Michael Snow wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/6/06, A <jokestress(a)gmail.com> wrote:
3. 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.
I beg to differ. In many cases they are not at all necessary. In fact,
they are often symptoms of the shoddy research, writing, and
organization that has gone into so many of our most problematic biographies.
I think you are both right. In many cases they are necessary, and in
many cases they are not necessary. :)
And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a
symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include
the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated
throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of
random criticisms.
The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is
partly a cultural
issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and
cultural issues on articles dealing with living people.
Indeed.