be added on the talk page.(more information about this notice)

etc. -- one benefit I envision is that it emphasises a "lack of information", not the "bias that needs correction"

(which, were the bias to be the emphasis one might think at first that a good way to 'fix the bias' is to 'remove the biased part' and would therefore encourage the addition of 'balancing material', rather than encouraging removal of good information in order to achieve balance, as the encyclopedia works best when new information goes into it, rather than when factual and valuable data is removed.)

another benefit is it might be seen as less intrusive than

Notice: this page is an officially recognised bad page. It's bad because we just couldn't make it good, please fix this for us.

which is one way that one might take the 'big box style, with official seals and committee rubber stamps'. (added exaggeration to highlight the effect)

this type of template could allow for changes, an article might have lacked information about food in developing nations now after it has been worked on, it lacks information about food sources in sub-Saharan Africa and the verbiage could be changed to reflect updates.

comments? and Is this kind of template even possible? maybe it would be necessary to do something like {lacks1}examples of insects used as food sources{lacks2}Pedant 12:42, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

---

Template madness

We now have at least one article (Adrienne Monnier) which has no content other than the template. With my sysop hat on, I'm tempted to delete it. Please only add the templates to articles that already exist! Filiocht 10:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have created a stub to save the page from deletion. Filiocht 11:01, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me being over-ethusiastic. --Xed 11:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template on pages need expansion

Could this be put at the bottem of the page? At the moment it's a little overwelming particualy on stubs (ok so I'm mostly thinking of Guinea-Bissau Civil WarGeni 10:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As data for editors, it should probably be on the article talk page. It is overwhelming. Filiocht 10:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the side-bar template that Xed was tinkering with to the header template thats being put on stubs(if that makes sense) nixie 12:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template

Sorry but the {{CSBArticles}} template is not appropriate for the article namespace. Anything is in the article namespace must be for readers not editors. Even worse is creating an article consisting of only the template this both violates policy and is counter-productive. - SimonP 17:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed above to take this approach. It seems to have attracted plenty of new participants. As for your Article namspace point, - the CotW template is for editors, and that's on African Union. Stub notices are for editors, and they are on the pages. Cleanup notices are for editors too. - Xed 17:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was some debate about the CotW template but it was agreed that since it only affected one article it was not an issue. Stub notices go at the bottem of the page and are fairly undesruptiveGeni 17:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP. The template, though useful, should go on the talk page of the article. If every WikiProject started putting its own message on every page remotely associated with it, it would become obtrusive to those using Wikipedia as a reference source. This is especially relevant for this project, which has a broad subject area and a vast number of articles to be improved. Our time would be better spent working on the articles than posting bills. Sayeth 18:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Stub, POV, and cleanup messages are all meant to tell readers, as well as editors, that this article is not up to Wikipedia standards and such information is valuable to a reader. - SimonP 18:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The CSM templates have exactly the same purpose. - Xed 18:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not really becease for the most part apart from them being short (which is covered by the stub message) there is nothing wrong with them.Geni 18:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can't see what's wrong with them then why are you here?-Xed 19:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Becuase I wrote the stub on one of the articles you put the sighn on. The project seems to orginaly have been focused on problems with the wikipedia rather than problems with indivdual articles. If you think these articles are too short (I would agree) then a moddied version of the stub text might be in order (it's an idea that seems to work ok elsewhere).Geni 19:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems obvious that our short advertising campaign in the article namespace was very productive in terms of attracting new members, so it would be a pity if it were declared illegal. However, I wouldn't protest putting the template on the Talk page if all templates intended for editors were indeed put there. But I can't really see the fundamental difference between yet another modified version of the (IMO not very useful) stub text and the CSB Articles template. The former says the article is short, the latter that this specific project thinks it needs to be expanded. I could have understood if it had been argued that the template shouldn't be used on articles already reasonably long and well written just because it is agreed here that the topic deserves a deeper coverage. But for quite a lot of the articles targeted the template actually makes an attempt to explain to the casual reader why important African profiles and huge labor organizations only have semi-stubs, when Wikipedia has half a novel on each and every obscure programming language and Middle Earth creature there are. And regarding CotW: there are currently seven different CotW projects, each putting a tag on one article. If there ever was a policy it is obviously starting to crack.

Anyway, since it obviously wasn't enough to have the discussion about templates on this page, I guess we'll have to go to the Village Pump to discuss policy and obtain permission for what we're intending to do before making any attempt at polluting Wikipedia again. Or would it actually be OK to put the template on the Talk pages of all articles listed? And if so, is that a reasonable solution for us? Alarm 21:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My view is that all of these messages should go on the talk page. Filiocht 08:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

This debate has continued here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive B#Messages_in_the_article_namespace - Xed 10:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My interpretation of the the debate is that the template is going to be accepted if it's on the talk page. However, there was no serious opposition to the CSB CotW and the 10 other items of the To Do list being on the article page. - Xed 19:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Category:Articles with limited geographic scope