“When looking at a random selection of encyclopedia
terms, bias was also inherent.”[1]
A conclusion has been made by a number of researchers and readers that
Wikipedia can be bias in the posted articles. This is also the case with my
article referring to the ‘glass ceiling’. In this talk section there are many
questions on whether or not the definition of “glass ceiling” and the
interpretations are fact or opinion. The reason this talk section and article
have different points of view is because “Wikipedia is open for anyone to add and
edit information”.[2]
As I have
stated previously, Wikipedia is generally unreliable as a definitive source. A
Wikipedia talk section relating to an article on ‘glass ceiling’, talks about
how the article is mostly opinions, that it needs more facts, and it needs a
less bias view. Every article is usually skewed one way or another, but in this
case it seems to be more pronounced. One writer commented that “this article
reads like it was written by feminists. Just saying”[3].
Another writer says that this is the point to the article; that it’s written by
feminists for feminists. There were many other people who suggested this article
“should narrow to actual facts not opinions,”[4]
so that there is a more balanced point of view. How do you strike this balance between
feminist bias and fact when writing about the current state of women in the
workplace? I believe that this article may have been written by someone with a
feminist viewpoint but much of the talk section contains points of view from a
less feminist and more realistic view. The fact that someone writes their
opinion on the topic and no one really pushes back still shocks me. More fact
and less opinion would help the article to become realistic, less bias, and provide
a better understanding of the meaning of “glass ceiling”. A point I completely
agree with is that “almost the entire article is biased and treats the “glass
ceiling” as fact rather than an idea or theory. As mentioned before it does not
discuss the probable reasons for the gender gap e.g. pregnancy, suitability
etc”[5].
They make a good point that it is a bias article, but that is because the
writers are writing something they are passionate about. A passionate view will
always result in bias writings.
It seems
that the talk participants are simply writing from their current knowledge base
and personal experience. This means the site maybe drifting away from its
intended purpose as a source of knowledge towards being a conduit for
expression of personal views. A few of the writers may note anything they feel
should be corrected or removed, however, this only serves to confirm that the
information posted in suspect. These articles are supposed to be specific to
the topic and provide good descriptions of source and subject. One person
posted saying “so although the historical origins of the word and primary usage
may be related to gender, I think a broader definition or at least some mention
of other relevant populations that the term applies to would be useful”[6].
This is an issue because this person is trying to make “glass ceiling” more of
an open topic which is not the purpose of the article. Each person is trying to
obtain information to further their knowledge and understanding. It seems they are
thinking selfishly, not holistically.
This group of people seem to be
very civil and calm when they are having disagreements. There were no real
arguments, which is a positive as resolution in this forum is unlikely.
In this talk section they are very open to
people coming in and making changes as long as they are backed up with reliable
sources. The problem is, who defines reliable source? They are very encouraging
of newcomers and make it clear that they want you “to just jump in. Even
interested people are unlikely to do a lot of work on a subject they don’t know
too much about. If you are reading, or have access to, good sources, you’re the
one”[7].
This talk section is quite democratic because
everyone can voice their opinion without judgment. No one is really challenging
each other and they are saying the more people that voice their opinions and
knowledge the better. The article itself on the other hand can be seen to be
the opposite. It is very one sided and “seems to be based mostly on right-wing
and conservative opinion, with little actual facts”[8].
This can be okay for an article because you don’t want it to be mixed views or
too much opinion. The majority of the time people feel pressured into
participating in the discussion. This occurs primarily when there are many
different ways to interpret terms, sayings, and concepts. “What
is designated as ‘collectivity’ or ‘mass creativity’ is often the result of
hype from networking activity – a type of activity heavily pushed by
commercially driven social platforms and aggregator sites”[9].
The thing I like the most about
this “talk” section is that everyone seems to have respect for one another. No
one is really mean or offensive and they all seem to make an effort towards constructive
criticism. They will point out flaws as well as opportunities for improvement.
Others note what they have removed and why, or what they have added and the
sources used. The approach taken in the written piece appears fairly
professional. There is a reasonable amount of differing opinion within this
talk section. Most would think this would result in conflict…even I thought I
was going to be reading a very heated debate. But this talk section is actually
well constructed, considering it’s an open section. Topics and concerns are
well structured, supported, and discussed. This is a positive because it will
allow for the article develop in an effective way. It will eliminate duplication,
false information, and contradiction.
Since this
topic is one that is written by those who feel passionate about it, there are some
that feel they know better and should have the final say. This doesn’t really
cause any issues for others reading the article, or even writing in the talk
section. It is just preferred if everyone works together and writes how the
article should be written. Wikipedia is about people coming together to write
on a common topic. It just so happens that most of the writers, who don’t
appear to have any credentials, feel the same way about the topic; hence it
appears bias. A lot of the views are based on experience, past knowledge, or
just hearsay. No one discourages anyone else’s point of view, but they
certainly don’t want someone coming in and saying that they decide what is
right and wrong. There was one instance where someone came in and edited the
article. This isn’t a problem, it is encouraged, but with this person it was
felt that they were “taking it personally and guarding the article as if [they]
have the final authoritative say on the matter”[10].
Wikipedia isn’t about one person’s view; it is about consensus building with a
view to providing better understanding.
The
article itself has good references and anything that has the possibility to be
used from an outside source is noted. On the other hand, the talk section
doesn’t have many references and is mostly opinion. This is almost as bad as
not referencing in the actual article. If they don’t reference what they are
talking about in the talk section then how are we supposed to believe what they
are saying? Referencing is extremely important, especially when it is published
worldwide. I am pleased that there are people in this section that are noticing
when something isn’t referenced and they are calling the person out. An
example: “This was added without a
source: "However, there is no substantive proof to show that this gap is
due to discrimination or not due to other market forces."[11]
Without source and attribution this is editorializing and I think it should
go”. This same user who corrected the lack of referencing has written
frequently in the talk section. They are actively making sure information is
sourced and that it makes sense. Every article needs someone like this!
Overall, my point of view is still that I “do not see [Wikipedia] as being a
credible enough source”[12]
for articles that are highly debatable, I do believe this talk section is
beneficial. An article can be incorrect but eventually there could be a
possibility for a consensus since there are “large number of people Wikipedia
has working with them to gather information”[13].
Hopefully this will make all articles more reliable, impartial and objective
