systemic Bias

I think the poet's example is a very bad one, since it implies some inherent difference in value systems between black and white poets, and a difference also between black-created and white-created poetry, which is in my view, at least, contentious. I would consider changing that example and using one which is more illustrative and does not contain buried assumptions, like Japanese companies systemicly promoting men over women because men participate in social activities outside the job which are not permited socially to women (such as strip clubs). Eulen 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The example in the article (and the suggested example) are both extremely off-putting. Surely, an example can be conjured up that does not rely on gender or victim politics to make its point. But maybe that's fashionable. Is this what you mean by systemic bias? -- LKS 5/13/06

What about the search for exoplanets? Due to the very nature of gravity, the most massive planets, closest to their stars, are discovered first. Smaller, lighter planets come much later. It's scientific systematic bias, and there is no way to really know what sort of planets there are for some time,until detection methods improve to include all/most planets. --Planetary 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note without further comment that you mention "scientific systematic bias" --Henrygb 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm saying that my exoplanet example isn't off-putting, as it doesn't deal with human beings., while still being one sort of bias. --Planetary 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just that you seem to use "systemic bias" and "systematic bias" as if they mean the same thing (as I do), so perhaps this page would be better merged into the more common systematic bias page.--Henrygb 14:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I only noticed the difference just now that you told me!--Planetary 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the word is systematic, and usng jargon like systemic is one of the systematic biases of Wiki English. If there is a distinction, then the thermometer example is certainly systematic. --Henrygb 11:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, "systematic" and "systemic" are quite distinct words, and "systemic" ("characteristic of a particular system") is the correct word here. "Systematic bias" would mean merely "thoroughgoing bias". We've been through this before. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 
You have failed to convince me. So what is the thermometer? And what is characteristic if it is not thoroughgoing? In terms of risk, "systemic risk" if it means anything at all means risk to the system, not risk resulting from the system. --Henrygb 14:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am increasingly convinced that "systemic bias" is either an error, or some academic navel-gazing. Systematic bias redirects here, so clearly someone thinks they mean the same. But google searches show a strong basis for systematic bias 79,000 [1] over systemic bias 8,000 [2]. --Henrygb 17:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that this is a matter to be resolved by a dictionary, not by Google? -- Jmabel | Talk
Concur with Jmabel, since he quite correct. :ChrisG 00:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added systematic bias article to prevent redirect and explain distinction. :ChrisG 00:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A nice try - but it looks to me as if you are saying systematic bias includes systemic bias; I still don't think the distinction really exists. Systemic looks like a neologism and jargon, used meaningfully for systemic pesticide and possibly for systemic risk, in both cases where the whole system is prone to collapse, but not in this case. See my next comment for why inherent in the system leads to systematic. --Henrygb 01:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK - this is from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• sys·tem·at·ic, Pronunciation: "sis-t&-'ma-tik, Function: adjective, Etymology: Late Latin systematicus, from Greek systEmatikos, from systEmat-, systEma
  1. relating to or consisting of a system
  2. presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles
  3. a: methodical in procedure or plan b: marked by thoroughness and regularity
  4. of, relating to, or concerned with classification; specifically: TAXONOMIC
• systematic error, Function: noun
  • an error that is not determined by chance but is introduced by an inaccuracy (as of observation or measurement) inherent in the system
• sys·tem·ic, Pronunciation: sis-'te-mik, Function: adjective
  • of, relating to, or common to a system: as a: affecting the body generally b: supplying those parts of the body that receive blood through the aorta rather than through the pulmonary artery c: of, relating to, or being a pesticide that as used is harmless to the plant or higher animal but when absorbed into its sap or bloodstream makes the entire organism toxic to pests (as an insect or fungus)
• systemic, Function: noun
  • a systemic pesticide
In my view the nearest which comes close to the meaning in this article is the definition in systematic error. (Google also shows a massive preference for "systematic error" over "systemic error".) So far that looks like common use and a dictionary on the side of systematic in this sense. --Henrygb 01:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both terms exist, and their meaning is not interchangeable. Google is irrelevant: it will not tell you which meaning is involved. "Systemic error" means that the error is an aspect of the system. "Systematic error" simply means that repeated trials will tend to reproduce the error.

I'm done here for a while: I'm not going to be the "lone defender of civilization against the barbarian". You seem to believe that you understand this better than I do. I still believe you are wrong, but I'm not going to fight over it. Go, screw it up if you must, I hope someone else will come and fix it, but I've said my part. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jumping in from another perspective. The problem lies in the fact that systematic can be used in the sentence, "The Neo-Nazis planned to systematically vandalize the Wikipedia articles." Replacing it with systemically sounds very awkward: "planned to systemically vandalize". Systematic often connotes intention,; systemic does not. This is despite the fact that the effects of both are system-wide. There are extensive archives of people debating this point over at the Countering systemic bias project and its subpage if you want to take a look at how it applies to Wiki. - BanyanTree 03:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make seems to be that you think that systemically implies unplanned and that systematically can sometimes imply planned. This is not the case for a systemic weedkiller or pesticide. But I would suggest that the awkwardness in your phrase comes from the fact this is an unnecessary neologism. "Because Wikipedia has a complex culture developed over time, new editors who jump in, rather than reading first, systemically damage it" sounds wrong to me because while such newcomers do tend to have an overall negative effect resulting from the ease of editing (until they start reading and become wonderful contributors), they do not damage the system - just some articles. I actually think that "writing about what you know" results in a systematic bias, i.e. not random: it involves people wanting Wikipedia to contain things they think are significant, and drawing a planned/unplanned distinction here is a false distinction. I personally don't care about the title of a project page; I do care if I think an article is misleading people. --Henrygb 10:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think Henrygb's edits are a sheer liability to the article, but frankly I don't care enough to argue about it further. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think the solving the problem is simple: Cite references which use the term and define it. No original research. If there is a source which argues that the term is wrong, then cite that point of view as well. I don't think the question would even come up there were references that made it clear that it is not Wikipedia's term but that of those authors. --Sketchee 01:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that both are used. See the Google searches: systematic bias [3] and systemic bias [4]. It is also clear that systematic is the more common use. Looking at some of the articles which use both [5] in each case I have seen so far, they have the same apparent meaning within each article [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (though not the same comparing articles). So my conclusion is that those who use both draw no distinction, and that systematic is more common. --Henrygb 10:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it can be argued one way or the other. I've only heard of systemic bias in this context myself. Feel free to bring up the subject on Wiki: Requested moves if you'd like to get addition opinions from the Wikipedia crowd. :) --Sketchee 02:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that months after the request, the article still has no references cited. Hope the authors are still around to just add that section. --Sketchee 08:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is pretty low on my priority list. I have massive backlog of stuff I care about more. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if Henrygb is from the UK? In North America at least, it is my impression that the people who talk about this (mostly confined to left-leaning academics at universities) overwhelmingly use "systemic bias", "systemic racism", etc. If there is a difference in American vs. British usage, it should be noted. -- Curps 18:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am from the UK, but I don't think it makes much difference. Looking at the first page of the two google searches, for systematice there is a .ca and a .nl use, while for systemic there is a .au use, while the rest are generic (.com/.org/.net/.gov) and so more likely than not American. "Left-leaning academics" may be prone to neologisms and jargon, but that does not in itself make them right or wrong. Restricting the seaches to .edu (almost certainly US) gives 12,330[13] for systematic bias against 240[14] for systemic bias. Adding "racism" to those seaches narrows the gap to 96 [15] v. 30 [16], so still 3:1 for systematic bias. Searching .uk does not makes a big difference. --Henrygb 00:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possibly they refer to different things. To me, "systematic bias" suggests a poorly calibrated piece of scientific equipment; "systemic bias" suggests discrimination against a particular group of people (in a way that is built-in to how a particular institution operates, rather than overt or conscious).

A "systematic bias" would be a consistent, predictable, reproducible bias (maybe a coin that flips heads more often than tails); a "systemic bias" would be a bias that is inherent in a particular system (or organization or institution), as a fundamental, unspoken and unconscious element (men are asked to flip coins more often than women). -- Curps 01:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally do not agee with you and I think that the bulk of examples do not either. But I accept that you and some others do think that way, which is why I have drafted the articles the way I have as an attempt at a compromise, leaving the self-selecting poets committee at systemic bias and moving the badly calibrated thermometer to systematic bias, while also stating that both are used to mean a variety of things and systematic bias is older and more common. If I simply followed my real view, this subject would all be at bias or systematic error. --Henrygb 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is this a neologism? This goes back at least to work in cybernetics in the mid-20th century. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If so then it is not common. Compare "systemic bias" [17] against "systematic bias" [18], each with "cybernetics", and see that the latter is more than twenty times as frequent. In any case the mid-20th century is quite new. --Henrygb 23:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

So are "Cold War" and "television network" (from about the same era) neologisms? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Systemic" and "Systemics" are neologisms. The original Greek equivalents in English are "systematic" for the adjective and "systems" for the plural noun, and are the words usually used. "Television" is indeed a nelogism, but there is not a better alternative; "Cold War" is not. --Henrygb 17:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I really felt that this article was inaccessbile to many readers in it's current format. Like over in the folksonomy article, I think it's bad form to open the article with a big, scary word (neologism) that most readers will probably need to look up before reading the rest of the article. I also find it unpleasant to use the word "bias" in the definition of the word bias.

Second, I moved the whole discussion about "systemic" versus "systematic" bias to it's own section. This seems like a small distinction that is not of much importance when you're trying to get your head around the concept. Robbyslaughter 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bold for me. Your definition of "systemic bias" is in fact the same as "systematic bias". As you say the distinction is small (usually non-existant) and "systematic bias" is the older and more common form. It is a systematic bias of Wikipedia to use words like systemic. And readers need to know that. --Henrygb 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article ends:

Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) and life chances (systemic).

I have no idea what it means by "life chances" there, thus I have no way to make the suggested comparison. If anyone can remember what this used to link to, it would be helpful to fix the link. Aumakua 10:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It has never linked to anything, but I would guess that it was intended to mean that certain ethnic groups tend on average to be poorer in life and die younger than others in the same society. It is probably a kind of institutional racism line of thought. --Henrygb 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The big problem is that this starts out with the soft sciences usages, psychology and sociology, rather than the use of systemic error in mathematics and computer sciences. Gene Nygaard 11:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because the soft sciences are more prone to re-invented jargon. --Henrygb 11:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how to escape or circumvent or help modify systemic bias, might the concept of a paradigm shift be a useful counter example here? I thought I might add it to the See also section, considering Ethnocentrism is part of the list. A paradigm shift, I understand to be the opposite of systemic bias, in the sense that a paradigm shift is moving over boundaries set by any system. What do you think? Especially with the talk of 'human systems' at the start, it seems appropriate.Drakonicon 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem that you are using "paradigm shift" in Kuhn's sense, so it is difficult to say. --Henrygb 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of my first introductions to the concept of 'paradigm shift' come from reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which there are quite extensive chapters explaining how a scientific community can maintain scientific theories and modalities, even in the face of new findings in the given field. In this sense, Kuhn is refering to the political mindset of the given scientific community, who may be more interested in maintaining academic credibility, rather than exploring new research than may overturn and change scientific standards. Thus when the 'old guard' literally dies or relinquishes their academic position, the 'new guard' comes into play with new ideas that refine or radically alter the mainstream standard theories. This is one sense in which I understand Kuhn's use of paradigm shift. In my mind, it is the alternative to systemic bias.Drakonicon 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the older paradigm has a particular kind of bias, and the newer paradigm therefore makes science unbiased. I suspect Kuhn would suggest that the newer paradigm has biases of its own, and in time itself becomes old. My reading of Kuhn is not that he thought that paradigm shifts were "better" than incremental science within a particular paradigm, but that science has both kinds of change, taking place in different ways. --Henrygb 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this article could use good references, what is the basis of the claim of original research? And what precisely in the article is being disparaged as original research? A quick Google seach for '"Systemic bias" -wikipedia' will show tens of thousands of uses, many of them in reliable sources and clearly using the term in this way. Unfortunately, I can't quickly find one to cite as a definition of the term, but its basic sense is immediately discernible from these sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You would have to ask User:68.238.22.242 [19]. Of course, if Google is a judge of anything then this article should be a redirect to Systematic bias. One neat example is your suggestion compared with the obvious alternative which throw up [20] and [21] respectively in the top 10: the same article with headlines which are two letters different. --Henrygb 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The following self referential paragraph has recently been added and then removed:

Also interesting is the systemic bias of Wiki English. Wikipedia is a computer technology, and the Wikipedia user-population is more then average knowledgeable of computer technology like Wiki English. Therefore you'll find that Wikipedia has an exhaustive collection of articles on quite detailed technology, and less information on 'softer' topics, such as arts or history. The fact that this bias is being discussed on this page, is a perfect example of the bias. It is difficult to decide if this occurrence of the bias is significant among other systemic biases.

But, really, I think it's as good an example as any of a systemic bias. Could it be shortened down, wikified, and re-added?--Niels Ø (noe) 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can cite it with a reliable third-party source. However, there are problems with how it is currently worded. "This fact that this bias is being discussed on this page" is especially problematic as it assumes that 1) this is a discussion and 2) this is on Wikipedia AND on the Web (neither of which is guaranteed). The in-article links to categories are also a bit problematic as well. It also reads as an essay currently -- not good. The paragraph would have to be structured so that the reference to Wikipedia makes no assumption that it appears IN Wikipedia, using the same tone as one would if the subject was the Encyclopedia Britannica. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A cool - it has been picked up! What about;

Also interesting is the systemic bias of Wiki English. Wiki's are a computer technology, and the Wikipedia user-population is more then average knowledgeable of computer technology like Wiki English. Therefore you'll find that Wikipedia has an exhaustive collection of quite detailed technology articles, and less information on 'softer' topics, such as arts or history. The fact that Wikipedia - next to real world examples - gives the systemic bias in Wikipedia itself as an example, can be seen as an example of the technology bias of Wikipedia, although it is ontologically impossible to assert how the technology bias of wikipedia ranks amongst other systemic biasses.

-- Eiland (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Systematic bias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page should not be merged with Systematic bias. I reverted the merge. Systemic bias has more to do with subtle or institutional racism, bigotry, ignorance of other cultures, etc..

See this New York Times article:

"Commerce Dept. Accused Of Systemic Bias". By John Files. October 6, 2005. New York Times.

See also: Wiki: WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See the results of these searches of Google News:

• http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22systemic+bias%22

Google Scholar:

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22systemic%20bias%22

Google Books:

• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22systemic%20bias%22

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in Systematic Bias in by Laura Quilter, which specifically discusses this article, as well as pointing out the biases inherent in Wikipedians - White, Male, Educated, etc etc. A better discussion in the article of gender and race biases in human systems and organizations would be welcome. (So would a few citations, actually....) Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The ref in "In human institutions" section requires a subscription to Time. Anyone have a better alternative? "Reverse Racism" has been both supported and derided by the MSM quite a bit over the past several decades, I imagine finding a good source for credible, unbiased citation will be difficult to find. Sawta (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I neglected to mention in my original post: The reason why I was looking at that citation was because I did not feel that I had a clear understanding of the topic. It currently reads:
"However, without sufficient restrictions based upon the actual socio-economic standing of the recipients of the aid provided, these types of system can, and allegedly do, result in the unintentional institutionalization of a reversed form of the same systemic bias,[1] which works against the goal of rendering institutional participation open to people with a wider range of backgrounds. It can therefore be argued that all human institutions can do is to minimize bias as much as possible, and utilize education to increase awareness of it wherever possible."
I found the highlighted areas unsatisfying as far as fully explaining the concept of, "sufficient restrictions...of the recipients". I've been struggling to understand the differences between bias and racism, systemic and systematic. I feel I've largely got a handle on those differences now, but I have zero idea what the quoted sentence is trying to get at. I gather that the paragraph is essentially trying to say:
"If there was previously a preferential selection for ethnicity 1, and a negative result for ethnicity 2. You now favor ethnicity 2, and negative result for ethnicity 1. You are still committing the same preferential treatment through systemic bias, and are still negatively effecting an ethnic group based on ethnicity, and not fixing the problem of preferential treatment or systemic bias."
1. What does the sentence mean by sufficient restrictions? Preferential treatment can still take place, but do it sparingly?
2. At the end of the paragraph appears to be some sort of proposed solution of, "minimizing bias by...utilize[ing] education to increase awareness"
• It doesn't state how one goes about "minimizing bias", or what that might entail. Is it simply the willful, active suppression of bias? If so, the definition of Systemic bias: "an inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes", would need a revision, or the practicality of the assertion would be extraordinarily difficult and impractical, if not outright impossible to "minimize".
• The statement doesn't appear to either expand upon the idea, or link to a relevant article on how education and "awareness" can positively influence Systemic bias. If this is a claim that "can be argued", shouldn't an argument be provided? What's to say increased knowledge and education won't exacerbate Systemic Bias, and more prevalent? Information, education, knowledge and even "awareness" are all good concepts and great value, but I find hard to believe that systemic bias can be defeated simply by "minimizing it" and "more awareness" of it - plenty of people have severe drug and alcohol dependencies while both being aware of the risks and a want to stop, but that hardly implies that there is not a huge drug and alcohol problem in many places throughout the world. Sawta (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I added the refimprove (insufficient citations) to the header. I believe the header, "In human institutions", and the head of "Major causes" need to have further needed references before this hea4der is taken down. Loverthehater (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)