On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
They are not only valid, in many cases they are necessary. Wikipedia is not Wikinfo, writing from a "sympathetic point of view". I hope that nobody would argue that we should have an article about [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Uri Geller]], or [[Alexander Lukashenko]] that does not include criticism. Important public and political figures in particular may affect, through their action or inaction, an entire society. To not describe the reaction in encyclopedic terms, or worse, to only describe one side of the reaction, completely undermines the purpose of an encyclopedia.
However, a simple fact is that often, the critics are few, disgruntled individuals, and the subjects of the biography are little known outside a particular circle of people. When "criticism" becomes synonymous to "people who don't like me on MySpace", it leaves the realm of encyclopedic interest. In addition to the number and notability of the critics, we should examine the substance of their claims. Do they actually qualify as criticism under any reasonable definition? Is a reader served by having this information?
The existing guidelines strike me as sufficient to deal with the issue on a case by case basis. But trying to get everyone in Wikipedia to send us flowers (not saying you are) would be as dangerous as an "anything goes" policy.
Erik