
Wikipedia and Inherent Open Source Bias - spxdcz
http://contentini.com/wikipedia-and-inherent-open-source-bias/
======
mkramlich
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.

------
hugh3
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
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
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>

 _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>) 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.

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

~~~
spxdcz
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=...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=history)
\- 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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ektron)

------
JoeAltmaier
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.

------
adbge
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.

