You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168
You are reading: Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions with ads
All Wikipedia Editorial rules applies here + you are free to place ads on articles you authored on Wikiafripedia and earn revenue based on the number of people that read your article daily - imagine if Wikipedia was like that.
Right now, the most read article on Wikiafripedia is SSSniperwolf
If you need help getting started, WhatsApp Shusmitha on: +2348032569168

Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Metapedia & British National Party[edit source | edit]

Some ties between Metapedia, the British National Party and Wikiafripedia [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that it's better they dedicate their efforts to writing POV articles about the BNP on an "encyclopedia" that no one but far-right loons read, rather than spending it trying to introduce that same POV into the Wikiafripedia article on the BNP. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The systemic racial bias that does exist among Wikiafripedia's editors is clearly pointed at White, Western peoples. EyePhoenix (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I concur, and most of them from the United States.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
But certainly not ALL white, western peoples, not even those from the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Partial info[edit source | edit]

I am missing here statistical data on the (presumed) racial bias in WP: what is the percentage of "racial" articles, who are the contributors by race (Black, Yellow, White, otherwise), why we edit or do not edit, also grouped by race, etc.

Are there any WP:RS third-party articles that have studied these? Zezen (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that some people have not understood the difference between an under-representation caused by different proportion of interested individuals from a racial group and under-representation caused by hostility toward a racial group. I hope all kinds of people jump in and edit Wikiafripedia responsibly, but the lack of diversity among the editors is not automatically an evidence of animosity by existing editors. Pete unseth (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this common-sense argument, Pete unseth. Still, do we have hard RS data ? Zezen (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolute BS. Black people have been hounded from this project for years. Ganging up on certain Black editors, stalking, canvassing and leaving nasty comments about them on certain talk pages in an effort to discredit them are just some of the strategies used. When they raise concerns in the relevant noticeboards, they are ganged upon by the White Wiki Clique in order to diminish their concerns and ridicule them. I have watched countless of great Black and African editors hounded from the project by the White Wiki clique - most of whom are from North America. Even new Black or African editors interested in the project and pushed aside and driven off the project. Asking for a biased and dubious statistics in order to play down the issue is just silly. Many great editors who have been working on African and Black projects which I'm interested in have left the project because of what they had to endure thanks to the white Eurocentrics POV here. This has been my biggest headache here, because we have lost several great editors knowledgeable about the subjects I'm interested in. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding

undated comment added 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to create an article about that "White Wiki Clique"? This is a serious question. I would be interested to know who's in it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You see if I come and say this is also my experience on Wiki then I am the Race pusher, and marginalize. It is all in our head. We all have a chip on our shoulder which White editors brush aside.--169.0.4.160 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
This is absolutely the case here, unfortunately. There are racist Eurocentric editors on here. Not just from the U.S., I have had some very poor experiences with British editors here as well. Most everyone I know who was passionate about creating articles here is either blocked or no longer participate, due to hounding and the behavior depicted above. There should be a form of arbitration, but I am afraid the tendency will always be to protect the white racist contributors since that is what I have seen happen here from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.131.149.178 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of this article[edit source | edit]

This page represents an (imperfect) equality of outcome approach, where the representation of each group in wikipedia articles should be proportional to their share in the society. That is, the problem - as stated - is that percentage of wikipedia content devoted to black people (in general) is smaller than the percentage of black people in some unspecified society (wiki users? world as a whole?).

Then, the problem statement leaves out exact definitions:

  • what proportion is the defining factor here
  • why other (non-black) groups of people are not represented here
  • how exactly (if at all) is the "underrepresentation" measured

Then, it is not stated at all:

  • why it is bad to have the certain groups of people underrepresented in wikipedia articles
  • why the problem is one-sided, no opposing views are presented

Finally the "analysis" section does only the part that depends on the problem statement to be correct -- no analysis is made on whether the problem is real, who is affected and how.

I can see it going forward four ways:

  • we describe the policies, content percentages and editor percentages (perhaps laying out the corresponding global population percentages), and let readers make their own minds on what and why
  • we try to show what is the problem in "problematic" view of WP for certain groups (my take is that is it does not go along equality of outcome). IOW why people think WP is racist.
  • you redefine the problem to actual intersectional oppression of WP editors, trying to push it even farther to the left
  • nothing changes, we are left with this misleading stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.143.125 (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

RS Why article is so light[edit source | edit]

It is hard to add any content to expand this article because there is a loop. Wikiafripedia is White dominant, African editors are pushed out. When they add ref reflecting either evidence of racism on wikipedia it is not a R.S. So we have a loop going. How do you write an article on Wikiafripedia about a problem with Wikiafripedia which is being accused of Racism? It creates a paradox. Esp when WIki policy on so-called RS marginalizes non-White publications, and content from independent sources. And all of this is moderated by the very people being accused of racism.--169.0.4.160 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a proper source, but guess what it fails Wiki Whites criteria. So all of this African opinions are marginalized as the opinions of crazy disgruntled editors . Keep it up. [Wiki is Racist in Full color https://medium.com/@kamy1/racist-wikipedia-da005c564d13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.160 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Not at all sure how people can be certain about racism claims since most editors are anonymous. If some editors are truly being hostile, report them. We want Wikiafripedia to be open and welcoming. That is our aspiration, at least. Pete unseth (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with the IP. Pete, their are various ways of determining that e.g. editor's interest, location, editing habits, etc. Anonymity doesn't mean anything hence why we have an essay on Wikiafripedia:Systemic bias. There is no point reporting other editors to others who share the same racist and Eurocentric POV. We can delude ourselves all the day by saying Wiki is inclusive etc., but it is not. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WHERES CHINA[edit source | edit]

not everything is black or white WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.238.22 (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Where is China?" China is in Asia. Stop comparing yourself to Black people. If you feel there is something missing, be bold and add it there rather comparing yourself to others who have been the subject of descrimanation. Tryimg to undermine the struggles of those who have been discrimnated rather than targetting those who are discriminating comes of as jealousy, foolishness and disingenous. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)