Fred Bauder on gender bias

[Poetlister]

In a Wikimedia list exchange, someone called Jane Darnell notes "Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it." Fred retorts:

Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.

The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.

So any biases in Wikipedia are entirely the fault of "the knowledge industry" and nothing to do with the unrepresentative nature of Wikipedia editors, still less of those with COI and strong POVs.

[Kumioko]

Wikipedia and the wiki movement in general has attempted to embrace the notion that Wikipedia and its sister wikis should be written in a way to make them just as trustworthy and respected as mainstream Encyclopedias. Unfortunately, while doing that, they have also discarded all of the processes and norms of why those other encyclopedias became respected like the use of peer reviews (which it attempts to emulate in the FA/GA review processes); the use of experts (who's efforts are generally dismissed out of the policies of INVOLVED; ORIGINAL Research or are discouraged because their professionally written work can be overwritten by any high school student). That lack of peer review and editorial control allows organization and groups to more easily infiltrate and manipulate Wikipedia.

All anyone needs to do to recognize the left leaning bias of the WMF projects is look at the staff of the WMF, who are largely LGBT; the donors, many of the largest of which are well known for donating to left leaning causes; look at how a large percentage of the editing community is Western civilization/Christian centric, which skews any topics not following those areas, etc.

Really anyone who argues that Wikipedia doesn't lean to the left is being disingenuous.

[Poetlister]

They do claim to be peer reviewed because any article can be criticised and amended. Of course, we know how meaningless that claim is.

[DanMurphy]

Bauder, who was disbarred in the wake of soliciting a threesome for pay from the soon-to-be ex-wife of a divorce client and the client's current girlfriend, knows a thing or two about gender and power.

[Kumioko]

Wow, I heard they had been disbarred. I never knew why! I guess that still makes them qualified to be an Arbcom member.

[Poetlister]

Wow, I heard they had been disbarred. I never knew why! I guess that still makes them qualified to be an Arbcom member.

His local bar imposed a fine. He refused to pay and retired. Had he paid, he might still be working.

Meanwhile, leading "bright spark" Todd Allen comments:

If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. ... Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information.

In other words, editors have no business looking beyond the first "reliable" source that they find, even if they have reason to suppose that it's biased!