[WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

[ScottL]

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