Wikipedia talk:CROSSBOW

Untitled

Hi

Just a few thoughts: we probably need to focus on what Wikipedia currently does not do, rather than on the current demographic and what it does more or less well. A quick list off the top of my head would produce somenting like:

• Wikipedia:List of humanities subjects poorly covered or not covered at all (I still think humanities are very poorly covered as of now)
• Wikipedia:List of Africa subjects poorly covered or not covered at all
• Wikipedia:List of Asia subjects poorly covered or not covered at all
• Wikipedia:List of womens studies subjects poorly covered or not covered at all
• Wikipedia:List of ethnic cultures subjects poorly covered or not covered at all
• List of stubs, short articles and missing articles that would normally be long articles in other encyclopaedias

I am also copying this here from Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week because I think that this kind of focused FAC idea could usefully address bias:

Currently COTW is too big and too many minority interest articles get lost after a week or two. I would propose having a number of sub-pages: COTW/Science/Arts and literature/Popular culture/History and politics/Biography for example. Then each page could set its own weekly minimum for commitments to contribute (note:not votes). That way, a lot more articles would get improved, the management of each subpage would be easier, and types of articles that currently have no hope of being COWT would be in with a shout. Also, it would reduce the number of passing interest votes by getting people to say 'I think this needs improving and I'm willing to help.' rather than 'Why not.'. Filiocht 15:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

project name

When we go more public with this, lose the cute acronym. Be direct about what we are: Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias or some such. -- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The acronym is deliberately a bit silly. I thought that since we will be dealing with very worthy subjects, it's important that the feel of the section isn't too worthy since that may put people off. It also makes it more memorable and gives more options from a design point of view (icons etc). Of course, if no one likes it, it can be changed to something drier. --Xed 19:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I favour the direct approach myself, and Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias seems fine. Filiocht 07:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I prefer a more professional sounding title, eg. if we're going for WikiProject style: Wikipedia: WikiProject Countering systemic bias, is more appropriate. -- Solitude 11:34, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I would also point out that a crossbow would hardly be a particularly familiar object to the groups we are interested in recruiting. -- Jmabel 17:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Joan Jett fans don't know what a crossbow is? --Xed 09:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like Solitude's suggestion. Filiocht 12:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of Countering systemic bias. But I've got no problems with people informally calling it CROSSBOW amongst ourselves. :ChrisG 21:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copied from the Pump

As a sidelight on this, I found the following on User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0:

Britannica exists to support a particular canon, that being, the British and now American concept of "what history is." It is, for instance, light on the History of India, China, Africa, Latin America and figures of those cultures - one way Wikipedia can differentiate itself is to say that it is less Anglo-centric than Britannica. Build up an audience in developing nations who can really benefit from having a neutral encyclopedia — like in China where Wikipedia.org is banned, but they won't be able to keep all the CD-ROMs out. It may thus make sense to *focus on Chinese figures and history* deliberately. How can they keep out the only encyclopedia that does their history justice?

Filiocht 12:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Message tag

I noticed Mohamed Siad Barre is a one-line stub. I recognize that he is more important than this but don't necessarily know much about it myself. Perhaps a "Poorly covered topic area stub" like the music stub, etc. could be developed to bring it to the attention of this project. Rmhermen 02:30, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea. Filiocht 08:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go vote

There are some relevant articles on Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week just now. Filiocht 08:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)