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
On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:49 AM, 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
Let's do Communism and Criticisms of communism first. Coke is just colored sugar water. I don't know why we even have an article.
Seriously, looks like the PR department has been at work.
Fred
Sunday, July 23, 2006, 6:49:23 PM, you wrote:
SB> I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an SB> archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola SB> Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate SB> citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism SB> has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the SB> criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
SB> Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd SB> love a good conspiracy theory...
I think it's OK to speak in separate articles about individual issues (like the Coca-Cola labor practices in Colombia), while mentioning and linking them in the main article, but [[Criticism of ***]] articles are clearly POV forks.
Some time ago, I tried to avoid the POV fork of Wal-Mart, but I got a bunch of "Wal-Mart associates" insulting me and demanding me to stop editing [[Wal-Mart]], because I'm a non-American who knows nothing on what Wal-Mart really is. Eventually, I gave up, although the issue did make the Slashdot main page:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/1331232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart
Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt
...etc...
On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt
I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles contain the correct tone or not.
Steve
On 2006-07-23, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles contain the correct tone or not.
I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
OQ> I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such OQ> article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the OQ> point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary OQ> is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a OQ> "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
Well... the main article should cover both views. Currently, all of those 50 articles listed at [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] include negative facts and/or opinions (a few do have rebuttals).
The idea behind this is to take all the negative facts and opinions and put them outside of the main page, so people won't see them.
On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The idea behind this is to take all the negative facts and opinions and put them outside of the main page, so people won't see them.
Yes, that's exactly why they do it. The whole "criticism of X" concept is pretty flawed. It's just not a good subject. "Lawsuits against Microsoft" would be far more interesting and encyclopaedic. But for an article about public opinion of a thing, having only one side represented is dangerous and not useful. Much better to have a bit of "opinion" in the main article, and if there's really so much to be said, make "perceptions of X" or something, where opinions positive and negative can be collected. It should still be a rare occurrence.
Steve
On 7/23/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
It's almost always used that way on Wikipedia. Terms like "critical review" or "critical appreciation" are more ambiguous, but "criticism" is pretty unambiguously negative.
Steve
On 7/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's almost always used that way on Wikipedia. Terms like "critical review" or "critical appreciation" are more ambiguous, but "criticism" is pretty unambiguously negative.
Agreed. 'Criticism' sections and articles are pretty much always about negative criticisms; sometimes they are written by the opposition, and sometimes not (e.g. the [[Criticisms of Software Engineering]] is actually a pro- article, essentially there simply to rebut common criticisms).
Now it IS a big problem that sometimes the criticism of something weights an article too much - that is best solved with good editing and more facts.
-Matt
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:56:38 -0700, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Now it IS a big problem that sometimes the criticism of something weights an article too much - that is best solved with good editing and more facts.
See [[Lance Armstrong#Allegations of drug use]]. A masterpiece of innuendo and guilt-by-association.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:52:21 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
This is fair; perhaps it should be "media discussion of foo" or some such?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:52:21 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
This is fair; perhaps it should be "media discussion of foo" or some such?
Guy (JzG)
I like "Public perception ..." in cases where appropriate, and perhaps "Media discussion of ...." in others. I do not think we should go for (another) one size fits all. One of the reasons I think these are out of hand is that the naming of the article frames the content for these rather than vice versa. These should be named on a case by case basis with a perhaps a section on how to do them added to the MOS. They should be framed so that they are not one sided.
SKL
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:37:35 -0700, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
I like "Public perception ..." in cases where appropriate, and perhaps "Media discussion of ...." in others. I do not think we should go for (another) one size fits all. One of the reasons I think these are out of hand is that the naming of the article frames the content for these rather than vice versa. These should be named on a case by case basis with a perhaps a section on how to do them added to the MOS. They should be framed so that they are not one sided.
<AOL>
Guy (JzG)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt
I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles contain the correct tone or not.
Steve
I was about to do this but one look at this query:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22Criticism+of%22&num=100&hl=en&a...
and I realized it would take a very long time. Looks like there may be hundreds of these.
SKL
ScottL wrote:
I was about to do this but one look at this query:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22Criticism+of%22&num=100&hl=en&a...
and I realized it would take a very long time. Looks like there may be hundreds of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Criticism_of
Not that many; I count 33 excluding redirects.
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
ScottL wrote:
I was about to do this but one look at this query:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22Criticism+of%22&num=100&hl=en&a...
and I realized it would take a very long time. Looks like there may be hundreds of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Criticism_of
Not that many; I count 33 excluding redirects.
I think there are 51 listed on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_POV_forks
Dalf
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
On 23/07/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
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.
This wouldn't be done with a "History" section, so shouldn't be done with a "Criticisms" section.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 23/07/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
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.
This wouldn't be done with a "History" section, so shouldn't be done with a "Criticisms" section.
Ok good! :)
Dalf
On 7/23/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
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).
{{main}} is best used with a summary, like this:
==Legal action== {{main|Legal cases against Coca Cola}} Over the decades, more than 100 lawsuits have been launched against Coca Cola. The most high profile have been X, Y and Z, the latter of which led to the...As of 2006, case A is still outstanding.
etc.
Steve
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
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.