On 5/6/06, A <jokestress(a)gmail.com> wrote:
3. Are "criticism" sections valid in
general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
hatecruft about a person?
They are not only valid, in many cases they are necessary. Wikipedia
is not Wikinfo, writing from a "sympathetic point of view". I hope
that nobody would argue that we should have an article about [[Ann
Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Uri Geller]], or [[Alexander
Lukashenko]] that does not include criticism. Important public and
political figures in particular may affect, through their action or
inaction, an entire society. To not describe the reaction in
encyclopedic terms, or worse, to only describe one side of the
reaction, completely undermines the purpose of an encyclopedia.
However, a simple fact is that often, the critics are few, disgruntled
individuals, and the subjects of the biography are little known
outside a particular circle of people. When "criticism" becomes
synonymous to "people who don't like me on MySpace", it leaves the
realm of encyclopedic interest. In addition to the number and
notability of the critics, we should examine the substance of their
claims. Do they actually qualify as criticism under any reasonable
definition? Is a reader served by having this information?
The existing guidelines strike me as sufficient to deal with the issue
on a case by case basis. But trying to get everyone in Wikipedia to
send us flowers (not saying you are) would be as dangerous as an
"anything goes" policy.
Erik