This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Updating Tasks and Dating Requests
Is anybody currently using or updating the task list? It looks like many tasks were added a long time ago. I noticed some people signed & dated their additions. Is there any agreement as to whether dating all requests would be helpful? Cloveapple (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see how one person could never do this kind of task. Kudos for sticking with it. I'm working through the list to see what the current condition of all the articles is so I can help update the list. Cloveapple (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We might even need more people to do this task, as two is definitely not enough (despite the fact that a single person (me) had been updating the list for the past few years). No wonder why such systematic bias exist. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it would definitely take more than one or two people. And even in good situations I expect there is always some bias and blindness in any group. I'm just hoping to get things to the point where the out-of-date template can be removed from the top of the page. That template message and the notice on the main page that you were the only person updating the list made me hesitate. I almost didn't read further when I saw those and I'm hoping that doing enough work to remove both of them might encourage other people to stop by more.
I wonder if checking items on the task list to see if they still need work could be added to the main page's list of suggested ways to help out? I haven't read the archived main page discussions so I don't know if that's ever been discussed. Cloveapple (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took the "needs updating" tag off the task page because updating the whole page at once is a huge task. Instead I changed it so each section lists when the articles in it were last checked to see if the assessments still stand. I had checked some sections back in May and some other sections had already been marked as last checked in July 2009. Undated sections that could use checking over are tagged with the update template. If you check a section over and re-assess the articles in it, please note the date you checked it.
I'm committing to stopping back periodically to check some of the sections, but I hope other people do too. I'm not comfortable checking linguistics or economics so I'm leaving those sections alone. Cloveapple (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With 35 sections on this talk page, more than half the space is taken by only one of them, and that's a discussion on whether to use the term "progressive" or "reform".
Could the systemic bias on wikipedia be illustrated more clearly than that? DS Belgium (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the systematic bias needs to be more clearly illustrated. Unfortunately, I had been the only contributor of this WikiProject for so many years, despite not being a founding member. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)15:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DS Belgium. I know that one person cannot maintain the list, but one person maintaining the list is better than having the page collect dust. This is why more people should notice the Open Tasks page, which unfortunately is neglected and has a self-fulfilled prophecy of systemic bias being completely unchecked. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)22:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly disappointed that white anglophone scientists are considered to be among the topics where we lack proper coverage. Surely our systemic biases fail nonwhites, non-English-speakers, and those outside the hard-sciences interests of our typical young male geek anglophone editoriat? Whatever next - is somebody going to add a videogame or a rifle to the list of open tasks? bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
