Featured content

Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Crisco 1492
Coat of Arms of the Empire of Brazil
Emperor of Brazil Dom Pedro II
The Empire of Brazil (emblem on left) was a 19th-century state that broadly comprised the territories which form modern Brazil. It was ruled for most of its existence by Emperor Dom Pedro II (right). This week, the Signpost interviews Lecen, the writer of these two featured articles and several others.

This week, The Signpost begins a six-part series of interviews with editors who combat systemic bias – bias that naturally grows from the demographic groups of the encyclopaedia's contributors. The assumption here is that the uneven demographics show up in an imbalanced coverage of topics in featured content. For our inaugural report, we interviewed Lecen, who has written nine featured articles relating to Brazil and Portugal, including Empire of Brazil, Pedro Álvares Cabral, and the new featured article Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias.

On his interest in Brazil and Portugal, as well as how they compare to topics from the Anglosphere. "The almost predominant existence of stubs was a factor, but the main reason was when I realized the true potential of the English-language Wikipedia. If Latin was once the lingua franca, nowadays this role is played by English. Writing articles for the Portuguese-language Wikipedia would severely limit the flow of information. But writing articles in English? Any person, anywhere, could easily translate articles from English to their own native languages. And that was precisely what happened. The featured article I wrote about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil has been translated into French, Spanish , Italian and even Romanian! This inter-language spreading of knowledge is one of the most admirable and fantastic traits of Wikipedia."

This inter-language spreading of knowledge is one of the most admirable and fantastic traits of Wikipedia

"Brazil has been increasingly prominent in the international arena in the past few years, mainly due to its economic power and territorial size. Unfortunately, the interest in Brazil on Wikipedia has not become remarkable yet. How many editors have been working on Brazil-related articles? They could fit in a Volkswagen Beetle. There is too much to be done."

On the challenges and special considerations/prejudices faced. "The lack of support is what bothers me the most. Ask someone to help review an article related to the American Civil War and you'll see at least a dozen editors sharing their views. Now try to do the same with a Brazil-related article. Time passes and, if one or two editors appear, you could say that the day was worth it."

"Did I find any difficulty? Of course. I successfully nominated nine articles to become featured. All are somehow tied to the histories of Brazil and Portugal. I can affirm that in 95% of cases, I had excellent relations with the reviewers, who helped me by giving their counsels and even criticisms, which allowed me to improve those articles a lot. The remaining 5% of reviewers involved only two or three editors; few, it's true, but enough to weaken anyone's will to persist writing."

If the English Wikipedia wants to become an encyclopedia ahead of its time, it must get rid of its own prejudices and become what it truly should be—universal.

Suggestions for editors interested in combating systemic bias. "When possible, use books in English as the main source and fill the empty spaces with information taken of books written in the native tongue. In Pedro II of Brazil, I based my work almost completely on the excellent Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891 by Roderick J. Barman. I used dozens of other sources, but at least someone who does not speak Portuguese can verify the information given."

"Now, speaking of cultural differences is far harder. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should be bold and, as a basic rule, keep the names of foreign monarchs (but only the ones from Western cultures) in their original form. What is the problem on reading an article about Nikolay II of Russia, or Wilhelm I of Germany or Fernando VI of Spain? We have a William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor! It's unnecessarily confusing! There is also nothing weirder than reading about Dmitry Bogrov and Pyotr Stolypin and bumping into ... Czar Nicholas II of Russia. What is that? A British monarch among Russians? As I mentioned earlier, I'm referring only to Western cultures, since most use the roman alphabet. If the English Wikipedia wants to become an encyclopedia ahead of its time, it must get rid of its own prejudices and become what it truly should be—universal."

Garrett Hobart, US vice-president and subject of a new featured article
Life recreation of Plateosaurus gracilis, a species of the subject of a new featured article, Plateosaurus
The border between the US and Mexico at San Diego – Tijuana. This new featured picture is from the US Army.
A Ruffe in the Pärnu River of Estonia, a new featured picture
The National Library of Bulgaria, a new featured picture

Seven featured articles were promoted this week:

Ten featured pictures were promoted this week:

Pieter Bruegel's 1559 painting Netherlandish Proverbs, which depicts 100 literal interpretations of contemporary Dutch proverbs. The painting is a new featured picture.
← Previous "Featured content"
Next "Featured content" →
S
In this issue
16 January 2012 (all comments)
  • Special report
  • Sister projects
  • News and notes
  • WikiProject report
  • Featured content
  • Arbitration report
  • Technology report
    • + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

    Well said, Lecen. Hopefully we can get more participation on articles about Global South topics. They've been talking about it for years. Alarbus (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We really need a better term than 'systemic bias', as this implies that people are deliberately not writing articles about topics when the reality is that people from English speaking countries generally like to write about topics with which they're most familiar and with which high quality references are available in a language they can read. I think that it's a shame that this term being used here to describe the distribution of FAs (as a note, I'm the primary author of the only FA class article about anything to do with East Timor). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, we have an article on it: Systemic bias. It's not just wiki-speak. WP:WORLDVIEW, the alt-shortcut, captures it. People need to broaden their horizons. If they don't want to edit the unfamiliar, they need to at least welcome it from others. Alarbus (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (ec'd with your update)[reply]
    Where did I say that I don't welcome FAs on unfamiliar topics? I've been the primary author of several of them and reviewed others... The term is unhelpful in this context as the use of 'bias' implies that there's something untoward going on. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean you; sorry. The term is a general one and I was referring to the same 'people' that you were (everyone). The term systemic bias isn't intended to slight anyone; it's just highlighting inherent patterns of behaviour. 'Countering' it means to simply seek to rise above them. Alarbus (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Systematic bias and systemic bias are different things, and I think the headline writer for this article should be told that. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our bias isn't just geographical. It's simply a result of the fact that editors will write about things they're most familiar with, and our editors aren't a perfect sample of the global population. So, we have great coverage of affluent anglophone countries, but many developing countries are neglected. Our coverage of current events is really good; our coverage of events 100 years ago isn't so hot. We have lots of detailed articles on retail electronic products but our map of b2b is an almost-blank sheet with "here be dragons". This kind of bias extends to many fields. For instance: If you want to write an article about a bird species or an airline, you can choose from a range of outstanding photos - but if you want to write about a taphrinomycete species or an insurance company, you're out of luck. bobrayner (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your Signpost. You can help us.



           

    The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0