Category talk:Libertarianism

Systemic Bias

There appears to be a systemic bias in Wikipedia's coverage of libertarianism in favor of the libertarian right, which is a relatively recent (circa 1960s) and geographically limited (mostly North American) perspective. The major articles are fairly inclusive (e.g., Libertarianism), but the minor articles are not (e.g., Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property). This isn't surprising, since a large portion of editors of the English Wikipedia are probably North American, and that strain of libertarianism is strongly represented on the Internet. I hope some editors with a proper understanding of libertarianism will begin to flesh out the articles in this category to include the historic and more globally widespread strains.

The bias is easily solved by adding all the articles about libertarianism and syndicalism or libertarianism and emma goldman or whatever the articles are. The article libertarianism is being changed to allow other views to be more easily and seamlessly added. (Later today or tomorrow I'm taking about most of libertarian movement section and moving to new article on Libertarianism in US and creating sections to make it easier to add all sorts of groups worldwide.)

But don't complain if people who do NOT know much about these left wing movements don't do a lot of research to add the info. The talk page of libertarianism has a lot of complaints about this, plus a whole bunch of references. But only one person has bothered to integrate some of those references into the article. Wikipedia is what the Unpaid, Volunatry editors make it. Carol Moore 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Why is it that if I detect a bias and draw attention to it, with the hope that it will spur knowledgeable editors to action, I'm "complaining"? I intend to do what I can, but my abilities are weak, hence this call to arms. Would you be making snide remarks if I were calling for more of something you agree with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between the so-called libertarian "right" and the so-called libertarian "left" goes to the core of what libertarianism is. The syndicalist / emma goldman camp claims entitlement to things that the other camp vehemently denies entitlement to. There is no reconciliation. This becomes a fight over the definition of the word "libertarianism". The reason North American libertarianism is different from the syndicalist / goldman camp is because the classical libertarian breed of libertarianism is at the core of the North American legal foundations, foundations that are unique to the North American heritage. So this is not a "systemic bias". It is a NPOV FACT that historical revisionists deny. (ClauLeo (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

This isn't the place to argue which strain of libertarianism is "correct." WP has a systemic bias in favor of the NA strain of libertarianism, which is right-wing. This is an NPOV FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So write WP:RS material on the topic. The bias exists only because there aren't any people with that perspective putting materials into articles on wikipedia, even though there are dozens complaining about the bias. 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Carol MooreCarolmooredc {talk}

Should user pages be listed?

Should we really have that? Given the ongoing debates on the topic at the article, we could end up with a dozen different versions, which seems a bit promotional. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)