Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Ethiopia

It's just come up on IRC how truly terrible our article on Ethiopia is. For a country that's considerably more high profile than Benin, this really needs a lot of work. How about making this the next highlighted country - before one of our critics picks us up on this? Ambi 14:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not just edit it? Putting on the To Do list on the Template, judging from the example of Benin, doesn't necessarily get anyone to edit it. In fact this whole project has had very little effect. - Xed 15:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's clearly the interest in this project, so why not take a leaf from what's working? I've suggested moving the COTW to a seperate page (which would also make it watchlistable), and creating a seperate, long, complete to-do list (as the Australian and UK notice boards have done), which would mean there'd always be something to pick from, and which would see a heck of a lot more articles being actually written. It would also really help if the page sizes were kept down - for those of us on dialup, this fetish with having everything on two massive pages makes it almost unworkable to use. And anyway, this project clearly has had some successes - look at Economy of Africa. Ambi 00:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

second Ambi's suggestion on moving COTW to separate page. And anything to keep page sizes manageable is A Good Thing.Pedant 13:24, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Can one third a suggestion? Anyway, COTW should have its own subpage. Filiocht 12:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that this project has done little. Virtually all of my recent edits stemmed from working on Land reform, stemming out into Plan Zamora, the Venezuelan CTV, the AFL-CIO, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, et cetera. Admittedly, these articles already got more attention than Benin, but it's something. This project is going to be hard, because the problem is truly systemic. Measure success in small intervals at first. DanKeshet 17:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Although disappointed with the level of progress, I agree that this project has started to bear fruit. One suggestion: when someone complains that the article Ethiopia is horrid (which cannot be denied; so are many other articles on African countries), say "Thanks for volunteering to improve it! We look forward to your contribution." Shorne 07:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily rude, Shorne. I lack either the time or the knowledge to do a decent job of fixing up Ethiopia. I could try in a few weeks, but it'd be silly not to at least bring it to the attention of more capable people - before our critics pick up on such a thing. If no one does fix it up, then so be it - but it's just rude to bite the messenger. Ambi 08:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it as a rude retort, and I certainly wasn't addressing it to you. I was just suggesting that people who notice a deficiency might try to fill it themselves (as I do, to the extent that I can afford the time). Shorne 00:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that not a single Ethiopian author on List of African writers (by country) has even a stub of an article right now. Would someone like to write a stub on at least one of those writers? (I'd do it myself, but I'm busy with five other African countries and plenty of other subjects.) Shorne 07:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Query on the use of billion. trillion etc.

It's my understanding that the words trillion and million refer to different quantities in British English and in American English. Is this still true? If so, how does one address this issue? I feel this must have come up before, if that's the case a link to that discussion would be appreciated.Pedant 18:03, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

The so-called British use of billion, trillion, and the rest is uncommon nowadays, precisely because of the ambiguity that results. Most people use either the US forms (million, billion, trillion; not million, milliard, billion) or substitute unambiguous but clunky constructions such as "thousand million". I've seen "billion", as a link, in various articles: something like "There are 6 billion people in the world", so that anyone in doubt can go there and find that we're using the word to mean $10^{9}$, not $10^{12}$. Seems like a good approach to me. Shorne 06:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The British treasury officially adopted the American usage of billion in the 1970s, thereby making the world safe for Carl Sagan. Lee M 13:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!Pedant

List of African writers (by country)

The above subject is on this fortnights To Do list. I have created a new article for Mohammed Dib, from the Algeria section. Also I've wikified the Algeria section with as many birth and death dates as I could find, and added more authors. The authors and dates I added were also added to the List of African writers. Additionally, I created a List of Algerian writers article, and an 'Algerian writers' category. It would be good if a few people could choose a country, and an author from that country to concentrate on.- Xed 15:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comrade Shorne has agreed to concentrate on Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé e Príncipe. I choose Benin and Togo. Go to Talk:List of African writers (by country) to add yourself to the list - Xed 22:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks in advance to those who assist with this article. There's plenty of work to be done on all areas of this fascinating continent, and it doesn't require any expertise (which is a good thing; otherwise I wouldn't be able to contribute much). I've already learnt about a number of interesting authors and have added a couple to the (long) list of those that I intend to read. Shorne 06:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page is still far, far, far, far too long

Look at the other CotW pages. CSB should be this simple. The page should just have a couple of paragraphs outlining the aim of the project and a voting section. All the other stuff can be on a separate page. - Xed 23:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi. I'm not part of this project per se, but if anyone's interested I could use help on the Caucasus region (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of southern Russia.) Our coverage is messy and incomplete, and there's a lot of confusion where several historical figures have the same name, or the same person is known by multiple names (or multiple transliterations.) Isomorphic 20:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be very much appreciated. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Africa Featured on main page (13/11/2004)

Thought it worth flagging the major success of this article:

• It won Wikipedia:Danny's_contest for best new article against a strong field
• Attained featured article status
• Featured today.

Congratulations to User:SimonP who did most of the work.

ChrisG 20:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well done all. - Xed 05:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Activity this fortnight (1st to 14th Nov)

Less activity on ToDo list articles and even less voting. Page is still too complicated. No one seems interested in contributing. Suggest we shut down project unless these problems are solved. - Xed 05:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page should be just a voting page like the other CotWs. Description of CSB can go on another page. - Xed 13:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Simplify the format. Activity may still not be that high, so I wouldn't get too dramatic about it. People are going to be less motivated to work on subjects they have to do a lot of research on than a subject they are familiar with. I think we should moderate our expectations, and work on slow expansion. We have already had some moderate success.Peregrine981 04:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

At least we should get everything simplified before we move on the the next vote. - Xed 16:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The COTW page is really hard to find. I know about it, and it still took me a while. So that could be made easier.

Yes, I only just now stumbled back in after doing a google search for "Black Dragon fire" which was a fire that burned 1 tenth of the world's timber reserves, yet the only mention google finds is when I mentioned it on this page during the template discussion. The very nature of this project is that there are systemic biases, that don't come from unwillingness to learn or write about -- but come from our ignorance on these subjects. I think that if this project bears any fruit, it has been worthwhile. Burkina Faso has improved, I think in most part because of the CSB project.Pedant 17:18, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

But as I've said numerous times, if you want people to work on articles, make a list of the stuff that needs doing, like the Australians did here and the British did here. Not everyone is a specialist on the history of Benin. If a list like that is created, the articles will come. Take a hint from what works - don't shut a perfectly good project down. Ambi 05:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi. I'm mostly picking articles from the complete to do list (or writing on subjects I didn't add to the list but certainly fit the CSB-goals). There is much to write anyway, even without using the WikiProjectCSBTasks box. ¶ Mark Dingemanse (talk) 22:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should have a section listing accomplishments or successful work, so that people can have some idea of what is being done by the project. This provides feedback and some idea of where progress is beign made, and where we need to focus more effort. It could also provide some incentive to work harder. Peregrine981 11:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

Anyone volunteering to remould CSB as described above (like other CotW pages, with description of CSB on separate page)? If not, the soonest I can do it is Thursday. - Xed 20:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - but it might take a while to get to it (I have an exam today, and I'm taking off for a couple of days tomorrow). Ambi 23:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to contribute to this project anymore. Shorne 22:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverted semi-blanking

I reverted the semi-blanking of this page [1] because it is still more useful as a page than a message about a former page. —siroχo 07:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why are people so keen to call this over? We've barely even begun. Ambi 08:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems we're running into some impatience here. I would like to kick start a redesign of the main page, but I don't feel confident enough to do it. I'd like to put in something like they have on the Australian notic board. I don't know how to do that snazzy chart though. Would it be possible? Shall we put our collaboration on the front page? I would say yes. Shall we move all the deeper explanations of the project ot another secondary page? Any rate, I'm sorry about this but I don't think I can do it myself. Peregrine981 10:52, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll do it if you like (I started the Australian one) - if that's okay with others? Ambi 11:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's OK, at least with me. I'm almost always working on CSB-related articles and I'm watching this project closely. I don't understand why people want to call this over. — mark ✎ 11:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I, for one, would be happy to see it.

I don't really know the reason for the low morale either, but I do suggest some sort of a "accomplishments" or "in progress" section to let everyone know that something is actually being done, even if we can't always see it every day.Peregrine981 12:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. We could perhaps do something along the lines of what us Australians have done at Wikipedia:New articles (Australia) - it helps to keep track of all the work that's being done. I really wish I could do more to help here, but it's the same old thing - I'm not really sure where to start, which is why I wanted a to-do list. Ambi 12:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop the project?

Come on people, stop being so naive. No one wants to edit articles they know nothing about, and no one is rushing to make this project usable. Lets give up - Xed 22:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't share your pessimism. I am one of the users attracted by the goal of this project, and happy to have found people who share the same concerns. It's not only about editing articles one knows nothing about, it's also about having a comprehensive list to choose articles from that interest one. And it's about having a platform for review and to share thoughts. I regret that I don't have much time to devote to shaping the project itself right now, but that's the way it is. I guess we just have a slow start, but it's a start at least, a step forward - and why take a step backward now? — mark ✎ 02:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm optimistic too. We've flagged the issue, started a project, defined the problem, and set up the lists of articles: that is actually a great start. But now we have the difficulty of actually doing the work and that is always more difficult. I would like to contribute more; but this project is one of my interests in Wikipedia and I'm sure that is the same problem for other people interested in this project. As mentioned above we need an accomplishments section to show that work is getting done however slowly. Momentum will build as potential editors get used to checking the list of articles. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and the reduction of its systemic biases won't either. :ChrisG 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am so tired of the drama-queening about this project. This isn't a personal ego showcase, one way or another; it's just a list of work needing to be done, and a collection of folks who, at our own pace, are willing to help do it. Maybe the COTF list is useful and maybe it isn't, but the to-do lists and the project itself clearly belong on wikipedia. Throwing fits because the pace isn't to your liking is ridiculous, and attempting to kill off the entire project is offensive. This isn't your personal plaything to take home when you don't get your way with it. Take your pick: either get over it and participate as-is, or get over it and quit (dramatically, if you like) and go away. —Bsktcase 23:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bah nonsense! This project has a valuable existance, it is very good to have a place for the lists we're keeping and to keep motivating people to contribute. I for one have written only two articles from scratch, one of them on a topic I stublmed on through this project: Jill Ker Conway, someone I had never heard of before I started the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, perhaps, the H.D. article was on the open tasks a while back and is now a featured article. I did a lot of the work but this was not an article I had any plans to work on and I would not have done it if not for this project. Filiocht 10:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This project has certainly not failed, unless we were expecting to have systemic bias countered in a month. It does, however, need some improvements. I heartily support Peregrine's offer of reworking the main page. Something I would be more than willing to help with. - SimonP 02:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fixing and simplifying CotW

Started on making the CotW more like the others here: Wikipedia:CSB_Collaboration_of_the_Week. Request that someone else carries on with the work. - Xed 02:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linguistics

I have been collecting a few linguistic topics with a limited point of view (LPOV). This is clearly another area suffering from systemic bias, so I've made a new section on the Open Tasks page. I hope more internationally-oriented linguists will join us! — mark ✎ 11:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absurdity

I recently came through trying to fix some things on the project page that had, in fact, confused several people. Within 12 hours, Xed came through and (in addition to appropriately removing some deprecated templates), removed without discussion much of what I had done, including removing the entire "participants" section. In fact, he removed from the page several things that I have found on other projects are useful to recruiting people, leaving only very brief items in a bullet list.

I haven't removed the participants list. It's still there, and still linked from the main page. In fact, it's the very first bullet point. Before it was unnecessarily linked from two different places on the page. Now it has one link. Fixed and simplified. As for what you mean by "several things that I have found on other projects are useful to recruiting people", you will have to be more specific. - Xed 23:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is removed was a section on the main page encouraging people to sign up and explaining what was on the Participants page besides people's names. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

What (I think) you're referring to was a section with this:

See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias Participants Please add your name and specific interests (if any) with regard to the project at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias Participants. Participants are encouraged to put {{WikiProjectCSBTasks}} on their user page and/or watchlist.

So I was wrong, there were actually 2 unnecessary links. And nothing to "explain what was on the Participants page besides people's names."

Xed 00:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed, I really don't understand: you complain that the project isn't doing well enough, but when I come through to see if I can tweak things to make it work better, you basically slap me away.

I haven't slapped you away. Don't be silly. - Xed 23:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the first time in seven weeks that I've tried, and it was precisely because once again you'd written a note implying that you'd given up. As I said in early October, I have no interest in fighting with you over this. I am not going to play edit war over the project page. If you want to be the main facilitator, fine, but I'm really sick of this alternating between, on the one hand, trying to run the project while declaring it a failure and hectoring others for not doing enough and, on the other, storming out the door but then coming back in the moment anyone else tries to make a go of things without you.

My drama queen moment above was in the same spirit as my long ago request to have Congo Civil War deleted. In other words, declaring the direct opposite of what one wants often has a better result than asking for what you want. Consider above, where suggesting improving the project receives no replies or action, whereas suggesting shutting it down not only receives a positive response, but also action. In a sense, the strategy is symbolized by the sandals in the famous Koan "Nansen and the cat". -Xed 23:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I call it passive-aggressive behavior, and I'm not willing to try to work closely with anyone who regards it as a legitimate way to interact. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Also, right now the project has the same "fortnightly" collaboration going for about three weeks. We don't use fortnights a lot here in the U.S., but when we do they don't usually last this long... -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

So you forgot to update it? Or did you expect me to to it? - Xed 23:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until my one attempt yesterday, after I thought (incorrectly) that you were giving up, I had not been attempting to function on this project in an administrative capacity. I think I had made that entirely clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

So you'll only get involved if I give up? - Xed 00:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In administering the project pages? Yes. Either way, I still intend to work on articles pointed up by this project, but we seem to be constantly at cross purposes in our efforts at administering the project pages. I do not see this changing. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Cross purposes? Like what? The only thing you have mentioned is some paranoid idea about me removing (and trying to hide) the participants list. - Xed 01:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed, it's been one thing after another. Mostly it's your hectoring and passive-aggressive behavior. If I'm the only person you are having this sort of problem with, just let go of it. One more or less person on the project won't matter. If you are having this sort of problem with a lot of people, or if people continually stop wanting to work with you, then I submit that the problem is on your end and I'm just being mor vocal than most. In any case, I think I've made myself clear. I can't see anything gained by continuing this discussion, but based on the past, I'm sure you will add something to get in the last word. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The problem starts with you making paranoid and baseless claims, like that I'm trying to hide the participants. If you didn't do that I wouldn't have to respond - Xed 09:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried, but once again, I withdraw from my effort to administer the project. I will continue to try to contribute by editing articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

COTW scorecard

by User:Solitude

WikiProject	Featured Articles	On Main	COTW's	Members
WP:ICOTW	1	?	?	23
WP:ACOTW	1	1	?	?
WP:GCOTW	1	0	?	?
WP:COTW	1,2	1,2	?	?
WP:UKCOTW	1	0	?	70
WP:CSBCOTW	1	?	?	45
WP:MCOTW	0	0	?	?

-Xed 00:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New model

SimonP and myself have built a quick model for a possible new design. Maybe we should build a bunch of subpages to deal with each, fairly distinct, topic under countering systemic bias, still linked by the central page. Here is a proposal for a basic design on the subpages. Each page would include a general discussion about whether a bias does exist on the topic, an analysis of the scope of the problem, proposed solutions, and a to-do list for that particular topic. We are still not sure exactly how to approach the main page, but perhaps a similar, somewhat expanded approach could work? Feel free to tinker and comment as you wish. Peregrine981 03:02, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Regrettably, Peregrine and I posted with different slants on exactly the same idea at exactly the same time, and he beat me to it. Here's my thoughts, anyway - I think the two proposals could turn out to be quite compatible.

What I'd like to do, for starters, as I've said to Jmabel, is relaunch this in the notice board format (per the Australian and the UK boards).

As part of this, I'd like to see us expand the main to-do list, and to create a complete one - which could be set up along the lines of Simon and Peregrine's proposal, outlining exactly where the problems lie in each area and what we can do to help them (which was a better idea than my original one), and also where research efforts can be coordinated, per Danny's suggestions below.

I'd also like to see a page where we can see what others have been working on (perhaps along the lines of Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)), which would replace the current category, which isn't really suitable for this purpose. As well, I'd like to bump as much of the static discussion from the main page, replacing it with subpages for participants, recruitment, translation and COTW efforts - and then using the extra space to highlight all of these efforts, rather than having a long ramble on the front page.

It'd also be nice to see certain people making a specific effort to welcome editors in their areas of expertise (and organising this so that we can get as many areas as possible covered), in order to try and retain as many as possible of those editors who come, make a few edits, and disappear off into the sunset. As I said to Jmabel, it's something that's proven very effective in the Australian efforts, and I think it could prove to be just as effective in helping expand this. Any thoughts? Ambi 03:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Under my understanding you would like 2 "to do" lists. One simple one, with a selection of topics, as the Australian, and one complete one with all of the topics anyone can think of? I think that is a good idea generally. We had thought to split up the main "to do" list into a series of shorter ones focusing on each topic. They would still amount to a large "to-do" list for the whole project, but would be perhaps less cumbersome, and easier to administer. It might also focus editors who are interested in one aspect of the systemic bias, but not others.

On a related note, I forgot to mention earlier. Breaking up the "developing world" article seems like good sense to me. Simply listing every possible topic relating to the developing world under the same heading is disorganized. Different aspects of the developing world are covered from geography, to history, to politics and beyond. Making a seperate category for each of these might make it easier for potential editors to find an article they are interested in, as well as making it easier to see exactly what is missing under a given topic heading.

Overall I agree that we should try to move most of the static discussion to subpages as the best solution to simplifying the page. This is an enormous project and needs to be well organized to work. Peregrine981 03:47, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

My original idea was for two to-do lists, but I like your idea of having a series of shorter ones focusing on each topic. I also agree in terms of it helping focus editors who are only interested in part of the larger project. We'd still be retaining the brief one though, wouldn't we? It's good for highlighting attention onto the most egregarious holes. Ambi 07:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, lets keep the brief main list, as a focus for the project as a whole. We should keep some unity in order to avoid isolation between the differents subcategories.Peregrine981 10:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good. It'd be nice to get some other responses here - I'd really like to get this up and going in the next couple of days. Ambi 10:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I began to implement what we've talked about here. Its pretty rough right now, and there is no master to do list as of yet, but its a start. Peregrine981 04:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed by the analysis of Wikipedias coverage:

Man: Woman	He: She	Encyclopedia
3:1	5:1	Wikipedia
2:1	7:1	Columbia
2:1	4:1	Encarta
2:1	2:1	Britannica

Canada: Nigeria	Belgium: Rwanda	Encyclopedia
27:1	11:1	Wikipedia
19:1	4:1	Encarta
12:1	4:1	Columbia
5:1	4:1	Britannica

Perhaps a 'bias number' could be attached to certain subjects or countries, to help us target them more effectively. (Could anyone create a script to churn out this sort of number?) - Xed 10:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A New Approach

I am a true believer in this project and appreciate all the work Xed and everyone else has put into it. The truth is, though, that we are dealing with difficult topics, in which information is difficult to obtain. To help with some of the real countries that have less information than Middle Earth or the Klingon Empire, I have begun to write to their embassies and governments, describing Wikipedia and asking them to send us information and images that we can incorporate into our encyclopedia. I encourage others to do the same. I would be happy to provide a sample letter as well as email addresses to anyone who wishes. So far, I have sent emails to representatives of Papua New Guinea, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Timor Leste, Saint Lucia, Dominica, and Ethiopia. I think it would be best to contact countries in the Francophonie in French, but that is beyond my abilities (but maybe someone else can do it ...) Danny 03:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea, Danny - what sort of responses have you gotten so far? Ambi 03:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None so far, but I only started this afternoon, and it is a Friday. I am hoping to hear something next week. Danny 03:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope that's fruitful. I did something similar a while ago, writing to various bloggers and educational institutions whose interests intersect with CSB. Didn't get much of a response but this was posted right afterwards — I assume it was someone I contacted. Also I noticed there were a few more anon edits of CSB articles. - Xed 09:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record

I see that the general explanation of systemic bias in Wikipedia and discussion of ways to address it has been dropped from the project page. I won't argue about the removal, but for the record, as the author of most of that, I have moved my remarks to User:Jmabel#On_systemic_bias. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think it serves a purpose to have it handy, but I'd like to see that on a subpage - it's the sort of thing that makes an interesting read once, but doesn't need to be in your face every time you load the project page. Ambi 07:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't totally deleted. BTW, I saved off my own version, not the consensus version, so if someone wants to restore this on a different page as the project group's view, they probably want to take the recently deleted version, not the one from my user page. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

It has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Project details. That is basically where I dumped everything that seemed like we had agreed to move off the main page. We may wish to further organize them. Peregrine981 10:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Building

I am very slowly moving forward with this restructuring, partially because I simply don't have the technological know how to make an overall to do list, which is basically the centre piece of our re design, and partially because I don't want to do everything on my own. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could begin work on the to do list so that we can get a real working model going to see if it works or if people hate it and we have to try again. Peregrine981 04:49, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to conscript a couple of people who are good with tables from the Australian project. Haven't been able to track them down yet. Ambi 05:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories

I've been thinking vaguely about the categories, and I'd like peoples' opinions. Would we rather have subcategory lists taken from "developing world" being geographically based, or thematically based? Currently we have done subject, as in geography, history, and politics. We could alternately do, Africa, South America, Asia.... I have no particular preference, but I thought I'd see what people think.Peregrine981 12:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

The thematic option (geog, poli, hist) seems to make more sense. - Xed 18:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Head Heeb

Just posted an article (as a guest) on Head Heeb here. Hope it gets some of the fine readers of Head Heeb interested in CSB. - Xed 18:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help!

So I decided I'd try and do a bit of work on Saint Kitts and Nevis this afternoon. I managed to fix the information about its National Assembly, which was completely wrong, due to bad State Department information. But then I decided to come up with a list of its members, and ran into a bit of trouble.

I can get the names of the eleven elected members easily enough, and I can get the names of the two members that the government appoints, because they're in the cabinet, which was widely reported. However, the opposition also appoints one member, and I can't find his or her name anywhere. Any ideas for how I might be able to get this? Any help would be appreciated. Ambi 05:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New list template suggestion

Since I don't know how to create templates, I would like to ask for some help and some suggestions here. I've noticed that almost all the generalized topic lists on the Wikipedia are almost exclusively or at least substantially devoted to information related to Europe and North America. For example, the Superstar article has a single Bollywood star. So what I did for that article was take an existing template and modified it. What I would like to have is a template that could be added to either the top or bottom of lists that would say something like: "This list is incomplete; you can help to [expand it], especially with [fill in the blank here] from outside of Europe and North America. This template could then be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/Lists for everyone to use." [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board

I have noticed that there is now an :Africa-related regional notice board has been created. Perhaps we should incorporate this fact into our planning for the project. Should we link directly to it, or ignore it and risk duplication? I don't think its good to ignore it considering the relative lack of editors comfortable with this topic.

Peregrine981 09:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias and Calendars

The article above has an POV statement regarding the CSB project.

At least some of the calendars (for example, Common year starting on Monday and Leap year starting on Monday) highlight Sundays in red, a strictly religious bias imo. There are some possible solutions (remove the highlight, highlight Sat. & Sun., as possibilities), but is this more wide-spread and is this an appropriate task in CSB? - Amgine 22:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I thought that was only because Sunday is the first day of the week. Removing the highlight wouldn't be that big a deal for me since I don't normally associate Sunday with Christianity anyway. -FLafaire 12:09, 14 December 2004 (UTC)

Well, then the question is, why is Sunday the first day of the week? Monday seems more logical, and many calendars are actually being formatted that way these days. (makes it easier to plan work weeks/weekends) I've started modifying the Common year series (updating them to tables in the process).

Sunday is the first day of the week because Saturday is the Sabbath (why is Saturday the Sabbath? That I cannot answer; people have used the seven day week for a long, long time). But I do not know whether Sunday is highlighted because it is the first day of the week (which seems to me to imply only the point of view of this calendrical system) or because Christians consider it the Lord's day (because Jesus was resurrected?) (which is perhaps a religious bias, as Amgine suggests). Slrubenstein

Actually, then, Sunday is the first day because of religious reasons for either reason. - Amgine

Sunday is not the first day of the week everywhere. It is the last day of the week in Sweden, for one example. Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)