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