On 7/25/06, ikiroid <ikiroid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"Perception" sounds more multidimensional
than "Criticism".....but the
perception better be pretty damn important to have its own article. You
can't have that sort of thing for every subject......only ones whose
perception is notable.
Yeah. It's a tough call. Somehow a page called "Criticism of George W
Bush" doesn't seem that bad, because it literally *is* an
encyclopaedic topic. Being a president of the US at war will do that
to you. A balanced article about reactions to his politics from around
the world would probably have more scope and be more interesting
though.
Whereas "criticism of Microsoft", while being fairly copious, is
just...a bad topic.
Hang on, I'm starting to get an idea. A guideline: If you could write
an article about the criticism, without at any stage actually
mentioning the reasons behind the criticism, then maybe the
"criticism" article can fly. Let's try it:
George W Bush: Easy, there have been heaps of public protests in the
US and around the world
Microsoft: Apart from a minor subculture of Microsoft-bashing, what
could you say?
Catholic Church: Hmm...dunno
Gmail, World of Warcraft: don't make me laugh
Family Guy: somewhat in spite of itself [[Criticism of Family Guy]] is
a fairly interesting article documenting negative reactions to it,
mostly in the form of parodies and cheap shots in other cartoons. If
you took out the predictable "is the target of much criticism due to
what some feel are controversial and inappropriate subject matter,
lack of originality, poor animation, random jokes that do not
correspond to the plot, and substandard writing quality.", it could
almost get there.
For articles like "Criticism of sotware egineering", maybe something
like "Software engineering in academia" would work better?
Steve