|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Reference==
| + | Arbcom can [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Review_of_community_sanctions|reverse CBANs]], if |
| | | | |
| − | *Nic Hill, Scott Glosserman [https://thoughtmaybe.com/truth-in-numbers/ Truth in Numbers] | + | # they were procedurally unfair |
| | + | *biased presentation: diffs presented for rhetorical effect rather than in chronological order, rhetorical language includes: vendetta, accused, harassment, harass, attacks, punching bag, book-length rant (589 word statement of fact), battleground mentality, inability to interact with "others", etc. |
| | + | *[regular !voters] came to sanction me within hours: [BMK], [Johnuniq], [Neutrality], [MrX], [WMSR], [Bishonen], [Jorm], [Objective3000], [Dennis Brown], [Doug Weller], [Hut 8.5]. Was this mentioned on admin IRC? |
| | + | *the votes were miscounted |
| | + | *MastCell was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=866330671&oldid=866310440 not a neutral party], having claimed I made no positive contributions. See further... |
| | + | *no account was taken of the massive trend against a site-ban once evidence was presented (and after El C's statement that they did not seek a site-ban). |
| | + | *I said I was too busy to mount a defense during the work-week. Despite this, 13 people voted primarily based on my quick edit to remove the rhetoric from the initial report, calling it "deception" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962866332&oldid=962864000 1]+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962861879&oldid=962858608 2]ABF). The case was closed early despite a clear trend against a site-ban and despite my request to be given adequate time to respond. |
| | + | **the 12-5 vote to close Tony's case and send the case to ArbCom (by far the proposition with the highest support %) was '''entirely ignored''' in the close (opposed by 3 voters with "unclean hands") |
| | + | **those !vote of some of those who expressed evidence-based opposition to an immediate site-ban ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962935089&oldid=962931042&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision 1], [2], [3], ...) was not counted ''at all'' or was given equal weight to !votes like: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962827130&oldid=9628180921], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962914715&oldid=962914388 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962864000&oldid=962861879 3], ...) |
| | + | **Claims such as [1], [2], [3] were debunked but not struck. |
| | + | **Tryptofish was allowed to continue to violate [his own terms] for the lifting of his I-Ban. Their vote was counted. |
| | + | **Despite burying statements already shown to be false in walls of text, Kingofaces43's !vote was counted {{small|(possibly twice?)}} |
| | + | **No mention was made of El C's history of making mistakes concerning me: [1], [2], [3]. |
| | + | **Discussion of the substantive heart of the incident was chilled by Floquenbeam's [threat to block anyone who mentioned it]. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Qatar==
| + | # the sanction is excessive |
| − | Qatar is a small peninsular country that juts into the Persian Gulf and whose only land border is with Saudi Arabia. Gas-rich, the country's ''citizens'' enjoy the highest per capita income in the world. Doha's capital is well known for its skyscrapers, at least one of which resembles a spicy pickle. Though sports like camel-racing and falconry are more traditional, Qatar has shown an interest in football (soccer) through its ownership of Paris-St. Germain and its sponsorship of FC Barcelona. It is building nine stadia in preparation for the 2022 World Cup, which it is hosting. Its media property Al Jazeera has been a bone of contention with other Gulf nations, as has its refusal to condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. After its neighbors decided during Ramadan in 2017 to cut diplomatic ties, many families living in Qatar found themselves with difficult choices, including potentially being forced to renounce their citizenship if they remained in Qatar.
| + | *See [1], [2], [3] |
| − |
| + | # circumstances changed |
| − | In June 2017, John Ascroft's lobbying firm signed a $2.5 million contract to rehabilitate Qatar's image in the US by better publicizing steps taken in recent years to prosecute private citizens funding the Taliban and jihadi groups.<ref name=Aschcroft>{{cite web
| + | *After evidence was presented the case ran 24-12 against a siteban. After El C's statement only 2 people voted for a siteban (one bearing a grudge, the other with an interesting edit history), everyone else opposed it. At that point, the community moved on to the question of moving the case to ArbCom and exploring the issue with evidence. |
| − | |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-10/singled-out-by-trump-qatar-hires-former-top-law-man-to-lobby
| |
| − | |title=Singled Out by Trump, Qatar Hires Former Top U.S. Law Man
| |
| − | |first=Bill
| |
| − | |last=Allison
| |
| − | |publisher=Bloomberg
| |
| − | |date=10 June 2017
| |
| − | |accessdate=11 June 2017
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | </ref>
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[File:Georgia_Aquarium_-_Giant_Grouper.jpg|300px]]
| + | Conclusion: The site-ban should be reversed and an '''evidence-based''' case started if the GMO and AmPol topic bans are to be maintained. Kingofaces43's long history of being a timesink and the evidence of tag-teaming in AmPol (centered around MrX) should be studied. For my part, I agree that I did not react well to being targeted for elimination. See also RS on the main battleground actors: [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles 1] (''[[Wired]]'') + [https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html 2] (''[[Slate (technology)]]'') Note that my name is not included in either article, but that MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' are. |
| − | | |
| − | =Copy of the en.wp "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" page currently at Articles for Deletion... =
| |
| − | <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
| |
| − | {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Ideological bias on Wikipedia|timestamp=20180525184424|year=2018|month=May|day=25|substed=yes|help=off}}
| |
| − | <!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Ideological bias on Wikipedia|date=25 May 2018|result='''keep'''}} -->
| |
| − | <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
| |
| − | [[File:Wikipedia scale of justice 1.jpg|thumb|307px|right|To some, ideological bias can be seen as a "thumb on the scale" of Wikipedia's editorial balance.]]
| |
| − | Concerns about an '''ideological bias on Wikipedia''' are reflected in analysis and [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship|criticism]] of the [[Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias|reliability]] of the online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]], and especially its [[English Wikipedia|English-language site]], in relation to whether or not its content is biased due to the [[Political spectrum|political]], [[Belief#Religion|religious]], or other [[epistemological]] [[ideology]] of its volunteer [[Wikipedia editors]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Collectively the findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing views are at least as neutral as other sources, but articles with fewer edits written by smaller groups of ideologically homogeneous editors were more likely to exhibit bias.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Public opinion==
| |
| − | Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] said in April 2006: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from [[liberalism|liberal]] to [[conservatism|conservative]] to [[libertarianism|libertarian]] and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." <ref name="MediaShift">{{cite web|last1=Glaser|first1=Mark|title=Email Debate::Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia|url=http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/|website=[[MediaShift]]|accessdate=22 May 2018|date=April 21, 2006}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Sorin Adam Matei, a professor at [[Purdue University]], said in 2018 that, "For certain political topics, there's a central-left bias. There's also a slight, when it comes to more political topics, counter-cultural bias. It's not across the board, and it's not for all things."<ref>{{cite news |last=Matsakis |first=Louise |url=https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-wikipedia-content-moderation-internet/ |title=Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet |work=Wired |date=March 16, 2018 |accessdate=May 22, 2018}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Analyses==
| |
| − | ===Greenstein and Zhu===
| |
| − | [[Shane Greenstein]] and [[Feng Zhu]], both professors at the [[Harvard Business School]], have authored several studies and articles examining [[Wikipedia]] from an ideological standpoint as component of its [[collective intelligence]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====''Is Wikipedia Biased?'' (2012)====
| |
| − | In ''Is Wikipedia Biased?'' (2012), the authors examined a sample of 28,382 articles related to U.S. politics (as of January 2011) measuring their degree of [[bias]] on a "slant index" based on a method developed by Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010) to measure [[media bias in the United States|bias in newspaper media]].<ref name="Econometrica">{{cite journal|last1=Gentzkow|first1=M|last2=Shapiro|first2=J. M.|authorlink1=Matthew Gentzkow|authorlink2=Jesse M. Shapiro|title=What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers|journal=[[Econometrica]]|date=January 2010|volume=78|issue=1|pages=35–71|doi=10.3982/ECTA7195|publisher=[[The Econometric Society]]}}</ref> This slant index measures an ideological lean toward either [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] or [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] based on key phrases within the text and gives a rating for the relative amount of that lean. The authors used this method to measure whether Wikipedia was meeting its stated policy of "[[:Wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]" (or NPOV). They also examined the changes to articles over time as they are revised. The authors concluded that older articles from the early years of Wikipedia leaned Democratic, whereas those created more recently held more balance. They suggest that articles did not change their bias significantly due to revision, but rather that over time newer articles containing opposite points of view were responsible for centering the average overall.<ref name="GZ2012">{{cite journal|last1=Greenstein|first1=Shane|last2=Zhu|first2=Feng|authorlink1=Shane Greenstein|title=Is Wikipedia Biased?|journal=[[American Economic Review]]|date=May 2012|volume=102|issue=3|pages=343–348|doi=10.1257/aer.102.3.343|publisher=[[American Economic Association]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias|author=Khimm, Suzy|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html|work=The Washington Post|date=June 18, 2012|accessdate=May 22, 2018}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The findings have been confirmed by later research, such as ''[[#The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017)|The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds]]'' (2017).<ref name="Wisdom" />
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====''Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias?'' (2017)====
| |
| − | In a more extensive follow-up study, ''Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia'' (2017), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between [[Wikipedia]] (written by an [[online community]]) and the matching articles from ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure slant (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of bias. The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. Entries about immigration trended toward Republican. They further found that "(t)he difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions" and, when articles were substantially revised, the difference in bias compared to ''Britannica'' was statistically negligible. The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral".<ref name="GZ2017">{{cite journal|last1=Greenstein|first1=Shane|last2=Zhu|first2=Feng|authorlink1=Shane Greenstein|title=Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia|journal=[[MIS Quarterly]]|date=2014|volume=|issue=|pages=|doi=|publisher=|url=http://fengzhu.info/BritannicaWikipedia.pdf<!--replace this url with doi when journal is out-->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Is Collective Intelligence Less Biased?|url=https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2015/05/is-collective-intelligence-less-biased|website=[[BizEd]]|publisher=[[AACSB]]|accessdate=17 May 2018|date=May 1, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Guo">{{cite news|last1=Guo|first1=Jeff|title=Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it|accessdate=17 May 2018|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=October 25, 2016}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===''Jointly They Edit'' (2013)===
| |
| − | A 2013 study, ''Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia'', was conducted by Jessica J. Neff, professor at [[USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism]], and colleagues David Laniado , Karolin E. Kappler, Yana Volkovich, Pablo Aragón, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, all from the Barcelona Media-Innovation Centre. The study was conducted to "take a closer look at the patterns of interaction and discourse that members of different political parties have around information online, because they may have important consequences for the accuracy and neutrality of political information provided online". It investigated how [[Wikipedian]]s (editors of Wikipedia) identified themselves as affiliated with any political party, whether their participation was divided along [[Party line (politics)|party lines]], if they had a preference to interact with members of the same party, and how much affiliation impacted conflicts within discussions. The authors identified party and ideological affiliation using "userboxes" which some Wikipedians place on their user pages. The authors concluded:
| |
| − | {{quote|"Although Democrats and Republicans seem to maintain their political identity within the Wikipedia community, our findings show that users displayed more 'Wikipedia' boxes than political boxes on their user pages, indicating that the identity of being a Wikipedian may be more salient in the context of this community. Further, the lack of preference to interact with same-party members in the context of article discussions does not indicate the same polarization that has been observed in other contexts. In this sense, the Wikipedian identity seems to predominate over party identity. Hence, the results of our analysis show that despite the increasing political division of the U.S., there are still areas in which political dialogue is possible and happens."|source=<ref name="Jointly">{{cite journal|author1=Jessica J. Neff|author2=David Laniado|author3=Karolin E. Kappler|author4=Yana Volkovich|author5=Pablo Aragon|author6=Andreas Kaltenbrunner|title=Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia|journal=[[PLoS ONE]]|date=April 3, 2013|volume=8|issue=4|page=e60584|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0060584}}</ref>}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | === ''The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds'' (2017) ===
| |
| − | A 2017 study ''The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds'' (Feng Shi, Misha Teplitskiy, Eamon Duede, James Evans) investigated the effects of ideological diversity on Wikipedia entry quality scores for political, social issues, and science articles. To accomplish this, the authors estimated editor political alignment on the liberal-conservative spectrum based on their prior contributions and gauged article quality using a [[MediaWiki]] tool called "[[mw:ORES|ORES]]". The authors found that "polarized teams" (a balanced group of editors with diverse political viewpoints) "create articles of higher quality than politically homogeneous teams", "engage in longer, more constructive, competitive, and substantively focused but linguistically diverse debates than political moderates", and "generate a larger volume of debate and their balance of political perspectives reduces flare-ups in debate temperature". They found that homogenous or highly-skewed teams engaged in less, but highly [[acrimonious]], debate which produced articles scoring lower in quality.<ref name="Wisdom">{{cite journal|author1=Shi, F.|author2=Teplitskiy, M.|author3=Duede, E.|author4=Evans, J.A.|title=The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds|journal=(paper)|date=November 29, 2017|arxiv=1712.06414|accessdate=}}</ref><ref name="Heterodex">{{cite web|last1=Stevens|first1=Sean|title=Research Summary: The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds|url=https://heterodoxacademy.org/research-summary-the-wisdom-of-polarized-crowds/|website=[[Heterodox Academy]]|accessdate=22 May 2018|date=December 21, 2017}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==See also==
| |
| − | * [[Gender bias on Wikipedia]]
| |
| − | * [[Racial bias on Wikipedia]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Wikipedia}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Criticism of Wikipedia]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Bias]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category: en.wiki]]
| |
