Wikinews

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/ArbCom and systemic bias

< Wikinews:Water cooler‎ | policy

The following is an exceprt from Wikipedia's article on systemic bias, which, I believe, it applies to Wikinews as well- The average English language Wikinews editor(1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation As such it is important that the Arbitration Committee include members from various backgrounds so as to counter this sort of bias. As of this time, three of the five Arbitrators are (as per their userpages) from the U.S, and the three strongest contenders for the posts about to be vacated are also Americans. As it stands, the Committee will, after this election, be entirely dominated by people from the U.S whilst Africa, Asia and the Middle-East will be totally unrepresentated. As such, it will then be an outright lie to claim that such a body can be the final, most neutral, binding step in dispute resolution. To counter systemic bias, I ask that atleast two seats on the Committee be reserved only for non-American/European/Occidental (White) candidates OR defendants (who are unconvinced that they will be granted a just decision by the Arbitration Committee) be granted the right to refuse to agree to Arbitration. PVJ(Talk) 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Arbitration Committee is just here to judge problems between people. I dislike any kind of discrimination even positive. Any people can present him/herself to the Commitee when a seat is available it's not a problem of where you live. Remember, i am french, my english is uggly and i am administrator here!, very open minded people on Wikinews, no ? <smile> sans problème. Remember everyone is equal on wikinews even if some people have special power given to them by a vote. Jacques Divol 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about who can contest a seat. It is about ensuring that Americans do not dominate the Committee. PVJ(Talk) 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS-i am french, my english is uggly . I don't think you, I, nor any other person from a non English speaking country should be self-conscious about not knowing that language, so long as we are fluent in ours.

  • Oppose as Divol says we cannot discriminate based on location sex, origin, etc. Everyone is equal here. Seats oin the committee are voted upon by the community and users are nominated by the community. To "reserve seats" in itself is biased...thats like saying save a seat for two users because they are african american, white or whatever. Its just not fiar, or right. Jason Safoutin 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - When voting, people should be voting for those with a record of adhering to neutral point of view. To require that we must fill a certain geographical quota means we may force really bad people to be on the ArbCom just because the quota requires it. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm tempted to be curt and say this is bullshit, but the idea that we should operate a minorities program on the projects highest authoritity (ArbCom) is *that* ridiculous. If we get applicants from the aforementioned parts of the world, and they've fitted in to the community and demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of the policies, then I will vote for them. Otherwise take your "positive discrimination" and place it in a dark orifice where there is no illumination from natural light. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed another solution-let users (who are unconvinced that the Committee will suggest a fair solution) opt to have the community (in general) suggest a remedy, which would be just as binding and "official" as the ArbCom decision. Sort of like the parole agreement Neutralizer agreed to. PVJ(Talk) 10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slightly different case, the blocking administrator offered the option and the case was dealt with in an ad-hoc manner. Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute process, sort-of one of those things you agree to when you use the wiki. I'd be leery of offering an appeal to the community as an alternative as I believe that would just prolong any dispute to the detriment of the wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it stated that by using this Wiki I subject myself to the jurisdiction of the ArbCom? PVJ(Talk) 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm concerned with, though... what does having a diverse arbitration team have to do with ending mudslinging matches between people? Either way, arbiters are required to maintain impartiality. Though it is a good idea, it would be better for an editorial team than an arbitration team. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could start a Wikinews equivalent of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. PVJ(Talk) 09:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is we have time constraints that Wikipedia does not. We used to have "Country of the week" to encourage people to cover underrepresented areas. I believe we already do a better job at covering non-mainstream items than the likes of CNN, and setting up WN:CSB may just be an invitation for POV warriors to demand their POV included in articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WN:CSB need not be an official policy, it could be a voluntary body such as WP:AMA whose members would devote some of their time to this project. The problem is that though our coverage may be as good that of CNN, we are unable to overcome systemic bias and (maybe unintenionally) our stories are (sometimes) biased in their POV. Again, as I have said before, WN:CSB would be a project, not a policy. PVJ(Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that, as a project it would attract the disaffected seeking to present extreme or minority opinions rather than constructively contribute. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not apriori opposed to setting up a project - there are some "unquestionably" good things the project can do, such as cover stories from outside Planet US-NZ-oz. note that, project or no project, many contributors already do such a thing already (Brianmc covers Thailand, Ad does Africa stories, to name two). The project working to counter the Anglo-US POV may prove to be controversial (i said controversial, not wrong). it realy depends on how the project goes about doing it. It can do relatively uncontroversial things such as identifying news sources outside the CNN/NYT/Wire Service bubble, working from local news sources would be a great way to attempt to overcome western bias. But like Brian suggests, the project may also turn into a gathering point for pov-warrioring (it pretty much, by definition, is just that), unless the project is able to come up with justifiable guidelines for how it operates.
<and now for some off-topic rant>. i do think that what wikinews needs is more specific discussions on article talk pages over particulars of the article's alleged or undisputed bias, than large-footprint rule changes and stuff. discussions that do happen have sometimes (often?) been "is-too/is-not" matches than sustained attempts at justifying the "is too" or "is not".</end rant> Doldrums 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose (not that this is actually a vote) reverse discrimanation annoys me. People are free to, and encouraged to seek alternate dispute resolution then arbcom. If they can't solve it themselves, arbcom steps in. If you want to run for arbcom you're free to, (And I noticed you had your name in there for a bit, but it dissapeared before I managed to read your statement) If everyone thinks your the best person for the job, then there vote for you. If they don't, they won't. Also if you want CSB your free to start it.Bawolff ☺☻ 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew my nomination because I see no point in being part of a Committee that is (in my opinion) a biased one. When/if WN:CSB is started I will be sure to frame the policy in such a way that POV-pushers do not exploit it to disrupt the project. Also, WN:CSB will not be slective in its membership, all minority editors, from the Taliban-like ultra-conservatives, to the rednecks who (in Brian's words) want to "string up them thar t*welh*ads", will be given due representation on WN:CSB to ensure that their POVs (however extreme they may appear) are not entirely suppressed by the POVs of other editors. PVJ(Talk) 12:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the pro-USA bias within americans is undeniable and bred into the bone starting with the pledge of allegiance to the flag daily beginning in grade 1..I still remember it "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands; one nation,under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all " (the last 6 words are the blatant lie..just ask all the poor and wrongfully convicted rotting in american jails and ghettos). The point is, with such brainwashed "allegiance" to the US having been programmed into our harddrives from childhood; americans are filled with pro-american/western/capitalism pov whether we realize it or not and it inhibits/prevents true npov mentality. In fact, the argument could be made that any american raised in a typical american home and school setting can not mentally arrive at a npov mentality anymore than a dog can fly. I have met some Europeans,however, whom I believe are truly npov in their mentality.. those people are the ones who enjoy true liberty and freedom...the liberty and freedom of non-conditioned/non-fettered creative and analytical thought. Therefore, to allow american dominance of the administrative level is to make a mockery of the npov objective of this wiki and is analogous to putting a fox in charge of a hen house. I would even go further and say that in light of the dismal non-existant progress of this wiki during the past year while under the reigns of american administration (European bureaus and admins used to be more involved) that we have nothing to lose by having a 6 month trial period during which only non-americans are active admins. I dare say our audience would increase as I am sure that the americanization of the wiki must be quite obvious and uninviting to many potential contributors. Obviously my comments are meant to apply to the makeup of the arbitration committee as well as the overall administrative level.Neutralizer 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me just say this: arbitrators are elected by pretty much everyone at Wikinews: that includes the Americans, Canadians, Indians, Australians, Martians, Atlantic Oceanians, Zorklops, and even people from Switzerland. While Americans may be indoctrined since youth to pledge alleigence (though I consider myself free of the strangehold, but I'm not one to judge myself), a lot of Americans are still open-minded. I'd say more about indoctrination in other countries, but that could get me in trouble, and is also irrelevant to the subject matter. Anyways, the ones that aren't open-minded eventually upset everyone and are forced to go up for reconfirmation two weeks after the close of their ArbCom case. Additionally, no single individual can be neutral: that's impossible. A neutral point of view comes about through collaboration with people of all sorts of viewpoints. That said, if there's an American, or anyone, up for ArbCom who does not have that open-mindedness to allow neutrality, it should be noted. That way, that person would get downvoted quicker than a poorly-done, unsourced YTMND. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict. pasted below is what I say before MR comment]

Quote
In fact, the argument could be made that any american raised in a typical american home and school setting can not mentally arrive at a npov mentality anymore than a dog can fly. I have met some Europeans,however, whom I believe are truly npov in their mentality

sterotypicaly Categorizing every single person based on which country they grew up in to if they are capable of nutrally addressing an issue. Thats not biased even a little bit </sarcasm> . Also please define American? Does that mean Nort American, does that somehow include Australians, New Zealand etc if not then why are there so few Americans if its entirly ruled by America? My list of people who are either from the USA or are from unknown orgin and are active (as defined in WN:A) include: User:Chiacomo, User:Cspurrier, User:Dan100, user:Deprifry, User:DragonFire1024, User:IlyaHaykinson, User:Messedrocker, User:Mindspillage, User:Pingswept, User:RossKoepke, User:Ryan524, User:Uncle G. that is 12 out of 27. and many of these people are barely active. This is not a 100% US admin control. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America and americans are terms which have been stolen and misapplied for hundreds of years now by USAGOV to use exclusively to define USA citizens. As with the other things USAGOV has stolen (like Hawaii) it is far too late to do anything about it. The admin level people (including Arbcom) who are US citizens plot their strategies on IRC and they now control this site by their 24 hour per day monitoring and over-active, continual oversight of the project. They are Amgine,CSpurrier, and Chiacomo. Non-americans like Dan100,Eloquence,the Bellman and Ilya used to have much more involvement but the natural tendency is for a high turnover in activism on a wiki ( I think)..the danger is when a few admins squat into a high level of active control of edits for a long period of time as these 3 have been doing. I believe the increase in administrative control which these 3 have over the past year is directly responsible for the stagnation of the project's audience numbers as readers/contributors globally are fed up and bored with american influence. DF is also american and may well develop into a MrM type participant but it is ACC who pull the levers of this machine on this date in time. I now see Amgine has disappeared but he did this last year for a month or so as well. Neutralizer 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point of view edit

  • "Ethnomathematicians" are now sprouting up to contest the claim that Western math is a universal and abstract discipline that has little to do with culture and ethnicity. Rather, they say, Western math is an expression of white male culture imposed on nonwhites. [1]

The idea that math is "biased" is as foolish as the notion that being American necessarily makes a WikiNews contributor biased. The only thing needed for neutrality in news is the ability to recognize when a fact is in dispute.

We all know that Israel lacks recognition by dozens of countries. We all also know that the UN has given Israel a seat in the General Assembly. I fail to see how either of these facts obligates Wikinews to take a position on whether Israel really "exists". A neutral position would acknowledge that there is a "government" calling itself Israel, claiming sovereignty over certain territory and people and running a military, judiciary, periodic elections, a parliament and a judiciary. It might not "really" be any more of a government than Taiwan (ROC) is, but it looks and quacks like a duck. No one here is trying to sweep the Arab non-recognition of Israel under the rug. But it's not necessary to remind readers of the views of the Flat Earth Society everytime space travel and satellites are mentioned, either. --Ed Poor 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/ArbCom_and_systemic_bias&oldid=327536"