Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Structures

What about creating a template like the COTW template, but that specifically tags an article as being under active development by this wikiproject? -- Solitude 07:06, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea as it also would serve to bring contributors to the project. In fact something similiar got created in response to this this village pump discussion. Currently Template:Importantstub is up for deletion. So I think we ought to save it from deletion and amend so it refers to this wikiproject. Its not quite what you are talking about, but perhaps we need a stub template and work in progress template :ChrisG 07:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Importantstub is still up for discussion and not deleted; I've just added my KEEP vote. I agree with Chris on the above; and maybe any rewording could replace the word "important" so as to give less offence to some of the current "delete" voters? Some circumlocution such as "improving the representativeness and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia". Preferably a little shorter than that. (:-) Robin Patterson 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder whether Categories (rather than subpages) could be used to keep this project more manageable? Easier navigation up and down the tree, maybe? Robin Patterson 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recruitment

I still say that the real key to this is recruitment. I have a lot of ideas of how we could work on recruiting more African-Americans into Wikipedia in general and this project in particular, but frankly not a clue about outreach to people from sub-Saharan Africa. But let me say: if we can't get a clear consensus that African-American topics are part of what's at issue, I'm not going to try to convince an African-American Studies undergrad that he or she has to learn all about Tanzania to be useful to this project when his/her own community is less covered than that of science fiction fandom.

Xed, I have no problem with you wanting to focus on the developing world. But unless and until we can get clear consensus that there is also an underrepresentation both in Wikipedia's participant pool and it's topic coverage for women and ethnic minorities in the developed world, I think many of those women and ethnic minorities will — entirely appropriately — view Wikipedia and this project as hostile territory. -- Jmabel 01:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm an ethnic minority, and I don't feel that I should write or think only about topics which are somehow connected to my genetic makeup. If fact, I cringe when people imply I should. Nor do I feel I am limited in subject matter by the shape of my genitals. People are surprisingly flexible. I don't feel I have to be protected from other subjects lest they frighten me. Also, the phrase 'ethnic minority' is not synonymous with just people of African descent who live in the US or UK. Now I've got that off my chest.... I agree that there is under-representation of women and ethnic minorities (though some minorities are probably over-represented), it's just a question of priorities. Recruiting more African-Americans into Wikipedia would be a good move. I hope the design below shows how amenable I am to your ideas.---Xed 02:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

General subjects that suffer from a U.S. or developed country perspective

One thing not really mentioned on the project page, and probably also harder to address, is the number of Wikipedia articles that only talks about the situation in the U.S., sometimes without even mentioning this. Public relations talks almost exclusively on U.S. examples and figures. Media_bias makes an attempt to discuss bias in general, then mainly concerns itself with the U.S. liberal vs. conservative bias discussion. Perspectives from the developing world could be very valuable here, not to mention a discussion on the situation in Russia. Much the same could be said about Freedom of speech.

Other articles manage to draw their examples from several countries, but still limit themselves more or less exclusively to the developed world. For good examples of this, see Lawyer and Breakfast (although the latter actually mentions a Muslim practice in the very last sentence).

Perhaps even more serious a shortcoming, Rape suffers from an extremely Western perspective. It starts by discussing the legal definitions of the U.S. and the UK only. Apart from brief mentions of the social consequences of rape in "societies with strong sexual customs and taboos", and rape as a means of torturing detainees in some countries, the rest of the article deals with the U.S. situation. There is not even a single mention of the practice of rape as a war crime!

Also, Adoption is strikingly Western in its perspective, not even mentioning the effect that widespread adoption from developing countries has had on the economy and social structure of these countries.

I'm not sure what to call this more subtle effect of systemic bias or how to bring it up on the project page. Should it go into a separate list, and if so, what should the title be? Does it need a discussion of its own? Alarm 01:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a major issue, and should be a major part of CSB. Most general subjects suffer from this effect. The US liberal vs conservative schism seems to permeate too many political articles, despite having very little meaning elsewhere. A list could be called "Internally biased articles" or something like that. If we end up going with the template design above then articles like Lawyer etc should really have a mark next to them, like ¡, to show that the bias is internal, with an explanation at the bottom of the table. ----Xed 03:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Foreign" literature and Non-white figures in the U.S., UK, et

I have some problems with the terms used for two of the subject areas listed. In my opinion, "Foreign" literature does itself manifest a bias simply by the perspective implied in the term. I'd suggest "Non-English literature" or something similar, but that might exclude Indian and South African authors that is not adequately covered. Of course "Literature from the developing world" could be used, if we think that literature from Portugal is adequately covered as it is.

I'd like to change "non-white" into something that also include other minorities, and I see no good reason to limit the area to the U.S. and the UK. How about "Minority figures in developed countries" or perhaps just "Minority figures?" Alarm 01:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to participate in this project, adding articles about African literature (a topic of particular interest to me). I recently added Bediako Asare and his novel Rebel and am eager to do some more. I hope some other people join me. List of African writers is a good place to start. Many important books are published by Heinemann's African Writers series and are easily available. Danny 02:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great! On the literature front, I believe the term was mine, and I mainly meant "foreign-language" literature, although I doubt that English-language literature outside the U.S. and UK is at all well covered either. Developing world is an issue, but the problem goes way beyond that, unless your definition of "developing world" is awfully broad. For example, I would guess that I've single-handedly written more than half of what we've got on Argentine literature and at least a third of what we've got on Romanian literature, and I can promise that in both cases its barely the tip of the iceberg. While we are rather weak on even English-language literature from the developing world, we're already catching that in one category and don't really gain anything by catching it in two. Anyway, the phrase was mine, but I'm not attached to it, edit at will.

How about "Non-English language literature"? Alarm 03:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Minority" without a qualification of "ethnic minority" is almost vacuous. We are all a minority of some sort (political, sexual, taste in beers, take your pick). No deep problem with what you're saying, as long as it's "ethnic minority" rather than just "minority". Maybe "Ethnic minorities in developed countries"?

Still, I'm not at all convinced that white minorities (which, as an ethnic Jew, I certainly am) are at all under-covered. I don't see Wikipedia as particularly weak on Jewish topics. Or those of most Central European ethnicities, or that of any number of other groups that happen to be well-represented in our participant pool. So call it what you will, but the pattern seems to me that most of the gaping holes vis a vis ethnicity in our coverage of the U.S. and UK correspond to the color line. -- Jmabel 02:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

How about hispanics? Do you agree with Xed's observation above? Anyway, I think "ethnic minority" at least sounds better than "non-white" (though I agree with you on the necessity of "ethnic"). Alarm 03:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Globally, whites are an ethnic minority, as are other groups. The term 'ethnic minority', as it is meant in these discussion, only seems to make sense from a North American and Euro outlook. Under-representation of individual groups within the systemic zone countries would have to be analysed---Xed 03:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Ethnic minority" is always in a context. Whites are not and ethnic minority, because "whites" collectively are not an ethnic group: arguably they are a race, but certainly not an ethnicity. Whiteness is a very tricky concept, and I think it is emphatically a social construct. 100 years ago, Jews in America were generally not considered "white". 150 years ago, the Irish in America were generally not considered "white". As for Hispanics: interesting case. The U.S. census doesn't consider them white, although many consider themselves white. As the number of Hispanics increases, the concept of "white" crosses interestingly with the concept of "Anglo". Consider the following sentence, which I heard quoted from a teacher in New Mexico: "There were only two Anglos in the class and both of them were black." I can honestly say that 40 years ago, almost no one in the U.S. would have included a Black person in the category of "Anglos". Yes, Hispanic-U.S. topics are almost certainly under-covered, probably more so than African-American topics. And Hispanic-American topics are certainly relevant here. (Parenthetically: "Hispanic Americans" is another tricky social construct: what does a typical immigrant from Buenos Aires really have in common with one from Mayaguez, other than a native language?) -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, and probably the best place to bring up this. Am I the only one who grimaces everytime I see the use of the words "ethnic minority" on these pages? It always carries with it associations of negativity and supression to me. I also find it condescending, its a phrase that seems to isolate certain people and labels them as a minority --cgfoz 12:44, Oct 9, 2004 (GMT)

Issues to be resolved?

• Voting mechanism. How are items for the voted items chosen - are there limitations for how many from each section (or could ten items be chosen from labor issues?) How is CSB cotw chosen? How are the two items at the end of each country (in carousel) chosen?
• Page has too much manifesto and stuff describing the project. May be intimidating for new users. Some stuff is replicated in the template. Could be pruned to half the text. More functional, less textual.
• Template box could be more terse too.
• The items in the Open Task list could be in a list like this one.
• How many key topics should we have?
• Topics to add
• Topics to remove. We need to prune the topics as we go along not just keep adding.

Voting mechanism

I think COTW should be voted on. But I think the rest of the articles on the todo list should just be cycled through from the list created in open tasks. Its more important to work out how often they should be cycled (weekly?) and who is responsible for the update. Maybe we should vote on who does that; and they should do that until they get voted out if people don't like the way they choose the articles. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer voting on the items to someone single-handedly picking them. But my understanding was actually that all of these items were Collaborations of the Week - I'm not sure we should vote on a single COTW as well. On the other hand, I think 10 new items each week, which is what is currently stated, runs the risk of being a bit too much. At least until we know what improvement rate to expect from listed items. On the other hand participation might benefit from a wide choice. My suggestion would be to choose 5 new articles each week and to let them stay on for two weeks. I'd also say maximum one new item from each section per week (i.e. maximum two at the same time), to ensure a wide enough choice to encourage participation. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to vote on everything then I think the todo list should have one representative from each topic we identify, e.g. one developing world, one western centric, one feminism. I also think it should one person one vote. A person should not be able to vote for more than one topic, this will make selection far easier.:ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should vote on a single COTW, with no one page ever coming up more than once every 8 weeks. For the rest, we can cycle among anything, try to distribute it across the various areas, and favor articles that already have more than one vote to be the COTW. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, now I've actually read what is said on the project page about this ;-) . I understand that it would be rather silly to vote on both COTW and todo list topics. I'd agree with some kind of model that puts the topics with the most COTW votes on the todo list. Regarding the topics connected to carousel countries, I'm actually quite happy if someone with some knowledge of the specific country picks two suitable choices. If two or more people turn out to have conflicting opinions on what is suitable, we could always arrange a vote when that happens. Alarm 22:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There surely are some problems with this method, but for now I'm happy to go with it. Have added explanation in voting section. --- Xed 22:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see some problems with this approach, but that is probably true of any other model as well. I just want to clarify that, by my last comment, I did not really envision a strict, formal rule that the 10 topics with the very highest number of COTW votes should be put on the todo list. I'm happy with the "soft" wording on the project page as it is. I guess we'll have to see what happens and adjust the model as we go along. Alarm 09:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Content on project page

I think its fine in terms of length; its a complicated project to run and needs some detailed explanation. Obviously it could be polished and improved. However, I think the todo list should be above the toc, re: discussion above, because it gives a quick overview of the project. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. People will probably misunderstand what we're doing if we don't explain it well enough. The "manifesto" seems relevant as an analysis of what's wrong and a background for understanding what to look for. If there is a majority for pruning, I'd suggest moving the full text to a subpage where there is room for a deeper analysis. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disagree, but won't veto. Normally, introductions in Wikipedia are short. I'm unaware of any other WikiProject that puts its to-do list above the ToC: can someone show even one precedent for this? -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Template box should be terser

Since the to-do list is an advertisment as it were, it needs to be as interesting and attractive as possible. It doesn't need to be terser, unless it is forcing people to scroll the page. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it has reached "unenbarrassing" as it is and that editing the template box could be done after we've "gone live". Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Once the project is even a month under way, some of the "kickstart" info may go away; the rest will probably then be best put after the articles list.

Open task list should be list rather than table

This is a difficult one; because it is a pain to add articles to tables; and may put some people off. However, I would be happy to continue and see how it goes :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for swapping the tables for numbered lists, although I think there should be separate lists for each area. Taking away the necessity of editing tables just to add an item to one of the lists would probably encourage new users to add their suggestions. Saves space, too. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can go either way between tables and lists. Not numbered, because the numbers will change and that's confusing. Definitely separate lists for each area. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like Xed (who said he wouldn't be around today) has preempted this discussion and is turning it all into lists. And he's using numbers, the one thing I said I'd object to. Xed, are you doing this just to piss me off? -- Jmabel 20:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Calm down, I didn't see your comment. Whats wrong with numbers? Makes it easy to count the number of articles. It doesn't matter if they change. --- Xed 21:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Number of key topics

I think we should restrict the number of key topics to about ten. This will force us to think hard about what the key issues are. Otherwise we will end up with a list of about 30 sections in a few weeks. The sections that don't make the cut should be listed as a section of its own. :ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Generally concur. Hopefully, if this project reaches a certain size, some of the areas we are now covering become projects of their own. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Topics to add

I don't think this is an issue. I think they should just be added for the moment. I think we should have a section on Western or American centred articles. We should list those articles that assume that when they are talking about the US or Western issues they are talking about the world. These articles should be flagged with some sort of template. :ChrisG 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we need to explain what we mean by 'Internally-biased articles'. If noone beats me to it, I'll get back to this later today. Agree with ChrisG on the template idea. Alarm 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reflected on this and changed my mind, and suggest restrict the number of key topics. However I do feel we should add Western centric articles that are supposed to be generic in content and an Older person section. What we remove, thats more difficult.: ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you prefer the terminology "Western centric articles that are supposed to be generic in content" to "Internally-biased articles"? I suppose both terms refer to the area described above under the headline "General subjects that suffer from a U.S. or developed country perspective". We need a good term here, preferrably self-explanatory. Alarm 17:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue is the same even if (as I've occasionally seen) an article is Germany-centric. How about calling the category [[Category:Overly narrow geographic scope]] and having a template, say, Template:Geographic Scope:

This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in the following countries: {Template:Covered}. This topic has wider scope.

Then {{Geographic Scope|Covered = U.S., UK}} would display as

This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in the following countries: U.S., UK. This topic has wider scope.

Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Does it really need to be this specific? There will be practical problems. Sometimes articles are written from a more general Western perspective (such as Adoption). Sometimes examples are taken from quite a few countries, but exclusively, or almost exclusively, developed countries (such as Breakfast). And in cases like Rape, the odd line mentioning non-Western cultures or countries pops up, so although the article is still heavily unbalanced, you can't really say it deals only with matters in the U.S. and the UK. I'd suggest using only one or two more general templates, such as This article needs expansion: currently it deals only with matters in a limited number of countries and perhaps This article needs a more balanced perspective: currently it deals with its topic from a developed world perspective only. Alarm 22:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed --- Xed 22:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me -- Jmabel 23:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone with experience in handling templates help with creating those two? This isn't really my specialist field... Alarm 09:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Topics to remove

I suggest we should merge Asia with Developing world as a topic. If we have Asia, then we will need the other continents as well which will spread us too thin. Its the type of country not their location which caused the systemic bias. I also feel we should remove humanities as I think it is covered reasonably well.:ChrisG 17:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say we remove Humanities and move the single entry there, Modernist women writers, into Women and feminism. People have suggested that humanities in general on the Wikipedia seems to be improving rapidly, so Humanities-related subjects that fit under other categories should probably be a priority for us. Alarm 17:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with both. -- Jmabel 20:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove "Subjects which would normally be longer in other encyclopaedias". There is the following page Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics and clearly work is ongoing. We don't want to duplicate work. Also I don't think its systemic bias, those gaps will clearly be filled by the goal to be more comprehensive than Britannica and Encarta :ChrisG 20:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics and the entries there are just as western centric as Wikipedia as a whole, perhaps even more so. - SimonP 21:09, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Articles within that list my have a western bias. But we have a systemic bias towards covering the content of other encyclopedias. :ChrisG 12:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should the list in the background section (under the headline Systemic bias) be changed to reflect the merges made in the Open Tasks section? I think that would be logical. Alarm 09:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, done. Xed 09:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Benin Civil War

Can I ask to which event in Benin's history this term is referring? Is it Benin's part in Nigeria's Civil War? Because as far as I can make out (from NI's World Guide 2004 and from googling) there is no single event called the "Benin Civil War"? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My mistake I think. Maybe I was thinking of Guinea-Bissau--Xed 22:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Xed in charge of this project or not?

I've struck myself from the list of participants until the Xed stops acting like he owns this WikiProject.

What are people's views about whether this is collaborative, of if we are really still just helping with User:Xed's CROSSBOW?

BCorr|Брайен 21:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just spent one and a half hours implementing mine and others suggestions. Is that what you mean?--Xed 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you want my view: I get the impression that this project is collaborative, judging from the important contributions of, among others, Xed, ChrisG, Jmabel and Alarm (in no particular order). After reading something more on CROSSBOW and the history of WP:Bias, I get the impression that Jmabel and ChrisG (and maybe I am forgetting someone - forgive me, I am a new Wikipedian and I shouldn't get into issues like this) could also designate themselves as responsible for 'design, direction', like Xed does on the participant listing. In my humble opinion however, such designations are of little use for the project, since the project would benefit the most from being truly collaborative in all respects.

But let me stress once again that I just want to participate and don't want to get involved in thorny issues like this. - Strangeloop (talk) 23:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, I share BCorr's concern. I feel that Xed has been repeatedly preempting consensus. I am thinking of pulling out of trying to do any process-oriented work on this and just maybe suggest articles and keep it on my watchlist to see what other articles people suggest. BCorr, I hope you also will continue to do at least that. -- Jmabel 23:21, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nope, amending that, I'm not just thinking of it. Xed has now preempted the timetable I set up to make sure we had consensus before going live. Having made all of the edits that he wanted to make, he apparently sees no need to wait for others and see if anyone might have a reaction to any of this, or if anyone else might have an issue within the timeframe I proposed, which no one (including Xed) had explicitly objected to. This is not my idea of collaboration. I still think this project is, in principle, a great idea, but I work on Wikipedia because I enjoy it. It is obvious that there is no way I will enjoy collaborating closely with Xed. I don't doubt his good intentions, just his ability to work cooperatively. -- Jmabel 23:26, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

The edits I made were not just ones I wanted to make, but ones suggested by others - including yourself. Additionally, you said wanted to go live above, and also that you thought the project was ready. Since you thought I was holding you back from going live, I thought that I might as well do it. --Xed 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, Xed, I'm not questioning your good intentions, I just find you impossible to work with. -- Jmabel 23:44, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to. The project is nearly done. If it has been designed correctly then it will run smoothly, and we won't have to even talk to each other --Xed 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. I don't know if there is something I can do here, but I do want to try. I strongly urge everyone to try to keep working together on this. I really value Jmabel's input on this process and were it not for his contributions I would probably not be here myself. There will be new process issues along the way and I do hope to see Jmabel and BCorr contributing to the discussion.

Yes, I raised the exact same questions as BCorr when Xed came back to put "project instigator. design, direction" next to his name in the list of participants and bluntly declared that "The direction taken is fundamentally wrong" to participants working hard on what we all thought was a collaborative effort. But I must say that since then we've actually been able to resolve most of the original disagreements and my impression was, until some 12 hours ago, that this had successfully turned into a team effort. I feel that this had much to do with Xed actually changing his tone and taking to a more diplomatic approach, and I actually think he deserves some credit for this change for the better.

That said, I absolutely understand the irritation arising from him "jumping the gun" and substantially changing the project page without waiting for broader agreement on the talk page. However, it does seem to me that from his point of wiew he was just implementing suggested improvements that noone had objected to (not having noted Jmabel's opposition to numbered lists). I think that he just felt a certain urgency, arising from the suggestion to "go live" with something he didn't think was polished enough. It would certainly have been much better if he had first said something like "Is it OK if I implement these suggested changes now? With them, I think we're ready to go live." and waited for people to respond. Xed, even though you might be a person who wants things to happen fast, for the sake of this great project, could you please try to communicate what you intend to do and wait for broader consensus before making substantial changes to the project page? And Bcorr and Jmabel, could you please clarify if there is any specific change of Xed's that you object to?

I consider this a great project that, given time, could have substantial impact on the Wikipedia. But in order for that to happen, I think we need to have more dedicated people aboard, not less. And in order for us to get this running smoothly, we need to communicate more, not less. Alarm 10:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm wholly with Strangeloop, Alarm and oddly enough Xed on this one. Its about the work, not the workers, no-one owns this project, it is a cooperative endeavour. I really appreciate the work Jmabel has made for the project; but I have come to appreciate Xed's endeavours as well. To be honest it amused me that Xed put project instigator etc. on the participant list; because he didn't realize that actually lessened the respect he would have automatically earnt from the major contributions he had made; I see from the project page he seems to have learnt his lesson and shown he does have a sense of humour! (re: calling himself a scold who sits on the sidelines) I can see how Jmabel feels Xed actions were designed to annoy him given their past history; but I have to say that Xed hasn't done anything out of order, since coming up with the issue lists as far as I can see. Generally I'm in favour of people being bold with their editing, when its seems there is an emerging consensus and he has been; but perhaps that approach should not be adopted when you have had an ongoing issues with another person. I realize Xed feels he has apologised on Jmabels talk page; but Jmabel clearly hasn't accepted them has heartfelt yet. As a final thought look at the work we have accomplished so far; differences of opinion and conflict are inevitable part of the process of working on Wikipedia, but we share much the same goals.  : ChrisG 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When I mentioned the idea of this project on the Village Pump, several people told me to shut up and just get on with it. Now I'm being too productive.. This productivity is partly because Jmabel, and others, wanted the project to go live, so I felt I just had to get on with implementing everyones ideas right away. Despite this, Jmabel says "Having made all of the edits that he wanted to make..". He hasn't specified what edits he disapproves of. He also believes that my putting in a numbered list was done to upset him. Jmabel has made some great contributions to the project, and I would be happy if he were to return. I would rather work on the project than argue about minutiae --Xed 14:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two notes

In my brainstorming a couple ideas at Meta on the potential United States Wikimedia Chapter, I proposed an outreach program to encourage contribution from minority languages. I made an example with some thoughts at this page, devoted to Cherokee. The same idea could be useful for this project, if someone wants to.

Also, I know a bit about African music and am wondering how the articles in the "country carousel" were chosen, because music of Burkina Faso is likely a bad choice. In contrast to most African countries, Burkina Faso has never had much of a recording industry; popular music is almost all imported. The article should be focusing on the folk music of the numerous ethnic groups in the country, and substantially expanding it will require using ethnomusicological journals that only a specialist is likely to be able to access and understand... A well-meaning contributor really couldn't help out there without a solid, specific knowledge base and access to obscure resources. Music of Benin would be a much better choice if you want a "music of" article in the carousel, since I'm sure it would be easier to research. Tuf-Kat 01:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Burkino Faso music choice was just put there as an example, since the project has just started. You can nominate and vote on Music of Benin, or anything alse, at the bottom of the page--Xed 08:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expanding the to-do list here

It seems that most of the articles that have been put forward, with a few exceptions, are done with some form of COTW in mind. It'd be nice to have a longer list of many articles that need doing in sparse areas (as several of the national notice boards have done) to then choose from. That way, we might end up getting a lot more done. Ambi 10:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do these national notice board cope with page size? My fear is that the page becomes too heavy if all sections keep long lists. Maybe subpages for each section, with only some 10 top-priority tasks advertised on the main page, could be a working solution? Alarm 11:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simply have a "complete to-do list" subpage, supplementing the main one, which actually sits on the main page. The page size issues would also be helped by moving the COTW discussions to a seperate page, per everywhere else that does this. Ambi 11:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me that the talk page is going to fill up very fast as well. Should we adopt the village pump method of making it a virtual page. We could split the talk page up into project policy, topics and articles, COTW, Templates etc. :ChrisG 12:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just think it needn't have to do so. Move the stuff that shouldn't be here, like to-do lists and COTW-related stuff to subpages. That's half the problem - having all that stuff here is just creating unnecessary page lag, not to mention being confusing. Then archive lots. And suggest that people get on with working on these articles rather than arguing over who's in charge. Ambi 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with some of Alarm and Ambis suggestions, and would advocate 10 items for each section -with the breadth of the the items chosen covering the whole spectrum (for instance, the ethnic minority section doesn't have much on Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian etc issues) . And a link to 1 subpage which has a large list of subjects from all the sections. Xed 14:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean just on the main to-do list. What I'm suggesting is have a complete list on a subpage, with even subpages of that if necessary. That's what we've done for the Aussie notice board, and it ensures there's always something to work on. When there's potentially hundreds of articles to choose from, it also results in a lot more action. Ambi 11:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page size reduction vote

Please vote yay or nay below on this proposal. ---Xed 18:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Each section in Open Tasks (apart from the country carousel) should contain 10 items representing a broad cross section of the sections potential articles. Furthermore, there should be a separate page (with links to it in the Open task section) that contains all of the CSB articles which have been identified

nay - moving it completely to a linked page would make sense, but dual maintenance will be a headache and will be particularly confusing for any marginally involved people who want to make suggestions. -- Jmabel 21:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The 10 items would simply illustrate the idea behind the section. Only the the items on the separate page would change.--Xed 21:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope items on to-do list template

I thought these subjects need a note next to them, otherwise people would just think the article needs expanding. I've changed the template accordingly. A better solution is probably possible.--Xed 14:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)