Contents 1 The "average Wikipedian" 1.1 List of Internet users by country 1.2 Women are underrepresented 1.3 Those without Internet are underrepresented 1.4 People with little free time are underrepresented 1.5 Availability of sources may cause bias 1.6 English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate 1.7 An American or European perspective may exist 2 Nature of Wikipedia's bias 3 Why it matters 4 What you can do 5 See also 6 References 7 External links


The "average Wikipedian"[edit] Shortcut WP:AVERAGE Population of Internet users by country (ITU figures, 2012)[1] Internet usage by percentage of each country's population (2012)[1] The common characteristics of average Wikipedians inevitably color the content of Wikipedia. The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) aged 15–49, (6) from a majority-Christian country, (7) from a developed nation, (8) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (9) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than being employed as a blue-collar worker.[2] List of Internet users by country[edit] Rank Country or area Internet users[3] Percentage[4] 1  China 721,434,547[5] 52.2% 2  India 462,124,989[6][7] 34.8% 3  United States 286,942,362 88.5% 4  Brazil 139,111,118 66.4% 5  Japan 115,111,595 89.80% 6  Russia 103,147,691[8] 70.5% 7  Nigeria 86,219,965[9] 46.1% 8  Germany 71,016,244 88% 10  Bangladesh 63,354,000[10][11] 39.20% Women are underrepresented[edit] Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of active contributors.[12] A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that 8.5% of editors are women.[13] The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors.[14] Research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length.[14] Women typically perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men do.[15] The low representation of women among Wikipedia editors may have an impact on the coverage of women-oriented topics and perspectives, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content within articles. Regarding articles, for example, Wikipedia has articles that would appear to reflect male interests, such as Pinup girl (since 2003), Hot rod (since 2004) and Babysitter pornography (since 2010). Although there are articles on Women in engineering (since 2007), History of ballet (since 2009), Women in law (since 2015), Women in classical music (since 2016) and Pregnancy in art (since 2017), there is a shortage of many other topics related to women. Those without Internet are underrepresented[edit] Access to an Internet-connected computer is required to contribute to Wikipedia. Groups who statistically have less access to the Internet, including people in developing nations, the poor in industrialized nations, the disabled, and the elderly, are underrepresented on Wikipedia. "Eighty percent of our page views are from the Global North, and 83 percent of our edits."[16] In most countries, minority demographic groups have disproportionately less access to information technology, schooling, and education than majority groups. This includes African Americans and Latinos in the U.S., the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, and the poorer populations of India, among others.[17][18][19][20] Even among the general demographic class of Internet users, Wikipedians are likely to be more technically inclined than average. There is a technical barrier represented by the software interface and the Wiki markup language that many readers either (a) do not recognize, (b) cannot understand, (c) or choose not to use. Although the Wikimedia Foundation implemented VisualEditor, which uses a WYSIWYG interface, to many of its projects, including the English Wikipedia, it has many major bugs that can break the formatting of articles edited using it, as well as it having a generally longer load time than the source wiki markup text. People with little free time are underrepresented[edit] Wikipedia editors are people with enough free time to participate in the project, such as the retired or unemployed. The points of view of editors focused on other activities, such as earning a living or caring for others, are underrepresented. This puts subjects of interest to the employed segment of society at a disadvantage, since they are less likely to have time to devote to Wikipedia. Topics related to Finance are relatively underdeveloped on Wikipedia, possibly because of this reason. Availability of sources may cause bias[edit] Availability of sources is not uniform. This manifests both from the language a source is written in and the ease with which it can be accessed. Because reliable sources are required by Wikipedia policy, topics are limited in their contents by the sources available to editors. This is a particularly acute problem for biographies of living persons. Sources published in a medium that is both widely available and familiar to editors, such as a news website, are more likely to be used than those from esoteric or foreign-language publications regardless of their reliability. For example, a 2007 story on the BBC News website is more likely to be cited than a 1967 edition of the Thai Post or Večernje novosti. Similarly, the cost of access to a source can be a barrier; for example, most research in astronomy is freely available to the public via arXiv or NASA ADS, while many law journals are available only through costly subscription services.[citation needed] English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate[edit] Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries (particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia). Anglophone countries are mostly in the in the global North, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries. Countries and regions where either English is an official language (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other former colonies of the British Empire) and other countries where English-language schooling is common (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, and some other European countries) participate more than countries without broad teaching of English. Hence, the latter remain underrepresented. The majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which contributes toward a selection bias to a Northern Hemisphere perspective. This selection bias interacts with the other causes of systemic bias discussed above, which slants the selection to a pro-Northern Hemisphere perspective.[21] Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship. The most common method of circumventing such censorship, editing through an open proxy, may not work as Wikipedia may block the proxy in an effort to prevent it from being abused by certain users, such as vandals. An American or European perspective may exist[edit] Most English-speaking (native or non-native) contributors to Wikipedia are American or European, which can lead to an American or European perspective. In addition, Anglophone contributors from outside of the United States and countries in Europe are likely to be more familiar with those countries than other parts of the world. This leads to, for example, a 2015 version of "Demonym" (an article that ostensibly is on all demonyms for all peoples across the globe) listing six different demonyms in the article lede, with five of them being western or central European nationalities, and the other being Canadian. Another example is that a 2015 version of the article "Harbor" listed three examples in the article lede all from the United States.


Nature of Wikipedia's bias[edit] Worldwide density of geotagged Wikipedia entries Worldwide density of GeoNames entries The 2.9M geolocated images in Wikimedia Commons The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Bias is manifested in both additions and deletions to articles. Once identified, the bias is noticeable throughout Wikipedia. It takes two major forms: a dearth of articles on neglected topics; and perspective bias in articles on many subjects Since Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, choosing to take part in Wikipedia rather than being forced to, for social class (only a relatively small proportion of the world's population has the necessary access to computers, the Internet, and enough leisure time to edit Wikipedia articles), articles about or involving issues of interest to other social classes are unlikely to be created or, if created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability. As of 2006[update], of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations, while only two of the sites were non-profit news organizations.[22] Perspective bias is internal to articles that are universal in aspect. It is not at all apparent from lunch (see tiffin) or the linguistic term continuous aspect that they exist outside of the industrialized world.[clarification needed] A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined, or greater than all of Europe combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone or European topics. However, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, coverage of comparable Western wars remains much more detailed. Popular culture topics, especially television and video games, are often covered as if only the US, the UK, and Japan exist (depending on the origin of the Wikipedian). Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. Publication bias and full-text-on-the-net bias also make more likely that editors will find reliable coverage for topics with easily available sources than articles dependent on off-line or difficult to find sources. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to go through the deletion process of Wikipedia. Deaths of those in developed countries are seen as far more significant. The Al-Qaeda attacks on the US, UK and Spain, causing the deaths of 3,000 people, are seen as having enormous significance. The Darfur conflict in Sudan, in which 400,000 civilians have so far been killed, receives less attention. The historical perspective of the Allies of World War II, particularly the US and the United Kingdom, prevails. As of March 22, 2012, 11 Featured Pictures on World War I were of Allied origin and none from the Central Powers. Articles containing a "Religious views" section frequently include Christianity, Islam, and Judaism while neglecting the views of other religions. Ideally, an article describing religious views on a topic should incorporate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist views, at a minimum, though the exact choice of religious opinions will depend upon the topic's scope (e.g., a Chinese topic might not necessitate a Christian view, but it might necessitate a Taoist view). Views of more prominent religions should be given more space in accordance with the policy on neutral point of view. Controversial fringe subjects tend to receive more attention than non-controversial WP:VITAL articles. Wikipedia content is skewed by widespread editing by persons with conflicts of interest, including corporations who deploy staffers, and pay outside consultants, to create articles about themselves. This skews Wikipedia content toward persons and corporations that want to make Wikipedia part of their marketing effort. The size of articles is often based on the interest that English-speaking Wikipedians have in the subject (which to some extent is based on the involvement of their nations). For example, the article on the Second Congo War, the deadliest conflict in the past 60 years, is shorter than that on the Falklands War, with a death toll of under a thousand. Additionally, the amount of information available to researchers is disproportionately biased towards events involving more economically developed countries. Articles where the article name can mean several different things tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian. Recentism: Current events—especially those occurring in developed, English-speaking nations—often attract attention from Wikipedians, and articles discussing particular current events are edited out of proportion with their significance. Jennifer Wilbanks, an American woman who attracted media attention when she was presumed kidnapped but actually ran away to avoid marrying her fiancé, has a significantly longer article than Bernard Makuza, who was Prime Minister of Rwanda from 2000 to 2011. Additionally, because of recentism bias, the "In the news" section on Wikipedia's front page is limited by an unequal proportion of significant news from English-speaking nations compared to news from others. Our tendency towards recentism is enhanced by difficulties of sourcing topics from the pre-Internet era largely caused by the fact that many major journals, magazines, and news sources of that era are not online or not searchable, and major institutions (professional organizations, museums, political parties, schools and clubs of all kinds) have ceased to exist, making some WP:RS of the type that validate articles on contemporary topics unavailable. Articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective (although this may be partly because about 90% of humankind are residents of the Northern Hemisphere). For example, some articles on astronomy discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and sometimes "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" is used as a synonym of "not visible at all".[citation needed] Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics generally are covered in greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomical topics. Some obscure constellations in the Northern sky are covered in more depth[citation needed] than some prominent Southern constellations. Articles often use Northern Hemisphere temperate zone seasons as time references to describe time periods that are longer than a month and shorter than a year. Such usage can be confusing and misleading for people who live in the Southern Hemisphere and people in tropical areas that do not experience temperate-zone seasons. Due to severe restrictions on the use of images that are not free content, certain groups of articles are more likely to be illustrated by associated images than others. For example, articles on American politicians often have images while articles on Nepalese politicians usually do not. There is further information on biases in Geography, in Politics, in History, and in Logic. See also Countering systemic bias: Project details for an older introduction.


Why it matters[edit] Many editors contribute to Wikipedia because they see Wikipedia as progressing to (though perhaps never reaching) the ideal of a repository of human knowledge. More idealistic editors may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view"[clarification needed] or "God's Eye View". Thus, the idea of systemic bias is more troubling than intentional vandalism; vandalism is readily identified and corrected, often with automated software. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion at hand but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia and its contributors with the world at large. The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is very likely permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world. Thus, the only way systemic bias would disappear entirely is if all of the world's population spoke English with the same fluency and had equal access and inclination to edit the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias can be mitigated with conscious effort. This is the goal of the Countering Systemic Bias Project. As Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have said in an open letter:[23] How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, they are not fully representative of the diversity of the world. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a worldwide movement to create and share free knowledge.


What you can do[edit] Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing. Invite others to edit. Be respectful of others. Work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing. Avoid topics or discussions where you expect that you are biased or where you don't wish to make the effort to overcome those biases. This is a large project, so work where you can best serve the central content and behavioral expectations, particularly those related to Wikipedia's policy relating to neutral point of view. Read newspapers, magazines, reliable Web sites, and other versions of Wikipedia in whatever non-English language or languages you know. If you know only English, read articles from other countries where English is an official or primary language, like Australia, Canada, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan (where English is a co-official language, but not primary), and South Africa. Also, some countries (such as Brazil or Israel) in which English is not an official or primary language have important English-language press. Where such English-language press is not available, automated translation, though still very imperfect, can enable you to instantly and freely access articles in many languages, and will thus often be a reasonably adequate substitute, especially when compared to trying to learn another language, which is normally a very slow and possibly expensive way to try to gain access to articles in a single language, and is thus normally a very ineffective way to try to reduce your systemic bias. (Note: this essay used to counter-productively say the exact opposite - see for instance here).


See also[edit] Academic studies about Wikipedia § A minority of editors produce the majority of persistent content WP:Tendentious editing § Characteristics of problem editors Criticism of Wikipedia § Systemic bias in coverage Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance List of countries by number of Internet users Bias blind spot FUTON bias Gender bias on Wikipedia Racial bias on Wikipedia Halo effect {{Systemic bias}} template {{Globalize}} template WP:Bias and prejudice, a principle from the Arbitration committee Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field


References[edit] ^ a b "Percentage of Individuals using the Internet 2000-2012", International Telecommunications Union (Geneva), June 2013, retrieved 22 June 2013 ^ See Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 ^ Calculated using percentagerate per 2013 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimates and population data from "Countries and Areas Ranked by Population: 2013", Population data, International Programs, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 7 June 2015. ^ "Percentage of Individuals using the Internet 2000-2013", International Telecommunications Union (Geneva). Retrieved 7 June 2015. ^ "我国网民数量达6.68亿 _滚动新闻_新浪财经_新浪网". Finance.sina.com.cn. 2015-07-27. Retrieved 2016-01-06.  ^ "India Internet Users". Tech.firstpost.com. 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2016-01-06.  ^ "India to Have 402 Million Internet Users by December-End: IAMAI". Gadgets.ndtv.com. 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2016-01-06.  ^ "Europe Internet Stats and 2015 Population Statistics". Internetworldstats.com. Retrieved 2016-03-04.  ^ "Asia Internet Stats and 2015 Population Statistics". Internetworldstats.com. Retrieved 2016-01-06.  ^ "Internet Subscribers in Bangladesh February, 2016". btrc.gov.bd. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 20 March 2016.  ^ "Internet users now 50m". theindependentbd.com. 2015-09-02. Retrieved 2016-01-25.  ^ Cohen, Noam (January 30, 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List". The New York Times. Retrieved January 7, 2012. ^ "Editor Survey Report – April 2011". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved January 7, 2011. ^ a b Lam, Shyong (Tony) K.; Uduwage, Anuradha; Dong, Zhenhua; Sen, Shilad; Musicant, David R.; Terveen, Loren; Riedl, John (October 3–5, 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance". WikiSym’11. ^ S. Lim and N. Kwon (2010). "Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source?" Library & Information Science Research, 32 (3): 212–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2010.01.003 ^ Nelson, Anne. "Wikipedia Taps College 'Ambassadors' to Broaden Editor Base". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 4 September 2014.  ^ Mossberger, Karen (2009). "Toward digital citizenship: addressing inequality in the information age". In Chadwick, Andrew. Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415429146.  ^ Cavanagh, Allison (2007). Sociology in the age of the Internet. McGraw-Hill International. p. 65. ISBN 9780335217250.  ^ Chen, Wenhong & Wellman, Barry (2005). "Minding the Cyber-Gap: the Internet and Social Inequality". In Romero, Mary & Margolis, Eric. The Blackwell companion to social inequalities. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631231547. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link) CS1 maint: Uses editors parameter (link) ^ Norris, Pippa (2001). "Social inequality". Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521002233.  ^ See Mark Graham. "Wikipedia's known unknowns". The Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 9 December 2009.  ^ Top 500 websites (domains) by number of links from Wikipedia. ^ "Letter from Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales". 


External links[edit] http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/03/08/single-white-males-systemic-bias-in-wikipedias-obsessions/ Wikipediocracy blog entry on systemic bias Under Reported Stories by Thomson Reuters Foundation Under-Told Stories v t e Essays about Wikipedia Essays on building, editing, and deleting content Philosophy Articles must be written Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Cohesion Concede lost arguments Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Don't lie Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Product, process, policy Purpose There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Construction 100K featured articles Acronym overkill Advanced source searching Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced table formatting Advanced template coding Advanced text formatting Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Bare URLs Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant Cherrypicking Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Law sources Link rot Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Nothing is in stone Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles There is a deadline There is no deadline The deadline is now Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles Deletion Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete the junk Does deletion help? Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Immunity Liar Liar Pants on Fire Nothing Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use Essays on civility The basics How to be civil Compromise Accepting other users Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks Thank you Apologizing Truce Divisiveness Encouraging newcomers Relationships with academic editors High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors Obsessive Compulsive Disorder editors Philosophy A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right Of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Wikipedia is not about winning Writing for the opponent Dos Argue better Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Deny recognition Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Just drop it Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Don'ts Don't give a fuck Don't be inconsiderate Don't be rude Don't call a spade a spade Don't call the kettle black Don't take the bait Do not insult the vandals Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't be ashamed Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't spite your face Don't call things cruft No angry mastodons No, you can't have a pony Don't be an ostrich Don't template the regulars Don't be a fanatic Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't fight fire with fire Don't be prejudiced Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't throw your toys out of the pram Don't help too much Passive aggression Don't cry COI Don't be obnoxious Don't be a WikiBigot Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't eat the troll's food You can't squeeze blood from a turnip Wiki relations WikiLove WikiHate WikiCrime WikiBullying WikiPeace WikiLawyering WikiHarassment POV Railroading Essays on notability Notability Alternative outlets Articles with a single source Bare notability Bombardment Businesses with a single location But it's true! Citation overkill Clones Coatrack articles Common sourcing mistakes Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Every snowflake is unique Existence ≠ Notability Fart Google searches and numbers High Schools Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Inherent notability Insignificant Masking the lack of notability Make stubs News coverage does not decrease notability No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability No big loss No one cares about your garage band No one really cares Notability/Historical/Arguments Notability cannot be purchased Notability is not a level playing field Notability is not a matter of opinion Notability is not relevance or reliability Notability means impact Notability points Notability sub-pages Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability Offline sources One hundred words One sentence does not an article make Other stuff exists Pokémon test Read the source Run-of-the-mill Significant coverage not required Solutions are mixtures and nothing else Subjective importance What notability is not What is and is not routine coverage What to include Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause General notability guideline Independent sources Significant coverage Trivial mentions Humorous essays Humorous material Assume bad faith Assume faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Avoid using preview button Avoid using wikilinks BOLD, revert, revert, revert Boston Tea Party Barnstaritis Don't-give-a-fuckism Edits Per Day Editsummarisis Go ahead, vandalize How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you Please bite the newbies R-e-s-p-e-c-t Shadowless Fists of Death! The Night After Wikimas The first rule of Wikipedia The Five Pillars of Untruth Things that should not be surprising The WikiBible Watchlistitis Why not create an Account? Inactive historical references Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails About essays About essays Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay Policies and guidelines About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Systemic_bias&oldid=825095098" Categories: Wikipedia essaysWikipedia neutral point of viewWikipedia neutrality essaysWikipedia:Systemic biasHidden categories: CS1 maint: Uses authors parameterCS1 maint: Uses editors parameter


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages العربيةБългарскиEspañolEsperantoفارسی한국어HrvatskiРусскийSrpskohrvatski / српскохрватскиไทย Edit links This page was last edited on 11 February 2018, at 13:09. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.376","walltime":"0.487","ppvisitednodes":{"value":2823,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":242087,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":28335,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":11,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":3,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 343.763 1 -total"," 30.90% 106.208 1 Template:Reflist"," 18.45% 63.422 10 Template:Cite_web"," 16.08% 55.279 1 Template:Wikipedia_essays"," 15.05% 51.728 1 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups"," 13.19% 45.345 1 Template:Essay"," 11.45% 39.375 1 Template:Ombox"," 7.26% 24.969 9 Template:Flag"," 6.69% 22.994 2 Template:Fix"," 5.41% 18.597 1 Template:Citation_needed"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.144","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":5795034,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1253","timestamp":"20180223005908","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":109,"wgHostname":"mw1273"});});


Wikipedia:Systemic_bias - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Systemic_bias More Links

Wikipedia:Global Rights PolicyWikipedia:Reliable SourcesWikipedia:BIASEDWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic BiasWikipedia:EssaysWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:WPWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipediaGender Bias On WikipediaRacial Bias On WikipediaSocial ClassWikipedia:RSEnglish WikipediaWikipedia:ShortcutEnlargeList Of Countries By Number Of Internet UsersEnlargeWikipedia:WikipediansEnglish WikipediaChristianity By CountryDeveloped CountryNorthern HemisphereWhite-collar WorkerStudentBlue-collar WorkerChinaIndiaUnited StatesBrazilJapanRussiaNigeriaGermanyBangladeshGender Bias On WikipediaPinup GirlHot RodBabysitter PornographyWomen In EngineeringHistory Of BalletWomen In LawWomen In Classical MusicPregnancy In ArtPovertyInformation TechnologyEducationAfrican AmericanHispanic And Latino AmericansAboriginal Peoples In CanadaAboriginal AustraliansAustraliaIndiaSoftware InterfaceMarkup LanguageVisualEditorWYSIWYGLeisureFinanceWikipedia:RSWikipedia:BLPBBC NewsThai PostVečernje NovostiAstronomyArXivNASA ADSLaw ReviewWikipedia:Citation NeededEnglish As A Second Or Foreign LanguageEnglish-speaking WorldNorth–South DivideFirst WorldOfficial LanguageHong KongIndiaPakistanBritish EmpireGermanyNetherlandsNorthern HemisphereSelection BiasWikipedia:Open ProxiesWikipedia:VandalismDemonymEnlargeEnlargeGeoNamesEnlargeWikimedia CommonsSocial ClassWikipedia:Deletion ReviewUniversality (philosophy)LunchTiffinContinuous AspectWikipedia:Please ClarifyChinaIndiaEuropeSecond Congo WarWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:RSUEPublication BiasFUTON BiasWikipedia:Deletion ProcessAl-QaedaWar In DarfurSudanAllies Of World War IIWikipedia:Featured PicturesCentral PowersWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:VITALConflict-of-interest Editing On WikipediaSecond Congo WarFalklands WarDeveloped CountryWikipedia:RecentismJennifer WilbanksBernard MakuzaTemplate:In The NewsRecentismWikipedia:RSNorthern HemisphereSouthern HemisphereNorthern HemisphereAstronomyWikipedia:Citation NeededWikipedia:Citation NeededTemperate ClimateSeasonWikipedia:NFCCWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/Project DetailsNeutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:Please ClarifyWikipedia:VandalismWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic BiasJimmy WalesWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewAustraliaCanadaIndiaKenyaNew ZealandPakistanSouth AfricaBrazilIsraelMachine TranslationSecond-language AcquisitionAcademic Studies About WikipediaWikipedia:Tendentious EditingCriticism Of WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias/Global PerspectiveWikipedia:Geographic ImbalanceList Of Countries By Number Of Internet UsersBias Blind SpotFUTON BiasGender Bias On WikipediaRacial Bias On WikipediaHalo EffectTemplate:Systemic BiasTemplate:GlobalizeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/NoleanderWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Level Playing FieldWikipedia:User SurveyWikipedia:University Of Würzburg Survey, 2005The New York TimesInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/9780415429146International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/9780335217250International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/9780631231547Category:CS1 Maint: Uses Authors ParameterCategory:CS1 Maint: Uses Editors ParameterInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/9780521002233The GuardianWikipediocracyThomson Reuters FoundationTemplate:Wikipedia EssaysTemplate Talk:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Articles Must Be WrittenWikipedia:Vague IntroductionsWikipedia:Be A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Coherence And CohesionWikipedia:ConcessionWikipedia:Eight Simple Rules For Editing Our EncyclopediaWikipedia:Don't LieWikipedia:ExplanationismWikipedia:External Criticism Of WikipediaWikipedia:Here To Build An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:Wikipedia Does Or Does Not Need That ArticleWikipedia:Neutrality Of SourcesWikipedia:Not Editing Because Of Wikipedia RestrictionWikipedia:OversimplificationWikipedia:ParadoxesWikipedia:Close ParaphrasingWikipedia:POV And OR From Editors, Sources, And FieldsWikipedia:Product, Process, PolicyWikipedia:PurposeWikipedia:But I'm An Administrator!Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules For Editing WikipediaWikipedia:Tendentious EditingWikipedia:The Role Of Policies In Collaborative AnarchyWikipedia:The Rules Are PrinciplesWikipedia:TrifectaWikipedia:Wikipedia In BriefWikipedia:Wikipedia Is An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A CommunityWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/Article WritingWikipedia:100,000 Feature-quality ArticlesWikipedia:Acronym OverkillWikipedia:Advanced Source SearchingWikipedia:Adding Images Improves The EncyclopediaWikipedia:Advanced Article EditingWikipedia:Advanced Table FormattingWikipedia:Advanced Template CodingHelp:Advanced Text FormattingWikipedia:Alternatives To The "Expand" TemplateWikipedia:Amnesia TestWikipedia:A Navbox On Every PageWikipedia:An Unfinished House Is A Real ProblemWikipedia:Article Half-lifeWikipedia:Autosizing ImagesWikipedia:Avoid Mission StatementsWikipedia:Bare URLsWikipedia:Be Neutral In FormWikipedia:Beef Up That First RevisionWikipedia:Blind Men And An ElephantWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Children's, Adult New Reader, And Large-print Sources Questionable On ReliabilityWikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Citation UnderkillWikipedia:Concept CloudWikipedia:Creating Controversial ContentWikipedia:Criticisms Of Society May Be Consistent With NPOV And ReliabilityWikipedia:Dictionaries As SourcesWikipedia:Don't Demolish The House While It's Still Being BuiltWikipedia:Don't Hope The House Will Build ItselfWikipedia:Don't PanicWikipedia:Editing On Mobile DevicesWikipedia:Editors Are Not MindreadersWikipedia:EndorsementsWikipedia:Featured Articles May Have ProblemsWikipedia:Fruit Of The Poisonous TreeWikipedia:Give An Article A ChanceWikipedia:Ignore STRONGNAT For Date FormatsWikipedia:InaccuracyWikipedia:Introduction To StructurismWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (law)Wikipedia:Link RotWikipedia:How To Mine A SourceWikipedia:Merge TestWikipedia:Minors And Persons Judged IncompetentWikipedia:"Murder Of" ArticlesWikipedia:Not Every Story/event/disaster Needs A BiographyWikipedia:Not Everything Needs A NavboxWikipedia:Nothing Is In StoneWikipedia:Organizing Disambiguation Pages By Subject AreaWikipedia:PermastubWikipedia:Potential, Not Just Current StateWikipedia:PrintabilityWikipedia:Pruning Article RevisionsWikipedia:For Publicists Publicizing A Client's WorkWikipedia:Put A Little Effort Into ItWikipedia:Restoring Part Of A Reverted EditWikipedia:Robotic EditingWikipedia:Sham ConsensusWikipedia:How To Run An Edit-a-thonWikipedia:Temporary Versions Of ArticlesWikipedia:There Is A DeadlineWikipedia:There Is No DeadlineWikipedia:The Deadline Is NowWikipedia:Walled GardenWikipedia:What An Article Should Not IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A Work In ProgressWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Being Written In An Organized FashionWikipedia:The World Will Not End TomorrowWikipedia:Write The Article FirstWikipedia:Writing Better ArticlesWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/DeletionWikipedia:Adjectives In Your RecommendationsWikipedia:Articles For Deletion Is Not A War ZoneWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion ReviewsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Image Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Make In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Avoid Repeated ArgumentsWikipedia:Before Commenting In A Deletion DiscussionWikipedia:But There Must Be Sources!Wikipedia:Confusing Arguments Mean NothingWikipedia:Content RemovalWikipedia:Counting And Sorting Are Not Original ResearchWikipedia:Delete The JunkWikipedia:Does Deletion Help?Wikipedia:Don't Overuse Shortcuts To Policy And Guidelines To Win Your ArgumentWikipedia:Follow The LeaderWikipedia:How To Save An Article Proposed For DeletionWikipedia:I Just Don't Like ItWikipedia:ImmunityWikipedia:Liar Liar Pants On FireWikipedia:NothingWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:Relisting Can Be AbusiveWikipedia:Relist BiasWikipedia:The Heymann StandardWikipedia:Unopposed AFD DiscussionWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Whac-A-MoleWikipedia:Why Was The Page I Created Deleted?Wikipedia:What To Do If Your Article Gets Tagged For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:When In Doubt, Hide It In The WoodworkWikipedia:No Encyclopedic UseWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/CivilityWikipedia:How To Be CivilWikipedia:NegotiationWikipedia:Accepting Other UsersWikipedia:Enjoy YourselfWikipedia:Expect No ThanksWikipedia:Thank YouWikipedia:ApologyWikipedia:TruceWikipedia:DivisivenessWikipedia:Encourage The NewcomersWikipedia:Relationships With Academic EditorsWikipedia:High-functioning Autism And Asperger's EditorsWikipedia:Obsessive Compulsive Disorder EditorsWikipedia:A Weak Personal Attack Is Still WrongWikipedia:Advice For HotheadsWikipedia:An Uncivil Environment Is A Poor EnvironmentWikipedia:Be The GlueWikipedia:Civility WarningsWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:FailureWikipedia:Forgive And ForgetWikipedia:It's Not The End Of The WorldWikipedia:Nobody CaresWikipedia:Most People Who Disagree With You On Content Are Not VandalsWikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian ValuesWikipedia:Staying Cool When The Editing Gets HotWikipedia:The Grey ZoneWikipedia:The Last WordWikipedia:There Is No Divine Right Of EditorsWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:CLEARLYWikipedia:The Rules Of Polite DiscourseWikipedia:What "Ignore All Rules" MeansWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not About WinningWikipedia:Writing For The OpponentWikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Assume The Assumption Of Good FaithWikipedia:Assume No ClueWikipedia:Avoid Personal RemarksWikipedia:Avoid The Word "vandal"Wikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:CandorWikipedia:Drop The Stick And Back Slowly Away From The Horse CarcassWikipedia:Deny RecognitionWikipedia:Encourage Full DiscussionsWikipedia:Get Over ItWikipedia:How To LoseWikipedia:Just Drop ItWikipedia:Keep It Down To EarthWikipedia:Mind Your Own BusinessWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Don't Be InconsiderateWikipedia:Don't Be RudeWikipedia:Don't Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:Don't Call The Kettle BlackWikipedia:Don't Take The BaitWikipedia:Do Not Insult The VandalsWikipedia:Don't Come Down Like A Ton Of BricksWikipedia:Don't Be AshamedWikipedia:Don't Drink The Consensus Kool-AidWikipedia:Don't Spite Your FaceWikipedia:CruftcruftWikipedia:No Angry MastodonsWikipedia:No, You Can't Have A PonyWikipedia:Don't Be An OstrichWikipedia:Don't Template The RegularsWikipedia:Don't Be A FanaticWikipedia:Don't Accuse Someone Of A Personal Attack For Accusing Of A Personal AttackWikipedia:Don't Fight Fire With FireWikipedia:Don't Be PrejudicedWikipedia:Don't Remind Others Of Past MisdeedsWikipedia:Don't Throw Your Toys Out Of The PramWikipedia:Don't Help Too MuchWikipedia:Passive AggressionWikipedia:Don't Cry COIWikipedia:Don't Be ObnoxiousWikipedia:Don't Be A WikiBigotWikipedia:Do Not Confuse Stub Status With Non-notabilityWikipedia:Don't Eat The Troll's FoodWikipedia:You Can't Squeeze Blood From A TurnipWikipedia:WikiLoveWikipedia:WikiHateWikipedia:WikiCrimeWikipedia:WikiBullyingWikipedia:WikiPeaceWikipedia:WikilawyeringWikipedia:HarassmentWikipedia:POV RailroadWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/NotabilityWikipedia:Alternative OutletsWikipedia:Articles With A Single SourceWikipedia:Bare NotabilityWikipedia:BombardmentWikipedia:Businesses With A Single LocationWikipedia:But It's True!Wikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Wikipedia ClonesWikipedia:Coatrack ArticlesWikipedia:Common Sourcing MistakesWikipedia:Discriminate Vs Indiscriminate InformationWikipedia:Every Snowflake Is UniqueWikipedia:Existence ≠ NotabilityWikipedia:FartWikipedia:Google Searches And NumbersWikipedia:Notability (high Schools)Wikipedia:Inclusion Is Not An Indicator Of NotabilityWikipedia:Inherent NotabilityWikipedia:InsignificantWikipedia:Masking The Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:Make StubsWikipedia:News Coverage Does Not Decrease NotabilityWikipedia:No Amount Of Editing Can Overcome A Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:No Big LossWikipedia:No One Cares About Your Garage BandWikipedia:No One Really CaresWikipedia:Notability/Historical/ArgumentsWikipedia:Notability Cannot Be PurchasedWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Level Playing FieldWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Matter Of OpinionWikipedia:Notability Is Not Relevance Or ReliabilityWikipedia:Notability Means ImpactWikipedia:Notability PointsWikipedia:Notability Sub-pagesWikipedia:Obscure Does Not Mean Not NotableWikipedia:Offline SourcesWikipedia:One Hundred WordsWikipedia:One Sentence Does Not An Article MakeWikipedia:Other Stuff ExistsWikipedia:Pokémon TestWikipedia:Read The SourceWikipedia:Run-of-the-millWikipedia:Significant Coverage Not RequiredWikipedia:On Wikipedia, Solutions Are Mixtures And Nothing ElseWikipedia:Subjective ImportanceWikipedia:What Notability Is NotWikipedia:What Is And Is Not Routine CoverageWikipedia:What To IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Here To Tell The World About Your Noble CauseWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Identifying And Using Independent SourcesWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Trivial MentionsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Assume Bad FaithWikipedia:Assume FaithWikipedia:Assume Good WraithWikipedia:Assume StupidityWikipedia:Assume That Everyone's Assuming Good Faith, Assuming That You Are Assuming Good FaithWikipedia:Avoid Using Preview ButtonWikipedia:Avoid Using WikilinksWikipedia:BOLD, Revert, Revert, RevertWikipedia:Boston Tea PartyWikipedia:BarnstaritisWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Edits Per DayWikipedia:EditsummarisisWikipedia:Go Ahead, VandalizeWikipedia:How Many Wikipedians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?Wikipedia:How To Put Up A Straight Pole By Pushing It At An AngleWikipedia:Newcomers Are Delicious, So Go Ahead And Bite ThemWikipedia:No Climbing The Reichstag Dressed As Spider-ManWikipedia:Please Be A Giant Dick, So We Can Ban YouWikipedia:Please Bite The NewbiesWikipedia:R-e-s-p-e-c-tWikipedia:Shadowless Fists Of Death!Wikipedia:The Night After WikimasWikipedia:The First Rule Of WikipediaWikipedia:The Five Pillars Of UntruthWikipedia:Things That Should Not Be SurprisingWikipedia:WikiBibleWikipedia:WatchlistitisWikipedia:Why Not Create An Account?Wikipedia:Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Unblock EmailsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:The Value Of EssaysWikipedia:The Difference Between Policies, Guidelines And EssaysWikipedia:Don't Cite Essays Or Proposals As If They Were PolicyWikipedia:Avoid Writing Redundant EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Quote Your Own EssayWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:How To Contribute To Wikipedia GuidanceWikipedia:Policy Writing Is HardHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia EssaysCategory:Wikipedia Neutral Point Of ViewCategory:Wikipedia Neutrality EssaysCategory:Wikipedia:Systemic BiasCategory:CS1 Maint: Uses Authors ParameterCategory:CS1 Maint: Uses Editors ParameterDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link