Justbean
I joined Wikipedia as an editor on May 4, 2008, although I didn't make my first edit until 2011. I suppose I was a little hesitant to jump in, in the beginning.
Since then, I've made nearly 700 main article edits across about 200 pages. While I don't have many edits, I've always approached editing with a "value substance over volume" kind of attitude (i.e. my average edit is about 1,275 bytes/650 words).
I'm American. I've lived in the West Coast, the Deep South, the Mid-West, and the East Coast.
I travel a lot, and all over. I've been as far east as India, all across western Europe, some of eastern Europe, Central and South America, and 40 of the 50 U.S. States.
I have a B.A. in Journalism and an M.B.A., meaning that I am trained, and paid, to do research and piece narratives together with data and other facts. Justbean (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Personal Wikipedia Goals edit
I am a true believer in the Five Pillars, particularly the Fifth Pillar. As such, my personal aspiration is to be accurate, respectful and open-minded.
I champion being accurate over being "right" (i.e. one can be "right" but inaccurate) because inaccurate information can be a detriment to the Wikipedia Project, and a detriment to society at large.
I understand the difference between Wiki's Purpose/Vision Statement and its Mission Statement. And yes...there is a HUGE difference between a "purpose"/"vision statement" and a "mission statement."
For the record:
- Wikipedia's purpose is: "to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars."
- Wikipedia's mission is: "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
Other than that, I take my role as an editor seriously...every editor, in my opinion – though a volunteer – is a taking on a great responsibility.
Being "Right" vs. Being "Accurate" edit
Wikipedia has been out front with its recognition of its own bias. It is bias that has, in fact, been written about in publications outside of Wiki. Beyond that, the idea that bias exists every day – in every walk of life – but not on Wiki, is illogical. Because bias is simply a side effect of being cognitive (aka "thinking") beings. That is why I think it's so important that edits are accurate.
The fact that 9 out of 10 Wiki editors are similar – along gender and race – means the edits are susceptible to worldview bias. This bias can easily be compounded when the small number of editors across Wiki is taken into account. There are about 4,150 active users (100+ edits/month) on English wiki. That's about one editor for every 1,325 pages. This is why some subjects are written about more than others. It's why some pages are cited to death, while others skirt by with one/two questionable sources. It's why some edits stand forever when others are reverted when any edit challenges a page that one editor "owns." That is bias. And, as editors, we have a responsibility to address it when we come across it...and to also check ourselves, when making edits, to make sure that we're not leading an edit with our own bias.
There are many examples of Wiki bias. For example, bias contributes to only 17% of Wiki biographies being about women, it's exemplified in one editor making about 50,000 edits by changing the phrase "comprised of" to something else that makes "more sense" to him, and is expressed in the fact that one of the three most cited reasons that editors contribute to Wiki is "ideology."
Yet, when bias is pointed out, on Wiki, it can lead to defensiveness, confrontation and incivility.
The issue, I think, is that most people think "bias" is a bad word. Somehow, they equate "bias" with "racist" or "sexist" or "discriminatory." And that's not necessarily true. Can bias lead to racism/discrimination/sexism? Sure. But that's not what bias is, on its own. Cultural bias is psychological...all people have it. It's literally a fact of life. For example, this is how Wiki defines "bias":
"Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view that is often without considering evidence and other information. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition."
Bias isn't about one's character. It's about psychology. Yet, because people often equate it with racism/discrimination/sexism, they disassociate themselves of the word, condemn those who accuse them of exhibiting it as being overly sensitive, and do whatever they can to return things back to a place of psychological comfort.
The fact is, unless you're not human...you're susceptible to bias.
Programs and policies, like Affirmative Action, were implemented to block racism/discrimination/sexism that arises from bias. For example, bias is personally preferring "masculine" names, while discrimination is ignoring resumes with "feminine" names. In other words, bias is an intuitive psychological feeling...whereas discrimination/racism/sexism is an actionable choice. But so long as people conflate these things, they will never see, or acknowledge, bias for what it is.
Pointing out bias isn't about politics...but about recognizing that, as humans, our perceptions are filled with blindspots. And, on Wiki, those susceptible blindspots include confirmation bias, attribution bias, self-serving bias and status quo bias.
Bottom line, humans are imperfect. Which is why we sometimes don't recognize the humanity/perceptions/voice of others unless we can relate to them. That is why, from one human to another, it's important for us to point out bias, recognize it, and try not to let it interfere with the accurate recording of the way the world is/was...for preference of the way we see it.
This is why I value being accurate over being "right." Because being "right" can be loaded with bias and inaccurate groupthink. However, being accurate mitigates against the danger of such flaws and, ultimately, produces a more reliable outcome for all.