Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

Notability for events in the Global South

I am concerned about the notability guidelines presenting an issue for events in the Global South. An event that would be considered notable in the Global North or "the West" is given a diminished notability because of the less developed sources and journals that are available. Which is to say that an event may get extensive coverage in the north, but the same event happening in the south would get less coverage, and this would be used to deny it notability. I find this to be a possible systemic bias on Wikipedia that needs more thought put into it. Not sure where else might be good to request input, except maybe RFC or GNG pages? Metallurgist (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE ought to cover this. Your concern seems to be that events in the Global South might be excluded because of reportage in what DUE calls a "tiny minority" of sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I actually have the opposite concern. A topic may be notable in a small country because it received coverage in one major newspaper and a couple of minor ones (all with a small circulation) because they have "national" scope, but the same topic in a large country covered by sources with similar circulation would be considered non-notable because the scope may not be "national" or "regional".

Related to that, I have always felt our bar is far too low for biographies, leading to a systemic bias toward having articles about irrelevant people. We have articles about truly notable individuals who have made a significant impact on society or culture or art or whatever, along with articles about youtubers and lawyers and niche musicians who happened to get a couple of news stories written about them in a medium-city newspapers. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you agreeing with me? Re: BLP, I somewhat agree, altho I am generally inclusionist. There are a lot of examples of what are really people puffing themselves up, or their fans are. I also notice books have a lower standard than they probably should have. Havent looked at music notability yet, but Im sure that is another example. Metallurgist (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't agreeing with you; I just have a different perspective. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

My concerns are that such reportage is diminished and there is a bias towards other sources that are GN-focused, reflecting a bias, which I dont think is intentional, but is still an issue. Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

We cannot invent reporting that does not exist. However, when sources exist there isn't a bias towards "sources that are GN-focused", a lot of the deprecated sources at WP:RS/P are from "GN" countries. It's perfectly possible to build an article entirely from "non-GN" sources. CMD (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying to invent reporting that does not exist. I am saying that the weight and notability of reporting in some countries appears to be diminished for events that would be considered notable in the north. And wondering how this can be addressed when we have been trying to make an effort to be more inclusive of the global south. Metallurgist (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

two months late but imo this site is very USA pilled

not just in irl stuff but enterainment topics, espically video games

america gets all the attention while even europe doesnt get much... espically in that sector i just mentioned. edit: its espically noticable on the pre nintendo 64 era Metro8102 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Essay encouraging bias and OR linked in See Also

I removed an essay that relies on WP:OR, is WP:POVPUSHING, and misquotes/misattributes sources, which was restored with this edit. I have to strongly object to a page with the purpose of reducing systemic bias sending users to a page that encourages them to "determine" a biography or BLP's race, ethnic, or cultural identity outside the bounds of the consensus of WP:RS. Wikipedia publishes the consensus of reliable sources, its users do not make novel determinations, particularly about living people. To avoid an edit war, I appeal to the talk page. If you doubt my concern, try to WP:VERIFY that essay. It is WP:FRINGE. Pingnova (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Lack of noticeboard, evidence of bias. Case in point The Birth of a Nation

Looking for someone to review The Birth of a Nation for systemic bias. It does not cite, e.g., James Baldwin's The Devil Finds Work, nor Ed Guerrero's "Framing Blackness". The sources on Black history, where even mentioned, are largely relegated to sections lower in the article. The sources critical of the racist legacy of the film are widely cited in a perfunctory way early-on, but often not for the main scholarly thrust. I have raised issues at WP:NPOV/N, and others have raised the signal at WP:FILM, but I continue to get the feeling that no one has actually read any of these sources, and the general thrust of conversion is consistent with systemic biases of established Wikipedia demographics, and the implicit prejudices thereof, rather than the neutral point of view. Check the talk page. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

WW2

Really think 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. ought to be reworded to not imply the need for more Nazi POVs, while "perspective" and "prevails" are technically non-judgemental, it reads a bit like a dog-whistle. Maybe something like The historical perspective of the Central Powers is presented less often than that of the Allies., unless it’s referring to coverage in general Kowal2701 (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Could it just be a typo? The bullet point would make more sense if it said "Allies of World War I". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

! Yeah it is, thanks. Says WW1 in the second part, I’ll change it Kowal2701 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)