Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1132914742 by 200.17.137.40 (talk) sock-puppet, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belteshazzar |
m →How to successfully make a complaint about bias: typography, replacing hyphens by em-dashes to be more clear as hyphens are often used to strike out things |
||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{essay|WP:ADDBIAS|WP:FIXBIAS}}
{{Nutshell|A guide for editors and readers who want to fix the bias of an article on Wikipedia.}}
Sometimes, you will come across a Wikipedia article that seems to have a serious [[WP:POV|point-of-view]] problem. It reads as a biased diatribe against the subject of the article. Or perhaps it reads as a biased diatribe in favor of the subject and against critics. Either way, you
==Understanding bias and the Wikipedia neutral point-of-view policy==
Before
===Journalistic neutrality vs encyclopedic neutrality===
Line 18 ⟶ 19:
===Why we use encyclopedic neutrality===
If we were to write our articles using journalistic neutrality, we would have to reduce the presented evidence that the earth is actually an [[Figure of the Earth|oblate spheroid]] until it matched the evidence purporting to show that the earth is flat. We would have to remove criticisms of the evidence purporting to show that the earth is flat, such that both sides are given equal weight. We would have to diminish or even fail to report on the credentials of those scientists who have spoken out against the flat earth hypothesis, such that their depiction was similar to the non-scientists lacking meaningful credentials who advocate for the idea. In short, we would have to re-write our article to deceptively imply that it was an open and serious question as to whether or not the earth is flat, when the truth is that it is not. This is -quite obviously- counter to the very purpose of an encyclopedia. Implying [[WP:GEVAL|false equivalences]] between educated theories and ignorant
===What this means to a person attempting to address the bias of an article===
Line 27 ⟶ 28:
The following steps will help you maximize the chance your complaints are taken seriously:
#Read '''[[WP:IRS|Identifying reliable sources]]'''. It is a page intended to help readers search for and identify reliable sources. If you have a source in mind already, you can check its reliability by comparing it to the criteria at that page, or using one of the following methods.
##Read the Wikipedia article about the source, if one exists. This may give you an idea of whether
##Go to the '''[[WP:RSN|Reliable source/Noticeboard]]'''. Locate the text box labelled "Search this noticeboard & archives" and type in the source's name there. Look for results that say "(Section: [source name])" and click on the source's name there to find where that source was specifically discussed. Read through and try to get a handle on what the community thinks of that source. If there's a lot of disagreement over whether it's reliable or not, or if there's broad agreement that it's unreliable, it's best not to use it. If there is agreement that it's acceptable, then go ahead. Note that some of these discussions might be formally closed. In which case, there should be a closing statement that provides a quick overview of the consensus of the community.
#If you did not have a source in mind already, use the criteria at [[WP:IRS|Identifying reliable sources]] to find sources which the community would consider reliable, and which agree with your own point-of-view about the subject.
#Gather '''at least''' two or three of those, focusing especially on sources which explicitly disagree with claims made in the article.
#Go to the article's [[WP:TP|talk page]], and
#Revisit the talk page frequently. Engage [[WP:CIVIL|civilly]] with editors who respond, and try to remain calm, even if you feel the others are being dismissive or rude. If you can remain calm in the face of [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and rudeness, you are far more likely to get your way. If things get out of hand, and you have remained calm while others insult and belittle you, then visit the '''[[WP:ANI|Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents]]''' and start a thread, using '''[[WP:DIFF|diffs]]''' to illustrate the incivility of the others. '''''Be sure to notify the editors you are reporting.''''' If
==Things to keep in mind==
Line 49 ⟶ 50:
*'''Use proper indentation during discussions.''' Failing to do so is disruptive and confusing, and is a quick way to end up getting ignored by other editors. [[User:MjolnirPants/sandbox 1|Here]] is an example page, illustrating how we do indentation. Feel free to edit that page and experiment.
*'''Be prepared to accept that you are wrong.''' It is possible that you can find a dozen impeccably reliable sources which agree with you, format your complaint with perfect attention to detail, engage with a collegiate attitude and make compelling arguments only to lose the discussion because the page already contains four or five dozen reliable sources that disagree with you. Editors may tell you that your sources aren't saying what you think they're saying, or they may point out that your sources are good, but they represent a minority view which is already covered in the article, or they may tell you that -due to factors you hadn't considered- the sources you provided aren't actually reliable (there are many sources which can check a number of the boxes at [[WP:IRS]], yet which are still considered unreliable for certain claims). If it is a few very experienced editors, or a large number of editors of varying experience disagreeing with you, you will not win them over.
*'''If you can make a good case for your position that the article is not neutral, you will succeed.''' Despite how it may first seem, editors here are usually more interested in accuracy than in pushing their own POVs. Most POV problems with pages are the result of editors being unaware of their own bias, not a concerted effort to shape how the public views a particular subject. So if you can find reliable sources that clearly agree with you, make a number of cogent points that other
==Resources==
Line 57 ⟶ 58:
|-
|'''[[WP:RSN|Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]'''
|This is a
|-
|'''[[WP:TPG|Talk page guidelines]]'''
|
|-
|'''[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]'''
Line 66 ⟶ 67:
|-
|'''[[WP:NPOVN|Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]'''
|This is usually the place to go if there's a discussion that can't come to a consensus on the article talk page.
|-
|'''[[WP:FTN|Fringe theories/Noticeboard]]'''
|This may be the place to go if the subject involves a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe theory]], or if someone believes that fringe material is being given [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].
|-
|'''[[WP:BLPN|Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]'''
|This may be the place to go if the content in question concerns a specific living person and might cause them personal harm.
|-
|'''[[WP:BIAS|Systemic bias]]'''
| |||