I'm not sure what the point of quoting that is really. I guess if you subscribe to the idea that reality is somehow modified by your age, sex, race, education or whatever the heck then it has some relevance but then the whole idea behind an encyclopedia seems pointless and we should just each maintain our own unique knowledge bases as they will have no relevance to someone other than us.
That an article like that exists is patently absurd in my view and kind of makes me a bit ill. Things like that is what led to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
I really firmly believe that if you think there is a European (?) science and an African science and they are distinct and equally valid then either me or you do not belong on Wikipedia and I would actually like Wikipedia to clarify their mission in this light.
I don't see the point of linking that either, but your "reality is neutral" argument is severely flawed. Wikipedia doesn't cover merely technical topics. Obviously there's not going to be a problem with systemic bias in an article on merge sort, but you don't think there's a potential issue with mainly wealthier, whiter, younger people writing articles on topics, for example, related to the history of colonialism? Think about how drastically perspectives on figures like Christopher Columbus have changed over just the last generation from bringing more diverse viewpoints into the conversation. Hell, we demonstrably see this today on the Japanese language Wikipedia with topics like the Nanking Massacre.
> Think about how drastically perspectives on figures like Christopher Columbus have changed over just the last generation from bringing more diverse viewpoints into the conversation.
In my view Wikipedia should not be a repository of value judgements or specific values that one should adopt - perspectives on Christopher Columbus is important and should be included but in no manner should those perspectives be made out to be incontrovertible or something other than value judgements and perspectives from specific points of view. I think it is valuable to understand the European perspective and native american perspectives at the time and throughout the following centuries for events.
But I don't think Wikipedia should be telling me I must think what Columbus did was good or bad - Wikipedia should not be trying to teach me morality - and as long as it does not do that I don't see how there is any problem with what topics Wikipedia covers and who writes it.
I think the only problem comes in when you attempt to do something which is impossible - like incorporate something which is fundamentally specific to specific people (morality) into something which purports to be valid for everyone.
Those judgments appear organically through mechanisms as simple as how much coverage a topic gets. The worst case is that a bunch of circa 1900 Europeans write this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigeno... and the impact of colonialism is mentioned in half a footnote rather than taking up the bulk of the article. If systemic bias were completely unchecked, entire articles might not exist.
I honestly struggle to reconcile what I read in the linked wiki article with what your comment mentions. "Systemic Bias"[1] doesn't seem to match with "reality is modified by your age, your...".
One can understand a possible path that goes "xyz information source is biased", "xyz info source isn't suitable for abc group", and "xyz info source is specific to xyz people, we need our own abc source". However, that seems to require a few assumptions? And still isn't as negative as that youtube video linked.
Would appreciate if you could elucidate on your views.
> The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is ... (some characteristics)
This builds to conclusion:
> The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world.
I don't see how you get to that conclusion form the premise other than by thinking that reality is modified by personal characteristics.
If there is an Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world
which includes things like gravity and science - then it is not valid for Africa (as the woman in the video is expressing) as Africa is not the Anglophone world ... not sure what about this is not clear.
And it absolutely is as bad as that youtube video I linked - you think that poor unfortunate woman came up with that drivel on her own? She is not nearly dumb enough - no single person can be that stupid.
You need years of academic circle jerking and hand picking of the dumbest arguments from the dumbest people to come up with something that stupid.
That an article like that exists is patently absurd in my view and kind of makes me a bit ill. Things like that is what led to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
I really firmly believe that if you think there is a European (?) science and an African science and they are distinct and equally valid then either me or you do not belong on Wikipedia and I would actually like Wikipedia to clarify their mission in this light.