Editing Wikipedia (section)

==== Systemic biases ====
When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, [[systemic bias]] may arise, due to the demographic backgrounds of the editors. In 2011, Wales claimed that the unevenness of coverage is a reflection of the demography of the editors, citing for example "biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare".<ref name="wiki-women">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky' editors |first = Kevin |last = Rawlinson |newspaper = The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-seeks-women-to-balance-its-geeky-editors-2333605.html |date = August 8, 2011 |access-date = April 5, 2012}}</ref> The October 22, 2013, essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's ''Technology Review'' titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" discussed the effect of systemic bias and [[criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive regulation|policy creep]] on the [[#English Wikipedia editor numbers|downward trend in the number of editors]].<ref name="Simonite-2013" />

Systemic bias on Wikipedia may follow that of culture generally,{{vague|date=August 2019}} for example favoring certain nationalities, ethnicities or majority religions.<ref name="Quilter">{{cite web |url=https://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=laura_quilter |title = Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: What It Looks Like, and How to Deal with It |author = Quilter, Laura |publisher = University of Massachusetts–Amherst |date = October 24, 2012 |access-date = November 26, 2012}}</ref> It may more specifically follow the biases of [[Internet culture]], inclining to be young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing. Biases, intrinsically, may include an overemphasis on topics such as pop culture, technology, and current events.<ref name="Quilter" />{{better source needed|date=June 2022}}<!--cited source is a PowerPoint Presentation, with no evidence of having been peer reviewed or accepted at a conference-->

[[Taha Yasseri]] of the [[University of Oxford]], in 2013, studied the statistical trends of systemic bias at Wikipedia introduced by editing conflicts and their resolution.<ref>{{cite magazine |date=July 17, 2013 |title=Edit Wars Reveal The 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/07/17/177320/edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/ |magazine=[[MIT Technology Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]}}</ref><ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite book |ssrn = 2269392 |editor1=Fichman, P. |editor2=Hara, N. |publisher=Scarecrow Press |year=2014 |arxiv = 1305.5566 |last1 = Yasseri |first1 = Taha |last2 = Spoerri |first2 = Anselm |last3 = Graham |first3 = Mark |last4 = Kertész |first4 = János|title= The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis |doi= 10.2139/SSRN.2269392 |s2cid = 12133330 |author1-link=Taha Yasseri |author4-link=János Kertész}}</ref> His research examined the [[counterproductive work behavior]] of edit warring. Yasseri contended that simple reverts or "undo" operations were not the most significant measure of counterproductive behavior at Wikipedia and relied instead on the [[statistical measurement]] of detecting "reverting/reverted pairs" or "mutually reverting edit pairs". Such a "mutually reverting edit pair" is defined where one editor reverts the edit of another editor who then, in sequence, returns to revert the first editor in the "mutually reverting edit pairs". The results were tabulated for several language versions of Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia's three largest conflict rates belonged to the articles [[George W. Bush]], [[anarchism]], and [[Muhammad]].<ref name="autogenerated3" /> By comparison, for the German Wikipedia, the three largest conflict rates at the time of the [[Oxford]] study were for the articles covering [[Croatia]], [[Scientology]], and [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].<ref name="autogenerated3"/>

Researchers from [[Washington University]] developed a statistical model to measure systematic bias in the behavior of Wikipedia's users regarding controversial topics. The authors focused on behavioral changes of the encyclopedia's administrators after assuming the post, writing that systematic bias occurred after the fact.<ref>
{{cite conference |url=https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2505566 |title = Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion |last1 = Das |first1 = Sanmay |last2 = Allen |first2 = Lavoie |last3 = Malik |first3 = Magdon-Ismail |date = November 1, 2013 |publisher = ACM |book-title = CIKM '13 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management |pages = 1097–1106 |location = San Francisco |doi = 10.1145/2505515.2505566 |isbn = 978-1450322638}}
</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Das |first1 = Sanmay |last2 = Allen |first2 = Lavoie |last3 = Malik |first3 = Magdon-Ismail |title = Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: How Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion |journal = ACM Transactions on the Web |volume = 10 |issue = 4 |pages = 24 |date = December 24, 2016 |doi = 10.1145/3001937|s2cid = 12585047 }}
</ref>