On 23 Jul 2006 at 19:13, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
Don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
On 7/24/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 at 19:13, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
Don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Great example. It's such a poor topic - "Wikipedia in the media" or, again, "Perception of Wikipedia" would work so much better. I have trouble imagining who would really want to read a "Criticism of X" article - presumably only an anti-X person. Any pro-X person would just give it a miss, guessing correctly that it would be totally one-sided.
Incidentally, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=cri...
There are some bizarre ones: Criticism of World of Warcraft Criticism of the clothes free movement Criticism of the FBI Method of Classification of Serial Murderers
I see somene has already added those to [[List of POV forks]].
(sending this message a bit delayed, could be out of date)
Steve
"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.
On 7/25/06, ikiroid ikiroid@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
On 7/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I don't see the big difference between "Criticism of George W. Bush" and "Criticism of Microsoft". If Microsoft had a corporate approval rating, I doubt it would be very high -- and conversely, the people who actually take to the streets to protest Bush's policy only form a relatively small subset of those who disapprove of the job he's doing.
I too would prefer to read about the _perception_ and _reaction_ to Bush's actions, rather than criticism (the current article mixes both ideas). For instance, Americans generally "rallied behind the President" after the 9/11 attacks, and many of the people who supported him then became vocal critics of his policies later. A criticism/praise split breaks this narrative, and seems more geared towards pleasing current Bush supporters and critics than delivering a coherent and truthful presentation of the facts.
To me, the guideline, in a nutshell, seems very simple:
1) Sectioning negative vs. positive views is generally considered poor writing (AKA "the easy way out"), but not prohibited per se. It could be deserving of a {{cleanup}} tag.
2) Views cannot be moved to separate pages selectively. An article may be split when it gets too long, but the primary topic article should retain summaries. [[George W. Bush]] presently meets that requirement.
3) A disproportionately long criticism section in an article that, as a whole, does not exceed our length guidelines should generally not be moved away -- instead, the rest of the article should be expanded, and criticism should be carefully reviewed for relevance.
I'm certainly glad that POV forks are now widely considered unacceptable. This was not always the case.
Erik
On 7/27/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
To me, the guideline, in a nutshell, seems very simple:
- Sectioning negative vs. positive views is generally considered poor
writing (AKA "the easy way out"), but not prohibited per se. It could be deserving of a {{cleanup}} tag.
- Views cannot be moved to separate pages selectively. An article may
be split when it gets too long, but the primary topic article should retain summaries. [[George W. Bush]] presently meets that requirement.
Yeah I think I do agree with you after all on these.
- A disproportionately long criticism section in an article that, as
a whole, does not exceed our length guidelines should generally not be moved away -- instead, the rest of the article should be expanded, and criticism should be carefully reviewed for relevance.
An eternal battle: what does one do if one section is "disproportionately long" for an article which is "too short". Keep it there and hope the rest gets longer? Move it somewhere and risk being accused of censorship?
It happens in lots of cases...recently, a guy went around adding massive unedited slabs from the Catholic Encyclopedia to articles on small towns in Europe. What was previously 3 paragraphs about the town became 10, 7 of which were about obscure ecclesiastical history in the middle ages. Had the article been 5 paragraphs, that might have been excusable...
Steve
On 7/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
An eternal battle: what does one do if one section is "disproportionately long" for an article which is "too short". Keep it there and hope the rest gets longer? Move it somewhere and risk being accused of censorship?
There was a time when we had this guideline for stubs:
"Try to give more than just a definition — at least a little more. It doesn't hurt to be provocative, as long as you attempt to be unbiased and reasonably accurate. What is interesting and important about the subject? If your introduction would make someone want to read further, then it will probably entice someone to write further. As little as one extra sentence can turn a good description into a brilliant stub, e.g. Salvador Allende was the President of Chile from 1970 until 1973. The CIA might have been involved in the coup that ousted him. With a start like that, you don't have to know any more yourself; a dozen contributors will be falling over themselves to fill in the details." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Perfect_stub_article&...
It wasn't sustainable, of course, but I think it reflects a very different wiki philosophy than the notion that an article has be perfectly balanced at any given point in time. I think the basic philosophy is valid, [[iff]] the reader is informed about a lack of balance through the appropriate tags. Of course, the description above suggests adding unsourced innuendo, which we have rightly become much more wary of in recent times.
Erik
On 7/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
It wasn't sustainable, of course, but I think it reflects a very different wiki philosophy than the notion that an article has be perfectly balanced at any given point in time. I think the basic philosophy is valid, [[iff]] the reader is informed about a lack of balance through the appropriate tags. Of course, the description above suggests adding unsourced innuendo, which we have rightly become much more wary of in recent times.
Yeah, it's startling to read, the days when Wikipedia's main goal was expanding itself. Now our goal seems to be keeping the freaks in check.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Erik Moeller stated for the record:
If Microsoft had a corporate approval rating, I doubt it would be very high ...
They do. It's called "stock price."
- -- Sean Barrett | Save the whales! Trade them for valuable prizes. sean@epoptic.com |