Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted |
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 |
||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 15 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.}}
Line 8 ⟶ 9:
===Journalistic neutrality vs encyclopedic neutrality===
{{see also|User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality}}
In [[journalism]], neutrality is generally seen to be met by giving all sides of an issue equal treatment. This is the view that has come to be held as the most neutral view by the populace at large as well, due to the fact that the larger population is exposed more to journalism than any other form of documentary media. The reason journalists use this form is because it removes the writer from any 'side' of a controversy, while allowing them to craft a compelling story. Without conflict, after all, you can't have a story. An often-used shorthand for this approach to neutrality is to say that a truly neutral work is one in which you can't tell which side the author supports
For an encyclopedia however, this approach to neutrality has a number of problems. Encyclopedias are a compendium and summary of accepted human knowledge. Their purpose is not to provide compelling and interesting articles, but to provide ''accurate'' and ''verifiable'' information.
To this end, encyclopedias strive to always represent each point-of-view in a controversy with an amount of weight and credulity ''equal to the weight and credulity'' afforded to it by the best sources of information on the subject. This means that
===The effects of 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 25 ⟶ 26:
==How to successfully make a complaint about bias==
The following steps will
#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 the source is generally considered reliable, though caution is needed since anyone might have edited the article.
##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.
#
#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
==Things to keep in mind==
Line 40:
*'''Just as Wikipedia editors may be blind to their own biases, ''you'' may be blind to ''your'' own biases.''' Something which seems obvious to you may be disagreed with by many editors. This may very well be because you are wrong and cannot see it. Accepting that you may be biased and listening to other points of view is the only way to overcome this.
*'''Just because you can make a compelling case doesn't mean you're right.''' A lot of people have convinced others that [[Flat earth|the world is flat]]. That doesn't make them right. Just because you've won over others, or you're using the same arguments that previously won you over doesn't mean you will win a debate with a well-informed opponent.
*'''There are a number of pages which receive almost constant complaints about bias.''' If you plan to complain on one of these, your arguments had better be waterproof, and your sources impeccable, or you will likely never even get the chance to engage. Regular editors often grow quite weary of reading variations of the same, tired arguments every day. If yours doesn't stand out, you will get lumped in with the rest and summarily dismissed before you even get the chance to make your case. Pages that get constant complaints are those that cover popular [[conspiracy theories]], political subjects, and any controversial subject currently or recently in the news, such as [[transgender]] people or famous people widely accused of [[sexual harassment]]. It is advisable to first consult the article's talk page archives and history before posting.
*'''Don't let the incivility of others make you incivil.''' A longstanding editor will be given a lot more slack with their behavior than an editor with only a few edits, or one who hasn't registered an account. If it turns into a personal argument between someone who has only edited that one talk page and an experienced editor with 10,000 edits across a huge swath of Wikipedia, the community is quite likely to see the experienced editor's incivility as understandable, and to see the inexperienced editor's incivility as evidence that [[WP:NOTHERE|they are not here to build an encyclopedia]]. So even if you feel that you are being attacked, do '''not''' respond in kind.
*'''Discuss content, not other editors.''' While personal talk pages and administrator noticeboards may be used to discuss behavioral issues, article talk pages should discuss the content of articles. Avoid [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[WP:FOC|focus on content]].
Line 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 editors hadn't thought of, and present a series of arguments that are [[Soundness|sound]], [[Validity|valid]], compelling and with no obvious weaknesses, you will win the debate, even if editors initially oppose you. Many (''many'') Wikipedians love a good, civil argument, and many Wikipedians make a point of admitting when they have been wrong.
==Resources==
Line 56:
|'''[[WP:IRS|Identifying reliable sources]]'''
|This is a page all about how to find reliable sources and determine if a source is reliable.
|-
|'''[[WP:RSN|Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]'''
|This is a place to discuss the reliability of sources. If you have doubts about
|-
|'''[[WP:TPG|Talk page guidelines]]'''
|Article talk pages are used for discussing changes to our articles. Following
|-
|'''[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]'''
Line 82 ⟶ 79:
|-
|'''[[WP:1AM|One against many]]'''
|This
|}
| |||