On 7/24/06, Philosophus unknownphysicist@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> writes:
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've been trying to fix this particular problem after I noticed this email. If some of you who are discussing the more general issue here could also help with the discussion and impending edit war on [[The Coca-Cola Company]], it would be greatly appreciated. The NPOVing changes are meeting some resistance, and some editors don't even want to allow {{POV}} tags in the article.
As for the more general issue, perhaps we need a new and more specific guideline on this, or at least some changes to [[WP:POV fork]] to address the issue more specifically?
Philosophus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, at the very least all of these "criticism of" pages should be mentioned in the main article, but they should also present the counter criticism too. NPOV calls a neutrally worded presentation of various points of view, so hopefully these criticism articles don't get too wrapped up in the critical opinions.
And most importantly, they'd better have sources....or else it's just a page for every person who has a beef with the topic to dump on the subject.