Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi, I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd love a good conspiracy theory...
Steve
I have seen a number of cases where (usually as a way to resolve a protracted content dispute) all criticism or dissenting views are first segregated into a section on criticism and then later removed to a totally different article with no summary of that article left in the original.
The first bit I think makes for bad articles but is the only solution that can reach consensus on some topics. But, the second is pretty horribly POV and usually happens when their is an obvious majority on one side but a sizable and tenacious group on the other.
Now my question, I know that splinting an article and not linking them is bad. But, I also don't like the case where a whole section of an article consists only of an instance of the {{mainarticle}} template or whatever its called. Is that also frowned on (I guess I can just be bold and do the frowning on it myself, but I was wondering if ht had been discussed).
Dalf