This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article already exist like Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great So it will be third article doing the same thing.
Agreed. The content of the three articles needs to be merged. -
RobK
Criticism of Wikipedia is best, most specific page. The others should be redirects. In my opinion this is the best page on Wiki. 63.226.28.130 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I am a great Wikipedia fan, this article is biased. Although it covers both sides of the story, it gives far more weight to the pro-W side than the against-W side of the argument. Perhaps some objective comparisons of articles (Wikipedia vs Britannica for example) might be a good idea. - RobK
I too am a great Wikipedia fan. Regarding the issue on whether or not the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' should be deleted, I would have to say absolutely not. The thing that makes Wikipedia better than all its competition is that it's not biased, and deleting a page that objectively criticizes Wikipedia would be a biased decision. I've been to other online encyclopedias and they're vulgar, unorganized, sloppy and worst of all biased. Stay pure, Wikipedia. -Anonymous
Main difference between (1,2) and (3) is that (1,2) are basically to answer criticisms raised. While (3) is informing about criticisms in an Encyclopedic Way.
Zain 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redundant, duplicates Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Back in January the "Criticism" section of Mother Teresa was split off into a separate Criticism of Mother Teresa article and I argued at the time that this wasn't acceptable under the NPOV policy; see Talk:Mother Teresa#Farming out criticisms, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 2#Separate article for criticisms?, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 5#Split article ?, and Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be treated differently than Mother Teresa (now there's a sentence I never expected I'd ever write :). Existence of God is another example, it used to be two separate articles for the "pro" and "con" sides and was eventually merged. I don't think having a POV declared right in the title of an article is a good thing, we should torture English if we have to in order to get it out of there. Bryan 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is not useless duplication of existing work. The Wikipedia namespace does not have quite the same standards as the main article namespace, and this is quite a respectable encyclopedia article. However, if you want it to go then please list it on WP:VFD. I personally will vote to keep if this is done, but don't let this stop you! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have found a very comprehensive link on wikinfo.org a very long article. But looks like work of 'insiders'. not sure whether to put it or not. i am giving it here We should add it only after good discussion.
link is http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia
Zain 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now that the page is kept, how can we adjust the content? Text taken from the wikipedia: pages should be cited as we would any reference. The responses are that of "Wikipedia" not of the article. It should be that "Wikipedia counters this argument by saying..." This will just give facts as it is a fact that Wikipedia claims these things. The critics should be named if possible. Sarah Lane, newspapers, etc might be good sources. I guess we have to look at it like we're not Wikipedia members ... this is in the same way that we attempt to counter any bias on an article page. Just remember that Wikipedia: namespace articles are a POV source in this case and aren't interwiki articles.
The article shouldn't present these in the POV manner that is provided in the Wikipedia name space. When I can pull myself away from other pages, I may take a pass at doing just that. If anyone else wants to get started on implementing the content suggestions given during the voting process, please do so in the meantime. :) Any other thoughts? -- Sketchee 18:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.
Why is this written from the first person plural? Because it's a copy-paste from stuff in the Wikipedia namespace. If anyone expects people to take this "article" seriously, actually make it an article instead of a glorified duplication. - Vague | Rant 11:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Should this perhaps have a link to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia? In any case, if this survives VfD, I will link from that to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is cited that the article on Hurrican Frances was five times that on Chinese art, and the article on Coronation Street twice as long as that on Tony Blair. Yet now, the Chinese art article is twice as long and the Tony Blair article a fair amount longer. Should this be mentioned? →Iñgōlemo← talk 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
I think this was alread mentioned either above or in the article itself near the end, it stated the chinese art was considerably bigger than 2 years prior and the tony blair was twice as large as u said. The statement also tells the date between the 2 numbers to give some time span. (anon 7 May 2005)
Also, Dr Adam Carr appears to be contributing regularly again. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
This page survived the deletion debate. But deletion only renders a judgment on whether or not the article gets deleted. (VfD discussions sometimes also generate strong recommendations to transwiki but that's not what the process is really designed to decide.)
Having decided to keep the article, now let's have a serious discussion about where the article belongs. I believe that this article should be moved to the Meta: namespace. We have a long tradition that we don't write encyclopedia articles about ourselves. Wikipedia itself should have a deliberately short article in the main article space. That article should focus primarily on what outsiders say about the enterprise (good and bad). The meta: namespace was created as the proper place for this level of drill-down, response and self-examination. For anyone who may be concerned that we are "trying to cover up the criticisms", it is easy to cross-link over to the same article in Meta. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be biased -- the "responses" seem to support Wikipedia. -- Stevey7788 05:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have cut huge swaths of material that seemed to be plucked from thin air by people who like Wikipedia—that is, us. Then I tried to rewrite what was left as an integrated narrative. The criticism/rebuttal style was clearly biased towards the rebuttal. Some rebuttals even went so far as to elaborate on why Wikipedia is so great! If there is any article for which it is more important to maintain the neutral point of view, I'd like to see it. Let's try very hard here to adhere to our own standards, rather than seeing this as an excellent opportunity to prove our critics wrong. That's not what we're about.
As it is now it may appear rather flimsy. This has a very simple reason: most rebuttals were mostly POV essays bent on discrediting the criticism. This is not acceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are Wikipedia supporters, for bleedingly obvious reasons; we cannot allow everyone with a good idea for rebutting criticism to put in a "some say".
I have left in "some have argued" style comments if I happen to know from personal experience that multiple people have indeed argued this independently. This is of course suboptimal, and only a compromise between having nothing and giving every Wikipedian a personal shot at rebuttal.
I've also removed ad hominem/red herring arguments. For example, in response to criticism of systemic bias, we wrote "A user on the Wikipedia discussion board noted that the Wikipedia entry on Tony Blair still was several times longer than the corresponding entry in Encyclopædia Britannica." So what? Is this supposed to make up for the bias? Then you had outrageous statements like "Pappas' dismissal of the suggestion that Wikipedia is improving is also completely unproven" in response to "the premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection; that premise is completely unproven". Can we at least get by without misrepresenting our opponents' arguments? Pappas never said Wikipedia isn't improving.
I have deleted the "criticism of technology" section completely, as it made no attempt at clearly explaining what the problem was with the single issue it mentioned (Google bombing), or whether it being "entirely a product of current circumstances in the Internet" disqualified it from something notable. Could we have some sources? This just reads like "I heard this somewhere and it might be a problem".
The Adam Carr story has been removed because it is neither a rebuttal nor a neutral illustration of the criticism that dispute resolution is difficult or even broken. The "prolific, high profile Adam Carr Ph.D." has "scaled down his contributions" "partly in response" to "battles" with "followers" of Lyndon LaRouche? Can we have a picture of him kissing babies to go with that? There's not even any mention of dispute resolution in there. I realize it's very hard to write neutrally and informatively on this topic, because nobody among us can claim to be unbiased or uninvolved, but this should be an incentive to try extra hard.
I have converted external links to material that was quoted to references, which they are. I have removed links that had nothing to do with criticism or rebuttals to it (including all "Wikipedia is great" endorsements, as much as I like seeing them). The Red Herring article is too low-content to be of any value, containing exactly one sentence mentioning criticism ("as Wikipedia has become more important, critics have attacked the reliability of Wikipedia's system") and devoting the rest to soothing sounds on how quickly we revert vandalism. Plenty is said on that in the main article.
Mike Church's blog post contains a personal take on the community structure that might have value if the "criticisms of the community" section is expanded, but presently serves no function to the reader. For future reference:
Controversially (?) I have removed all mention of wikipediasucks.com. I can find no grounds for including this Sollog-created website, other than the snappy name. First, this does not deserve separate mention alongside, say, Britannica's criticisms, so I'm opposed to any inclusion in the main article text, unless someone can show me that this site is notable in the spectrum of criticism. Second, even an external link is supposed to refer the reader to some significant source of information on the topic not covered by the article. Wikipediasucks.com is just a collection of rants against "self-admitted pornographer" Jimbo Wales who has been "convicted of hate crimes", while the "forum" it includes has been deleted some time ago. Significant background information on Wikipedia? I think not.
I think the remaining links should have their information incorporated into the article and be listed as references as much as possible.
I have removed the "see also" section completely, to avoid self-references. Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are not articles, and should not be linked to. List specific revisions as references or external links, but not as additional material.
This article could stand to be improved. You can help Wikipedia by editing it. JRM 14:40, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
...has a lot of overlap, and as it stands, calling this a "main article" of the section makes no sense. Should we merge this back? JRM 15:13, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) ...or should we merge the section in the main article with this one? Argh, I hate duplicate content. JRM 15:21, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
I recently removed a link from the article whose abstract would suggest that the article is about the circadian rhythms of spores. User:JRM reverted my removal. I guess I would like to have explained the following two items:
- lethe talk 23:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
{{Mergeto|Wikipedia:Criticisms|date=October 2006}} would be preferable IMHO SV| t 19:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
But that would be a redirect from article space to Wikipedia space. I thought we don't do that. Anyway, this won a VfD fight, which should mean that is stays in article space. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I've done my best to clean up two recently added sections, which may have a point to make but do not make it well. I think I've improved them somewhat; they may or may not be salvageable. The second of the two does not have a single decent citation. I, for one, will not be bothered if they are just deleted, but I figured I'd do my part toward trying to make them useful -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I took out this paragraph "Proponents of Wikipedia point out, however, that when facts are in dispute (such as in controversial passages), writers are encouraged to cite sources extensively to support these facts or risk having them removed by other editors; citation of sources may be more reliable than the knowledge of a "specialist" or the presumed "authority" of a print encyclopedia." because it replies to a criticism about unnoticed errors, not controversial ones. Kappa 09:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
This article doesn't include one of my biggest gripes about the Wikipedia, but I couldn't figure out where to put. Quite frankly, too many Wikipedia editors are lazy, so they write what they think they know is correct, rather than what they have verified as correct. It may take two minutes to write up what you think is right, but it can take sometimes take an hour or two to properly verify the information online (or an afternoon's visit to the local library if the information is not available online). BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I hold WP:BB in high regard, but it also says "be bold, but not reckless". After some deliberation and especially careful reading of Wikipedia#Evaluation, I am of the opinion that this article in its current form should not exist, on these grounds:
Since there's probably been some cross-breeding between this and the main article (and since a third VfD is unlikely to succeed, because people just vote Keep on articles that survive VfD on prI'd like to merge and redirect this to Wikipedia, removing the links to it.
I intend to do this in, say, three days; the time for counterarguments would be now. (Of course my merge can also be undone, but since that's more work, I'd like to have it settled up front). Opinions? JRM · Talk 21:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I disagree - I see a merge/deletion after two failed VfD's as inappropriate. Thank you for posting on talk first because I would see such an action without the talk as not done in good faith, and as bold and reckless. I see no reason to rehash the discussion on the VfD - although the vote was close- there was no consensus - so it stays. There are many articles here I don't think should be here and some a majority agree, but they are still here. Trödel| talk 12:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I offer my complete support to JRM to go ahead and do the merge. Some reasons:
Pcb21| Pete 15:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soda80, please take your concerns to the talk page instead of automatically reverting. Please source your claims. Any editor will be quite justified in removing statements based on Wikipedia's own Deep Throat "Some People". You are also in danger of breaking the Three Revert Rule: if you do, you'll get blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Per the last two comments by JRM and Pete under "Warning:I intend to kill this page", which nobody has so far contradicted, I will go ahead and merge/redirect this page to Wikipedia. Crossposted from Talk:Wikipedia:
I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. Mostly it consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here).
If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it.
I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes".
I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see this proposal before, but I disagree with it. This topic is substantial enough to have its own article. A full merge would make the Wikipedia article too big, and the merge that you did actually removed a lot of information, leaving only about a third of what was there. NoPuzzleStranger 21:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whats your problem Bishonen -- are you unable to add anything constructive to the Wikipedia, so you try to remove articles while pretending you are doing us a favor? We have a
Criticism of Wikipedia article; if you don't like it, don't look at it. Go ahead and improve the
Wikipedia article if you want... but don't waste our time by deleting this article.
Fredy3332
What is the relevance of this recently added link: Wikipedia and a possible Meta-Encyclopedia exposing gaps? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure Sunny256's recent edits were well-intentioned, but I think they are wrong. If the article is copied elsewhere, we want links out of the encyclopedia space to still work correctly. The way they were changed, they wouldn't. I used rollback to revert, because I have a slow connection. -- Jmabel | Talk
In regards to, "[w]hile it has long been one of Jimbo Wales' goals to distribute Wikipedia in the poor nations of the world, the current Wikipedia would give them a product that does an inadequate job of covering their regions" I think this might be a premature statement. Our coverage is surely not perfect (in fact, it's more flawed than incomplete I would think) but the reasoning behind that statement might be off. We have (most) every little county's census data in the US. That means the US is going to be mentioned 1000s of times when it is not in any other major encyclopedia. We (because of lack of information and lack of manpower) have not done the same for smaller countries. We have thousands of obscure television shows, musical albums, etc. not mentioned in any other major encyclopedia. However, our main source of news on parts of the world not English speaking (or without media pervasive in English speaking countries) is Encyclopedias. We have limited access to English language material on Nigeria for the most part. However, we have unlimited access to English language material on American bands. So, I don't think we can conclude that wikipedia is inadequate in covering those regions (though it could be, and we could always use more), the conclusion is that coverage is really skewed. I just thought it should be reworded, or explained better... but, I didn't want to add original research of course :O gren グレン 07:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Grenavitar that my figures are a measure of quantity rather than quality. It in no way takes into account the fact that History of Rwanda is a better article than History of Belgium. At the same time, that there are many more articles at Category:History of Belgium than at Category:History of Rwanda makes the encyclopedia as a whole far more useful for someone studying Belgian history than Rwandan.
I just reran the relatively crude test I did a year ago. The ratios have improved somewhat, but we are still below the other encyclopedia. Belgium vs. Rwanda fell from 11:1 to 5:1. Canada vs. Nigeria fell from 27:1 to 25:1. We are making progress, but CSB is unquestionably a long term project. - SimonP 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Odd question, but how does Bangladesh compare to Slovenia? I ask because Bangladesh is also a large country and it's GDP is even larger then Slovenia's. [2]-- T. Anthony 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Does Daniel Brandt's apparent personal vendetta really belong linked in the external links? Weird that he is complaining about the invasion of his privacy by the existence of an article almost no one would read if he just let the matter rest; and here he is publicizing it. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you want to add me to your list of evil Wikipedia adminstrators, go right ahead. Judging by who is on it, it would be an honor. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion 1) that being unfunny is a fault and therefore the unfunniness of Wikipedia is a valid criticism; 2) Everyking removing my criticism was really funny. -- 68.255.163.63 05:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
And why I am removing the tag! Firstly, pages in the Wikipedia namespace do not have to be as vigorous as the articles must be in the main namespace. There must be references to the critics on this page.
Next, the merge tag has been on the Criticism of Wikipedia page since August 6, 2005, and people have attempted to redirect even before the tag was added.
What I am doing, instead, is submitting this to AfD. I will section the AfD into the following sections: keep as is, delete entirely, redirect, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is really pointless!! There is thousands of people editing articles, that is why it works. Thousands versus minutia. Sounds like the work of someone who has probobly been kicked out of Wikipedia. I hope they decide not to delete article, it would show the flaws of the people who dont have any social skills. JedOs 11:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As part of my own wiki project, I'm interested in providing links (and especially reviews) to sites that claim to criticize Wikipedia. I say "claim to," because the more interesting (and sillier) criticisms usually boil down to this: "Waaahh! The bad WikiNazis won't let me edit my pet articles the way I want, so therefore they're censoring me!" So far I have three notable examples of this sort -- including Brandt's "Wikipedia Watch" -- but I'm definitely interested in more whining of this kind. If you're tired of folks like John Byrne coming in and threatening the folks here because they don't like what we say, then please send them in my direction. My Web site is http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Sucks -- I'm not inserting a blatant plug into the article itself, because I'd probably be accused of promoting my own Web site if I did so. Feel free to drop by and take a look. -- Modemac 13:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's contributors have no authority on the subjects they speak. If they did, it isn't immediately clear who has what authority based on what experience. This lack of authority creates a clear problem, one that wikipedia alone cannot escape. Furthermore, if all this energy went into actual works and already existing works and projects, it would certainly have advanced each and every one of those projects further. Instead, information is being duplicated.
Wikipedia should position itself to provide an online version of currently existing encyclopedias, a front end, a user interface, that well-established authority figures can use to update content as it is discovered and so forth. Instead it tries to be the Linux of the encylopedia world. It tries to copy what others have done and in doing so wastes our resources needlessly. While access to an encyclopedia through a wiki interface is nice, the authoritative nature of the data is far more important.
Accessing this information on wikipedia, one often asks themselves "How do I know if this is valid, accurate, or true?". Or rather "how do I trust this website, from many other websites?". Wikipedia cannot provide an answer to any of these questions.
This section doesn't seem to either fit the article's title or to be appropriate as an encyclopedia entry at all. I think it should be removed, but since it obviously represents some hard work and thought, I'd like to hear other people's opinions about that. DannyWilde 08:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter McConaughey apparently disagrees, so I've reverted my removal. I still believe this essay-style section is unencyclopedic, and I'd like to have more input on how we can integrate its contents in a better way. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Not much about quality issues on this page. - Xed 13:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted what appears to me to be a long, POV essay. Perhaps this belongs in Wikipedia namespace, or on Meta, and I certainly would not delete it from there, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
...could use a little bit more attention: it seems to conflate two mostly unrelated privacy issues. Daniel Brandt agitates on both fronts, so mentioning him doesn't clear things up.
One issue is the desire for individuals, whom Wikipedia editors happen to consider notable, to not have biographical articles on Wikipedia. (One could divide this into the case of those who wish no biography at all, under any circumstances; and those who wish to have editorial control of their biographies, or failing that, remove it completely). It would be interesting to know traditional encyclopedias deal with this issue--if someone called up Britannica and demanded that the article on them be removed, how would they react?
In the US at least, people who want to be excluded from the Wikipedia probably have very little legal recourse, especially if the article in question follows WP:V. This isn't true in other countries (including several English-speaking countries, like Australia), where privacy laws are stronger (and in many case, trump freedom of the press).
The other privacy issue which is relevant is what Wikipedia does, if anything, with access logs. Nobody (save, perhaps, for a small number of administrators) can view what articles I read; but anyone can see what articles I've edited recently [4]. Hope there's nothing embarassing in that list. The latter is probably necessary for Wikipedia's editorial function to work correctly.
Wikipedia promises, in numerous places, to not make inappropriate use of its server logs; but several critics do not trust those assurances. Given that many organizations (mainly corporations, and some charities) are more than happy to sell customer databases and such to anyone willing to buy them--I can certainly understand why outside parties might not trust us; just because Wikipedia is non-profit, isn't a guarantee of absolutely pure motives.
-- EngineerScotty 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I just now wrote the section. Be bold! Improve the section! I don't really see the validity of your points, but I bet if I could compare this version with your new and improved version I would clearly understand the validity of your points. Give it a try! WAS 4.250 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I just added the following to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Wikipedia has increased with its prominence. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of the articles. Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable, that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals.
Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues:
I just added the above to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the anti Wikipedia sites and I MUST say Wikipedia covers criticism of Wikipedia better than anyone else! WAS 4.250 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This essay was written before the Seigenthaler incident became known. It takes several swipes at Wikipedia; however it deals with many other Internet fora besides Wikipedia and wikis. The essay is Nicholas Carr's The Cult of the Amateur, and it rails against the so-called Web 2.0--a term, coined by Tim O'Reilly, which refers to the current state of the web where forums, wikis, blogs, and other sites editable by the rabble, predominate.
Certainly, the article is worth mentioning at the bottom; though it's charges against Wikipedia specifically are already covered--except one: the notion that Wikipedia may put publishers of "reputable" encyclopedias out of business (an argument I consider specious; but then I consider lots of 'em to be specious).
What might be worth its own article, is the larger argument against the "editable" web. Does such a thing exist today on Wikipedia, or is anyone up to writing that? -- EngineerScotty 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think whoever wrote the section on Wikipedia crowding out professionals missed the point. The current quote isn't particularly compelling without the paragraph before: "Those despised "people in a back room" can fund in-depth reporting and research. They can underwrite projects that can take months or years to reach fruition - or that may fail altogether." The criticism is that a free resource like Wikipedia makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone to be financially rewarded for providing a professional-quality resource, or to move to a professional 'encylopedia writing' career; this means that there's no one developing these skills except as a hobby, and thus there simply won't be the skills around to improve beyond what we've already got. 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it the intent of the external links list to be a complete catalog of anti-Wikipedia articles, or is some degree of notability required? Certainly, articles in major publications should be listed, alongside high-quality criticism. But some of the articles cited are incoherent rants penned by insignificant nutbars. (The Rex Curry article, in which Mr. Curry takes Wikipedia to task for declining to host his largely unsubstantiated black helicopter propoganda, is a prime example).
If a complete catalog of such articles is desirable; I suggest it be moved into a separate page; and the links on this page be limited to a) those that support the claims in the article's text, and b) a sampling of other sensible or notable criticism. -- EngineerScotty 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:FrankZappo added Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines on 2006-01-05, which I removed after reading the first few paragraphs — it looks like a strange attempt at humor. User:Pgio put it back on 2006-01-06. Comments on whether to rm or keep? -- Jeandré, 2006-01-07 t15:27z
I'm involved in aetherometry so I won't vote, but IMHO its not as funny as their anti-wiki version 1. There should be *somewhere* for recording things like this though - but where? William M. Connolley 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation
The content on this website is 100% participant created and is not checked for accuracy. YMMV. Have a nice day.
If you're a teacher, teach them to be skeptical to what they read on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.217.99 ( talk • contribs) .
The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia. Possible slogans for the boycott could be "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission." Aspects of the boycott could include acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended, that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc, and that Wikipedia is based on false assumptions and ideals. Consequently, the boycott could seek to refuse to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so and to actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool. Participants could consist of Wikipedians as well as non-Wikipedians. Eventually, the boycott could consist primarily of non-Wikipedians. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia for details. -- JuanMuslim 1m 12:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This section was added by User:SEWilco, who appears to have a few axes to grind with the arbcom. While I have little knowledge or comment over his dispute, or on his proposed "Bill of Rights"... I am certain that this proposal does not belong in the article namespace. If articles cite the Wikipedia namespace (which is appropriate when writing about Wikipedia); they should only cite official policies or guidelines; not proposals (or essays written by individual editors). Most discussions in the Wikipedia (or user namespaces), as well as arbcom actions, are not encyclopedic, after all.
OTOH, there are occasional allegations of abuse of power-- Daniel Brandt frequently alleges such, and Andrew Orlowski has repeated them. I have no idea if any abuses occurred, or if those who allege such are simply unable to admit fault--and thus interpret an adverse action as bias or malice towards them. However, it is a frequent criticism of Wikipedia which has been noticed by the press--even if it's outright horseshit it probably is worth a mention here, cited appropriately. -- EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed it to:
I just read this and wonder to what extent the "toothless" arbitration committee is conducting dry runs for when editors become converted to members whose identities ARE verified. WAS 4.250 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I know of no place that defines "member" or suggests an end to anonymous edits or editors. I am very mildly concerned as opposed to worried in any way. The ability to fork the content due to its copyright makes my concern never rise to the level of worry. WAS 4.250 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Does the title of this article mean only "criticism" in the sense of "It has its critics" or in the sense of "literary criticism" or "film criticism"? The latter seems to me a much more encyclopedic topic and much less subject to inherent bias. Offhand, there is nothing in this article I'd remove, but I think it should contain much more about views, especially outside views, that have positive things to say about Wikipedia, and those positive views should not be present only as rebuttal. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM · Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems some people on here have nothing better to do than go around trying to edit and delete articles, and being very rude and condescending in the process. 24.65.52.82 03:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has been copied and moved to the Village Pump. Please continue discussion there. -- Revolución ( talk) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This article contains many link to articles in Wikipedia name space, they should at least be made into external links but may also indicate a problematic writing style. — Ruud 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
While it may be crap; we probably don't need to editorialize on this page, that it's crap. Anyone who wanders over there will see that it's crap. :) -- EngineerScotty 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this forum even relevant? The most users it's ever seen were 56 on December 11, 2005. Hardly a hotbed of debate. This is a forum set up by one disgruntled 'pedia editor who has received an indefinite ban. -- malber 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have taken a look at this site, and while there are many disgruntled banned users, there are also disgruntled non-banned users, and even some non-disgruntled users. There is no question but collectively they are quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and repeated deletion of a link to the Review makes it look like Wikipedia has something to hide. -- HK 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I added some criticisms of NPOV to the page and they were removed "for being POV" a minute later (I actually made my best to try writing them in the sort of "purified", "strangled" and "apologetic" style of prose this site really likes). Here it is. If you think these criticisms are too harsh and unjustified, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.
Examples of criticisms:
Misleading redefinition of known concepts:
Pretension of fairness:
Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:
Unsuitability:
-- 84.228.107.148 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking we should expand the scope of this article, and rename it "Commentary about Wikipedia". This would include criticism and other commentary about the project. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a change from criticize -> criticise; it's generally considered rude on Wikipedia to replace one correct spelling of a word with another correct spelling of the same word, without good reason. (If the other editor had replaced a correct British spelling with a correct American one, I would have also reverted). See the Wikipedia:Style_guide for more info on this issue. -- EngineerScotty 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Might the copyright problems in Wikipedia be highlighted as a criticism? I was just reading through the article and noticed that there's hardly a single mention of copyright. Now, personally, I have no idea about copyright law, and I'm not sure that copyright violation is an angle that Wikipedia is externally criticised in.
But I remember, what a month or two ago? That the German Wikipedia had to get rid of a shedload of stuff because it was just copied straight out of a print encyclopedia? The fact that the stuff was there for so long was that it was in print and not available online. Any thoughts? Worthy of a paragraph? - Hahnchen 09:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge problem with regards to copyright violations. Most of the content here is not sourced, and reads as it has been paraphrased onto a site. Wikipedia shouldn't be named a Free "Encyclopedia", it should be called Free Peer based, ages 10 & up, cronyism, and systematic biased "Information "Database". I agree with that a "copyright" problem section in Wikipedia should be highlighted as a criticism. I also think the "Suitability as an encyclopedia" section needs to be expanded. Anakinskywalker 12:21, 01 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is usually noticed right away but well written and scholarly sounding nonsense can have a long life on Wikipedia. The article on Larry King had whimsical references his flatulence removed January 26, 2006 that read:
Larry has quietly persevered for many years, with great dignity, both in his daily life and professional career, despite suffering, since childhood, with severe gastric infections otherwise known as IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) or Malabsorption Syndrome. Never the one to be embarrassed by life's peculiarities, Larry has often been said to have a bit of a flatulence habit while on air at CNN, which isn't curbed by having guests in the studio. A favorite moment of his, and an often repeated story, involved an interview conducted with former President Jimmy Carter who, after some length of time in studio, chided Larry & asked him to please stop, or he'd have to end the interview. Larry ever present in the moment adeptly steered the conversation to global warming and the effects of bovine emissions on the ozone.
The apocraphyl anecdote was online for over one month. The transcript from the show with Jimmy Carter has no such conversation. If nonesense is added in a scholary sounding way, no one notices. If it was written: "he farts all day", it would be removed quickly. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed another issue that I guess it's not listed anywhere: when some articles start getting big and full of information, wikipedia users refrain from deleting weak or even nonsense parts. They believe it's good to keep all that (useless?) stuff, probably reasoning that some information is better than none. That's why many many articles get huge and are tagged to need the attention of an expert (who would hopefully clean up all the junk).
I strongly disagree with this behavior of keeping junk on the main page. I guess the editing system should allow two versions of an article: the main one, with the information that was agreed by everyone (intersection of information) and another, longer one with all the possible information for that subject (union of information). In this way people would not be so afraid of deleting junk because it would be stored on the second page, and the main article would always be a cleaned up version, which, if not complete, at least would not fail on quality.
After catching banned user Lir spamming his own website [5] [6] as well as another Uni.edu one he's probably associated with [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] I've added Lir's website to the spam blacklist (with the Commitee's blessing). Sine qua non to this is that it be removed from this article, as it will cause the spam blacklist to stop all attempts to edit it. Raul654 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is unclear why we don't consider Wikipedia review a source of constructive or illuminating criticism, please see the following post by Blissy2u:
In case noone has realised where the problem is, here goes:
As such, I don't feel that this website has anything to offer to the average reader. If they actually addressed issues, then sure, I'd put the link back in a jiffy. As it is, it's not a terribly reputable site, as I feel my large quote from the site itself proves. Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the rather twisted mindset of the Wikipedia Review participants can be seen here:
Despite all of this, I still actually favor including the link, given that some other similarly twisted anti-Wikipedia sites are also linked, and we don't want to look like we're censoring criticism. Our readers should be trusted to be smart enough to read criticisms and draw their own conlcusions. *Dan T.* 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Blu, I like you and I think you try generally to take a constructive approach to Wikipedia's problems. However, your board is mostly just a whinefest for editors who mostly got what they deserved on WP. An awful lot of the content is bitching about particular users, rather than about any broader issues at Wikipedia. And it's of no wider interest. No one who posts to it is an outsider, that I can see. The posters are either the targets of opprobrium or their cadres, banned users who mostly want to bitch about how unfair it was, shitstirrers, what my friend Jay likes to call "problem users" (that's you and me, mostly, and posters such as laurels) and some cryptoNazis who recognise it as a good venue for Jew-baiting. It's nearly entirely concerned with wikipolitics, and consequently it's of little broader interest. Its entire potential audience already knows where it is and what it is. And its actual audience, as measured by post views, is very small. If this were any other forum, Blu, I'd be cutting it from the page, particularly on a big-ticket article. I don't see why your flame board should be treated to any different standard from any other elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
When the cabal agrees, that is called "consensus". When the cabal disagrees, that is called "no consensus".
I've just spent a few days slugging it out with the folk at the Wikipedia Review. While I have some serious fundamental and practical issues with how Wikipedia is operated, and therefore don't consider myself any sort of lapdog to this organisation, Wikipedia Review lacks significant public uptake, and in any event shows very little in the way of balance, common sense, or sophisticated criticism. In a nutshell, this pie chart (taken from membership data on the site as of 13 February), gives an idea of how much "consensus" it represents:
Note that fully half of all posts were made by just five people: Blissyu2 (banned from Wikipedia); Blu Aardvark (administrator of the site); Lir (banned from wikipedia); Igor Alexander (banned from Wikipedia; founded the site) and qwerty (administrator of the site). 11 posters account for over 75% of all posts, and of those 11, at least two (Tony Sidaway and thebainer) are antagonists on the board and don't actually seem to agree with its point of view.
In short, the Wikipedia Review is largely the work of a handful of people who have an axe to grind. I don't think it deserves any mention in any encyclopaedia, even as a link. ElectricRay 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This debate isn't helping anything, nor is it really about the article at all anymore. I understand where everyone is coming from, but I think we'll all be better off if we just drop it, please. Thanks.-- Sean Black (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Blu has gone and made Mistress_Selina_Kyle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a global moderator at Wikipedia Review. This is a person who has been blocked from WP no less than 33 times since registering in December 2005, the most recent block being one month for edit warring, personal attacks, equating Jimbo with Hitler, and vandalising policy pages [13]. This juvenile and immature user sees no problem with violating the privacy of forum posters, and has done this to SlimVirgin and Grace Note. I've taken the liberty of removing several of my posts to protect the IP information of one of the computers I frequently post from. This is further evidence that this forum is not to be taken seriously and certainly should not be listed in the article. -- Malber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not an open forum. You banned donkey for expressing himself. You allow trolls to defame respected Wikipedia editors with impunity but you do not allow criticism of your own members. donkey was welcome to post extremely crude invective until he questioned an administrator's posting of a respected Wikipedia editor's personal information, at which point he was blocked from your "open discussion forum". Nazis can post antisemitic rubbish but donkeys cannot ask your administrators why they are posting what they take to be people's personal information. --Grace Note.
Looks like this discussion is now moot. Igor Alexander, the board's neoNazi founder, has posted frank Holocaust denial to the board and banned most of the participants. Grace Note 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Critics include current and former Wikipedians, representatives of other encyclopedias, and subjects of articles. They certainly include those described, but what has been left out? Which of those was John Seigenthaler Sr.? I thought he was a ... oh, yes ... critics include members of the news media.
Maybe "omissions" should be added as a notable criticism, along with "disproportionate weighting of subjects".
Also, others say Wikipedi is functioning well as an encyclopedia. The world's first encyclopedia that "functions". hmmm... What did Britanica and Encarta do? It's been so long, I forgot. Oh, yeh.... that's it.. They SERVED as an encyclopedia. Service... now that's a rare concept around here, where we are doing something "undoubtably good" (sic) as the godking said when he recently blanked a talk page. Funny, "wikipedia edit war" gets twice as many google hits (467) as "wikipedia serves" (231). Shurlock 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Proponents of Wikipedia point to such statistics to show that systemic bias will diminish over time. Opponents point out that these articles drew attention from the Wikipedia community because they were specifically mentioned by Hoiberg, and this increase in size was not universal." And just plain worng! I am a proponent, but I would point out the latter issue! Rich Farmbrough 22:03 25 February 2006 (UTC).
I happened to notice the beginnings of what looks like another edit war looming over this articles history whilst perusing Special:Recentchanges. In the interest of encouraging discussion rather than blindly reverting, I am making note of the dispute here, so it can be discussed. Personally, I believe the site should be included, but only because I feel it enhances this article, but also recognize that a) I am blocked, and b) I am involved with the site. Nonetheless, discussion is preferable to reverting, so let's try that :). If the edit war I thought I was seeing has now ended, well, feel free to disregard. -- 72.160.70.218 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone explain what's wrong with linking to Wikipedia Review in an article about Criticism of Wikipedia? Also, I'm a bit irked that you got involved and were the protecting admin, Raul. -- Golbez 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking for alternatives to Wikipedia. More specifically, there was one called WikiInfo or InfoWiki that had a lot of open source content from Wikipedia but allowed POV without heavy editing found on Wikipedia. I've tried all sorts of searches on Wikipedia and google with no success. Does anyone have a link to this page? Vcarless
In the section entitled "criticism of contributors" the article absolutely needs to include the complaint that seems to be one of the most prominent criticisms leveled against wikipedia. That the contributors are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.
In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.
Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.
The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.
I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.
I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.
People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover. Wikoogle ( talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I’m more inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.
There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.
Why are we using the word "fanatics"? Calling people involved in criticms of Wikipedia, especially the Christian Post article and Conservapedia, fanatics, is pejorative, insulting, and amounts to little more to substituting childish namecalling for any response to the points made by these people. StaticElectric 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIAJIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kidding lol. this article seems like its criticizing itself just to let ya know. -- Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia Signpost interview dated 10 September 2007, WS asked question to wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 'As a follow up, does the Foundation have data backup/recovery plans in place should a disaster occur?'.
In reply to this question, Jimbo wales replied: 'Ask User:Brion VIBBER. I am not really qualified to answer detailed technology related questions' [1]
According to Jimmy Wales, User talk:Brion VIBBER is competent to answer the question. But User talk:Brion VIBBER may not read this question on his talk page and can be contacted only by email. And emails are not reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Hence whether wikipedia foundation has data backup/recovery plans is unclear.
I just want to whether wikipedia has such plans in place. If yes, please answer it here with reliable source. If no, please allow me to post single line that, 'whether wikipedia has data backup/recovery plans in place if disaster occurs to wikipedia main server is unclear'.
I believe I am commenting on very important question by giving reference to interview with Jimbo Wales.
I politely request wikipedia editors/administrators not to push me too far. Otherwise unfortunate situation may arise and wikipedia will have to block three IP addresses. And that is like blocking one billion peoples and cellphone users in almost all countries on earth.
I politely request you to either answer my query or allow me to post single line.
Thanks Casey and I apologize for my frequent edits.
When I figure out this database dump, I will write article for average reader and Jimbo Wales.
But I have figured out that google, yahoo catch almost all wikipedia articles every week or so. Hence nothing to worry about data loss.
You may remove my addition to 'prediction of failure' section if you think it is unwarranted there. If I remove it, someone may consider it as 'vandalism'.
Thanks very much.
abhishka 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a key criticism of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN Antony272b2 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see some of the dated external links (those that are news articles posted on a particular day) to be folded into the main text as inline references. I think that this should be done even if it requires that new assertions be made in the text. The process is simple: read the external article, read this article and find a home for the link. Again: if the external article makes an interesting and relevant claim not in the Wikipedia article does not, then add a new sentence to the article and add the link as an inline citation and remove from the external links section. Maybe we should have a template that suggests such.-- Mightyms 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please delete sub-page Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of the concept. I mis-read the guidelines. -- Cat Lover 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the graph at the blog here. I think it is because of developing negative internal dynamics and the inability of the administrative staff to keep up with the growth of users. The project is far from complete. Should something like this be addressed in this article?-- Filll 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have realized that this comes from a very interesting page on Wikipedia. If you click on the image, you get directed to pages of User:Dragons flight with a lot of interesting discussion about this: [14] I hope it turns into an article especially if we can find someone outside who picks up on this so it is not OR.-- Filll 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is too early, particularly since it has really received minimal interest in secondary sources so far. But it is quite interesting. I am quite interested in the subject personally, so I will keep an eye out for any further mention outside of WP.-- Filll 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an attack site. I see no harm in putting a link to the site there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.59.46 ( talk • contribs)
Some editors have been edit warring a link to Wikipedia Review into and out of the external links section here. I don't think that site is a source to which we should link, per WP:EL. Until consensus can be demonstrated that its value as a source is sufficient for us to use, I propose that the link not be used. Accordingly, I've removed it from the article, and I've created this section to facilitate discussion of the site's merit as a source. Opinions? - GTBacchus( talk) 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
BADSITES strikes again. The top page of Wikipedia Review contains nothing offensive in any way, unless a critical attitude towards Wikipedia is considered offensive in itself. I often read the forum to view criticism of Wikipedia that is unavailable on the encyclopedia itself. A couple threads have been personally critical of me, but I can live with that. Among other notable items, Wikipedia Review help break the Essjay story. The BADSITES crowd censored linking to the site on Essjay controversy. Now they want to banish all mention of it here. This is typical of a scared, silly, censorious attitude. Instead of selectively removing links to threads on the site which may be unacceptable, the BADSITERS rise up in holy horror at the entire site – which makes Wikipedia look like a timid old maid from the 1840s.
Yanking all links to Wikipedia Review is disruptive, unnecessary, and unjustified by policy or ArbCom decisions. Now the article has been protected in its scared and silly form, where we can't even mention one of the leading criticism sites. More BADSITES insanity. Casey Abell 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, of course it's BADSITES. The users removing the link have been among the most prominent supporters of this nonsensical non-policy. As for the EL argument, Wikipedia Review has often been dead-on in its factual accuracy and citation of relevant diffs from Wikipedia. I mentioned the Essjay controversy, and a major contributor to the site was also a key player in the Siegenthaler incident. If a site that often offers accurate and important criticism of Wikipedia can't be linked in Criticism of Wikipedia, what can be linked? If a specific thread from Wikipedia Review is objectionable on EL grounds, then remove the link to that thread. But removal of every link to the entire site is exactly BADSITES, and it exactly resembles censorship and Victorian-old-maid silliness. Casey Abell 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, you ask "if WR can't be linked, what can?" That's easy to answer; look at WP:EL. We can use sites that are reliable sources, offering notable views, and which publish responsible, verified information. Is WR one of those, in the case of this article? That's my question. I'm not "removing every link" to anything; check my contributions. If you think I have any interest in "Victorian-old-maid" silliness... heh, heh... you don't know who you're talking to. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're concerned about EL, then apply it on a link-by-link basis, as any policy on references should be applied. If a link to WR or any other site violates EL criteria, remove the link. But blanket removal of every link to Wikipedia Review is silly, censorious and an exact example of BADSITES. The link to the top page of WR does not mislead anybody or violate any other criterion for referencing material relevant to this article. We already reference in this article many criticisms of Wikipedia that I think are unfair, misleading and downright dumb. (That asinine image from Encyclopedia Dramatica is the groaner of all time, for instance.) I haven't removed those links because I believe the reader should be given the right to decide on the validity of the criticisms. I only wish that other editors would stop removing links merely because they don't like the site where the link resides...which is the exact definition of BADSITES. Casey Abell 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been extremely frustrated with the purges of which you speak, and that is precisely why I am trying to refocus the discussion on policy, one link at a time, patiently and with application of "sound editorial judgment", as ArbCom requested. Now... can we talk about the policy already, or would to make up some more bullshit about me first? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but "What value does that link provide?" Stating that "it's a very prominent forum" doesn't even take a step there - there are lots of very prominent things that linking to provides no value to our readers. Reading this specific forum as a non-player of inside wikipedia actually misinforms our readers - it is like linking to a creationist claptrap site on the article about the Piltdown Man. There are many good criticizers of Wikipedia - is the goal of linking to this rubbish to discredit real problems? If so, I suggest said strategy is backfiring, and leaving our readers stupider. MOASPN 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not know about WR until I read these lines. Why were admins so concerned about linking to this web site? It seems very interesting to me. 128.227.27.99 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Four out of the five people who removed the link make comment that make me suspect the believe some policy REQUIRES the deletion-- they are clearly in error about this. But GTBacchus clearly states that's NOT his concern, that he considers the matter to be something to be decided by consensus, and that he's not acting out of a blanket purge mentality-- and I believe him on all counts.
Furthermore-- as much as I would love a nice test case to prove to everyone BADSITES is dead once and for all, I think I have to actually agree with GT on this. This article is about "Criticism of wikipedia", not "Critics of wikipedia". Looking over the article, it seems like we have no shortage of good secondary sources, so we should be able to satisfy WP:V without resorting to a primary source. WR, as a forum, isn't a very good EL, since it presents its content in threaded conversation instead of static prose. If it were a different article and WR merited mention in the text, I think NPOV would say we'd have to link to it. But honestly, given the current article, it looks just kinda tacked on at the end, just sort of hanging there. If it were notable enough to have its own article, or it there are enough news stories to support an article about the "critics of wikipedia", that might make an article, but I'm skeptical that subject is sufficiently notable to have enough reliable secondary sources.
But this is the beauty of living in a post-BADSITES world. We get to actually decide these things based on what's best for the encyclopedia. We get to talk about it, share our views, swap ideas, and form a consensus-- rather than having the answer dictated to us.
When the link was first removed from this page, I took it for a blind "vandalism-esque" deletion based on BADSITES-- I would have instantly reverted it, and fought to defend it. But now that we're being encouraged to actually form consensus again, we wind up having a discussion. And GTBacchus, invariably one of the most reasonable people in the room, has made an excellent point, eloquently explained it to me why this particular link isn't a very good one, and changed my mind anyway.
So for those that doubted-- let it be seen. The revolution was never about promoting our critics-- it was about improving our encyclopedia. :) -- Alecmconroy 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent blind-insertion of the innapropriate external link, I question the initial comment. While it appears those in support of a BADSITES proposal were focused on encyclopedic value, at least some of those in opposition were certainly not. MOASPN 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Casey Abell for finding so diligently these sources. After our flurry of edits over the last couple of days, the article is better sourced and more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article deletions are affecting our donations to the extent that it is notable news about Criticism of Wikipedia. If we created the article Wikipedia article deletions sourced with those news reports we could at least have a place that mentions and says something about stuff that does not otherwise warrant an article and redirects could be created pointing at that article. Might help with fundraising too. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. Anyone care to give it a shot? WAS 4.250 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begantable ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert any more on this. But I'll put on record my objection to attempts to eliminate even a mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica from this article. Like it or not, ED is now a very popular parody of Wikipedia, and efforts to hide this fact are, in my opinion, foolish and counterproductive. One thing's for sure, I never want to hear "Wikipedia is not censored" again.
And by the way, a backhand reference to ED remains in the article. Casey Abell ( talk) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm just appalled that there is not an article on ED on the wikipedia. That is just the most fascist f'd up behavior for what I thought promised to be an uncensored collection of human knowledge. How childish and what a waste. I'm really floored and have lost a lot of respect for something I thought was really great. Cyclopsface ( talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The simple fact is that ED doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. The fact that a lot of Wikipedians don't like ED may create the appearance that we deleted the article as a grudge, but we actually deleted it because the site is not notable, per our usual standards. The notability guidelines apply to all website articles, and I'm not defending any article that sits here in contravention of them. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is in the nature of the two systems but there appears to be a preference for open source software on Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles about open source software which should is questioned as far as its notability while commercial software is not found even though it is widely used in a particular profession. The commercial software is possibly deleted because it could be an advertisement. 98.195.185.125 ( talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just stumpled across conservapedia and felt a little sick, they spout hatred, thank the lord (oh dont worry that`s not me being conserative) for intelligence here on wiki. Realist2 ( talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"There are indications that academics' view of Wikipedia may have improved during the last few years. There has been an increase in the number of citations of Wikipedia in international scientific journals, though this may be at least partly the result of the greater prominence of the project."
I do not like the section that starts like this. "There are indications [...] may have improved"... this sounds very vague. I find two words in that sentence that are very vague and are leaning more to weasel words than referring to a source.
The section goes on presenting some statistics over some site ScienceDirect. Where is the source for this? This looks like original research.
This section just states some claims that might be correct, and doesn't ever refer to a source. It should be removed.
Besides that, I love Wikipedia and do not agree with most of what this article has to say... so don't you think I'm criticizing this section because I'm some Wikipedia-basher... PureRumble 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wiki-deathstar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am sure that this probably needs a paragraph or two, it seems that (a) you are cribbing almost directly from the Register article, using mostly direct quotes instead of actually writing a Wikipedia article and (b) at least one of the editors identified by user name is not actually identified by any name in the Register article, so including his user name is original research. This particular article is way too much of a battlefield for me to play around with, but I just want to point out that we *do* have some quality standards here, and it would be nice if the criticism article would uphold them. Risker 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are even discussing a tabloid here? I have removed the material. In any other article, such material would not survive 5 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! This is the last edit I ever make here. I'm sick of this crap. jericho4.0 ( talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the two Register articles belong here. They are unquestionably "criticism of Wikipedia", and they are notable, given that they were both Slashdotted, Digged, and heavily blogged. Mentioning and linking them does not mean that we're saying the articles are accurate or objective, only that they were notable criticism. *Dan T.* ( talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since wikipdia review links here, I thought i should point out the following quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia
The secret dossier was leaked, and turned out to be a deeply flawed quasi-profiling purportedly establishing the suspected contributor as, paraphrased, a sleeper agent for an enemy cell (that is, from Wikipedia Review) bent on disruption. Yet official actions were taken to stop the leak from being posted in Wikipedia discussion under the pretext of "policy and violating copyright" (tinyurl.com/ytj9qo). Of course, the material was immediately available on Wikipedia Review (tinyurl.com/2sjrmj) and another site, Wikitruth.info, thus giving those sites redeeming value, whatever their flaws.
This is just something I think we are wise to remember every time the subject of these 2, by some referred to as WP:BADSITES, pop up. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually wanted to post this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss , but couldn't.
I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.
The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.
Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.
Justreg'dforthis ( talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent>When I see this sort of criticism, I am struck by how unrealistic it is. People expect there to be "one right answer" and "one truth" that agrees with their own personal opinion. If Wikipedia does not agree with their own personal bias, then they complain. Bitterly. Loud and long.
For example, if a contributor does not believe that men landed on the moon, this contributor will complain bitterly if the article about the moon landings on Wikipedia is written from the viewpoint that men actually landed on the moon. If articles debunking the moon landing deniers are linked in or mentioned, this will be viewed as evidence of a secret plot of the evil global media / Jews/ Americans/ Bilderbergs/ Council on Foreign Relations / Vatican/ Masons/ etc.
If Wikipedia is not written from the viewpoint of a given contributor, such as a moon landing denier, then all kinds of charges of bias and unfairness will be levelled. Of course, if Wikipedia acquiesces and allows the moon landing articles to be written only by moon landing deniers, then another group will charge that Wikipedia is biased etc.
The same is true on just about every issue. For example, the Miquelon and St. Pierre article discusses the origin of the name Miquelon. Several scholarly texts discuss the name "Miquelon" as being of Basque origin, which was mentioned in the article. There are also many other pieces of evidence that the early visitors to the island were Basques. This is standard knowledge that appears in many reference books and is taught in many schools. I was taught this in school growing up and required to memorize it.
However, there are people in Spain who are sensitive about Basque nationalism and Basque separatist movements. So an editor from Spain was highly incensed that our Wikipedia article should suggest that the name "Miquelon" was of Basque origin, but had no references to suggest that Miquelon is not a name of Basque origin, but instead is Spanish. This turned into a minor dust-up, and I am certain the Spanish editor went away positive that Wikipedia is biasd that they would take the word of textbooks and scholarly publications over his own personal say-so.
As another example, I have encountered several Polish editors at Frere Jacques who claim that it is well known that Frere Jacques is supposed to be a pilgrim on the Way of St. James who has not woken up his fellow travellers in time. They had no references for these claims. I looked and looked but could find none. The references they suggested were in foreign languages, and when translated, did not support their claims.
On the other hand, I had dozens of other references in scholarly journals and other sources for the identity of Frere Jacques which did not agree with their theory. However, the Polish editors were positive that it should be obvious to me and everyone else that their own personal theory, unsupported by a single reference, should be the correct one and should be the main or maybe even the only theory discussed in the Frere Jacques article. And when I did not give in, they went away furious and fuming about the "bias" in Wikipedia and the terrible unfairness.
After dealing with a few of these situations, and then reading the complaints of people about the bias and unreasonableness and errors in Wikipedia, I am struck by how silly this is. How many left wing extremists think Bill O'Reilly is unbiased? How many right wing extremists think that Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was a good president? Have any of these people complaining actually read the articles in World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Britannica? This sort of complaint is just pure nonsense.-- Filll ( talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. And your posts above would be a good example of this principle?-- Filll ( talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not broken. It's just going through a natural course of all things that reach prominence. It started out with a vision and much of the content was written while still in obscurity. By the time it became a top 10 website most of the major content of the truly encyclopedic subjects had been written. Now it is really a matter of improving and maintaining the current articles which is more of a management function than a creative one which is not as much fun. There are still some kinks to work out and the more contentious subjects will take longer to develop so it would be best to give this project at least 10 years(from its inception) to fully develop and then come up with an evaluation of the success or failure of it. MrMurph101 ( talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to excessive edit warring this page has been protected for 5 days. Someone should reinstate semi-protection when the full protection expires. Please discuss as opposed to slow revert warring. Stifle ( talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can an admin please reverse this? It's not NPOV, it's a content dispute. I don't care about sides, but I thought this wasn't allowed? Lawrence Cohen 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it was a good edit. The Register articles does indeed allege material, as the neutrality and accuracy of their reporting is in question. Saying that the article discusses the use of a private mailing list for the purpose they describe is begging the question. Since JzG's edit has been reverted (to the original protected version of this article) is there any opposition to putting up an {editprotected} request to make a consensus change to the more neutral wording (discussed → alleged)? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this kind of bias is discussed anywhere on this page, but it's something that's troubling me.
I recently added an NPOV tag to the "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" page. The problem here is that a well-educated group of people who care a lot about having a page reflect the beliefs of their religion are able to cite a great deal of apologetics in favor of their point of view while burying research that might contradict their beliefs. I'm sure these are honest and sincere folks who believe what they are saying, but even though I'm no archaeologist (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it) I'm equally sure that mainstream archeology finds a lot of what they are defending laughable (e.g. Native Americans descending from Jewish tribes, horses, wheat, sheep, and iron in Pre-Columbian America). I also suspect that it will be a lot harder to get mainstream archaeologists (who could cite reputable sources to contradict the weak and erroneous text cited) to spend their time keeping an eye on the page than it will be to get church members to dig up all kinds of backup for their holy book. Every piece of evidence that contradicts scripture ,therefore, gets disputed by a lot of references to (often church-funded) research that casts doubt on the archaeological evidence.
I have no axe to grind against the LDS church. In fact I have a feeling that this is not exclusive to Mormon religious beliefs. Perhaps someone else could point out similar problems elsewhere (articles on male circumcision overwhelmed by pro-circumcision evidence posted by Jewish people? Articles on contraception being overwhelmed by information posted by Catholic and fundamentalist believers? I haven't looked at either of those articles). Probably there others I haven't even though about.
The problem here seems to be that of a fairly large minority with fervently-held beliefs being able to "outpost" a smaller group of experts who can cite the justification for the viewpoint best supported by the evidence. In particular this is likely to happen when one viewpoint is held by scientists, for whom all knowledge is tentative and subject to contradicting evidence and the other viewpoint is held by religious believers, who feel they are starting from the truth and must discover evidence that supports it and find fault with evidence that contradicts it. It will be particularly bad if the religious group has the numbers, time, and resources to counter every argument from evidence.
This problem may not be exclusive to religious believers I'll even bet there are biases like this in articles about sectarian branches of Marxism -- please don't make me read them, though.
If I'm right, how should Wikipedia handle this? The Neutral Point of View page suggests that "partisan screeds" can eventually be "...cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially" but I doubt this can happen in the circumstances I've described
If I was the Emperor of Wikipedia I would suggest a variation on the NPOV tag that says something like "The neutrality of this article is compromised by an imbalance of evidence supporting religious beliefs that contradict widely-accepted or scientific evidence"
Sorry to be so wordy. Comments from more experienced Wikipedians?
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article already exist like Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great So it will be third article doing the same thing.
Agreed. The content of the three articles needs to be merged. -
RobK
Criticism of Wikipedia is best, most specific page. The others should be redirects. In my opinion this is the best page on Wiki. 63.226.28.130 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I am a great Wikipedia fan, this article is biased. Although it covers both sides of the story, it gives far more weight to the pro-W side than the against-W side of the argument. Perhaps some objective comparisons of articles (Wikipedia vs Britannica for example) might be a good idea. - RobK
I too am a great Wikipedia fan. Regarding the issue on whether or not the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' should be deleted, I would have to say absolutely not. The thing that makes Wikipedia better than all its competition is that it's not biased, and deleting a page that objectively criticizes Wikipedia would be a biased decision. I've been to other online encyclopedias and they're vulgar, unorganized, sloppy and worst of all biased. Stay pure, Wikipedia. -Anonymous
Main difference between (1,2) and (3) is that (1,2) are basically to answer criticisms raised. While (3) is informing about criticisms in an Encyclopedic Way.
Zain 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redundant, duplicates Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Back in January the "Criticism" section of Mother Teresa was split off into a separate Criticism of Mother Teresa article and I argued at the time that this wasn't acceptable under the NPOV policy; see Talk:Mother Teresa#Farming out criticisms, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 2#Separate article for criticisms?, Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 5#Split article ?, and Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be treated differently than Mother Teresa (now there's a sentence I never expected I'd ever write :). Existence of God is another example, it used to be two separate articles for the "pro" and "con" sides and was eventually merged. I don't think having a POV declared right in the title of an article is a good thing, we should torture English if we have to in order to get it out of there. Bryan 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is not useless duplication of existing work. The Wikipedia namespace does not have quite the same standards as the main article namespace, and this is quite a respectable encyclopedia article. However, if you want it to go then please list it on WP:VFD. I personally will vote to keep if this is done, but don't let this stop you! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have found a very comprehensive link on wikinfo.org a very long article. But looks like work of 'insiders'. not sure whether to put it or not. i am giving it here We should add it only after good discussion.
link is http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia
Zain 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now that the page is kept, how can we adjust the content? Text taken from the wikipedia: pages should be cited as we would any reference. The responses are that of "Wikipedia" not of the article. It should be that "Wikipedia counters this argument by saying..." This will just give facts as it is a fact that Wikipedia claims these things. The critics should be named if possible. Sarah Lane, newspapers, etc might be good sources. I guess we have to look at it like we're not Wikipedia members ... this is in the same way that we attempt to counter any bias on an article page. Just remember that Wikipedia: namespace articles are a POV source in this case and aren't interwiki articles.
The article shouldn't present these in the POV manner that is provided in the Wikipedia name space. When I can pull myself away from other pages, I may take a pass at doing just that. If anyone else wants to get started on implementing the content suggestions given during the voting process, please do so in the meantime. :) Any other thoughts? -- Sketchee 18:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Usenet lacks at least two features that are absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success: (1) on Usenet, you can't edit other people's work, while we can here on Wikipedia, thereby encouraging creative and collegial collaboration; or more strongly, on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as "other people's work", because there's no ownership of information; (2) Unlike Wikipedia, Usenet does not have the possibility of enforcing community-agreed standards. Moreover, Usenet is a debate forum. Wikipedia is, very self-consciously, an encyclopedia project! This provides at least some agreement on What Wikipedia is not.
Why is this written from the first person plural? Because it's a copy-paste from stuff in the Wikipedia namespace. If anyone expects people to take this "article" seriously, actually make it an article instead of a glorified duplication. - Vague | Rant 11:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Should this perhaps have a link to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia? In any case, if this survives VfD, I will link from that to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is cited that the article on Hurrican Frances was five times that on Chinese art, and the article on Coronation Street twice as long as that on Tony Blair. Yet now, the Chinese art article is twice as long and the Tony Blair article a fair amount longer. Should this be mentioned? →Iñgōlemo← talk 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
I think this was alread mentioned either above or in the article itself near the end, it stated the chinese art was considerably bigger than 2 years prior and the tony blair was twice as large as u said. The statement also tells the date between the 2 numbers to give some time span. (anon 7 May 2005)
Also, Dr Adam Carr appears to be contributing regularly again. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
This page survived the deletion debate. But deletion only renders a judgment on whether or not the article gets deleted. (VfD discussions sometimes also generate strong recommendations to transwiki but that's not what the process is really designed to decide.)
Having decided to keep the article, now let's have a serious discussion about where the article belongs. I believe that this article should be moved to the Meta: namespace. We have a long tradition that we don't write encyclopedia articles about ourselves. Wikipedia itself should have a deliberately short article in the main article space. That article should focus primarily on what outsiders say about the enterprise (good and bad). The meta: namespace was created as the proper place for this level of drill-down, response and self-examination. For anyone who may be concerned that we are "trying to cover up the criticisms", it is easy to cross-link over to the same article in Meta. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be biased -- the "responses" seem to support Wikipedia. -- Stevey7788 05:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have cut huge swaths of material that seemed to be plucked from thin air by people who like Wikipedia—that is, us. Then I tried to rewrite what was left as an integrated narrative. The criticism/rebuttal style was clearly biased towards the rebuttal. Some rebuttals even went so far as to elaborate on why Wikipedia is so great! If there is any article for which it is more important to maintain the neutral point of view, I'd like to see it. Let's try very hard here to adhere to our own standards, rather than seeing this as an excellent opportunity to prove our critics wrong. That's not what we're about.
As it is now it may appear rather flimsy. This has a very simple reason: most rebuttals were mostly POV essays bent on discrediting the criticism. This is not acceptable. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are Wikipedia supporters, for bleedingly obvious reasons; we cannot allow everyone with a good idea for rebutting criticism to put in a "some say".
I have left in "some have argued" style comments if I happen to know from personal experience that multiple people have indeed argued this independently. This is of course suboptimal, and only a compromise between having nothing and giving every Wikipedian a personal shot at rebuttal.
I've also removed ad hominem/red herring arguments. For example, in response to criticism of systemic bias, we wrote "A user on the Wikipedia discussion board noted that the Wikipedia entry on Tony Blair still was several times longer than the corresponding entry in Encyclopædia Britannica." So what? Is this supposed to make up for the bias? Then you had outrageous statements like "Pappas' dismissal of the suggestion that Wikipedia is improving is also completely unproven" in response to "the premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection; that premise is completely unproven". Can we at least get by without misrepresenting our opponents' arguments? Pappas never said Wikipedia isn't improving.
I have deleted the "criticism of technology" section completely, as it made no attempt at clearly explaining what the problem was with the single issue it mentioned (Google bombing), or whether it being "entirely a product of current circumstances in the Internet" disqualified it from something notable. Could we have some sources? This just reads like "I heard this somewhere and it might be a problem".
The Adam Carr story has been removed because it is neither a rebuttal nor a neutral illustration of the criticism that dispute resolution is difficult or even broken. The "prolific, high profile Adam Carr Ph.D." has "scaled down his contributions" "partly in response" to "battles" with "followers" of Lyndon LaRouche? Can we have a picture of him kissing babies to go with that? There's not even any mention of dispute resolution in there. I realize it's very hard to write neutrally and informatively on this topic, because nobody among us can claim to be unbiased or uninvolved, but this should be an incentive to try extra hard.
I have converted external links to material that was quoted to references, which they are. I have removed links that had nothing to do with criticism or rebuttals to it (including all "Wikipedia is great" endorsements, as much as I like seeing them). The Red Herring article is too low-content to be of any value, containing exactly one sentence mentioning criticism ("as Wikipedia has become more important, critics have attacked the reliability of Wikipedia's system") and devoting the rest to soothing sounds on how quickly we revert vandalism. Plenty is said on that in the main article.
Mike Church's blog post contains a personal take on the community structure that might have value if the "criticisms of the community" section is expanded, but presently serves no function to the reader. For future reference:
Controversially (?) I have removed all mention of wikipediasucks.com. I can find no grounds for including this Sollog-created website, other than the snappy name. First, this does not deserve separate mention alongside, say, Britannica's criticisms, so I'm opposed to any inclusion in the main article text, unless someone can show me that this site is notable in the spectrum of criticism. Second, even an external link is supposed to refer the reader to some significant source of information on the topic not covered by the article. Wikipediasucks.com is just a collection of rants against "self-admitted pornographer" Jimbo Wales who has been "convicted of hate crimes", while the "forum" it includes has been deleted some time ago. Significant background information on Wikipedia? I think not.
I think the remaining links should have their information incorporated into the article and be listed as references as much as possible.
I have removed the "see also" section completely, to avoid self-references. Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are not articles, and should not be linked to. List specific revisions as references or external links, but not as additional material.
This article could stand to be improved. You can help Wikipedia by editing it. JRM 14:40, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
...has a lot of overlap, and as it stands, calling this a "main article" of the section makes no sense. Should we merge this back? JRM 15:13, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) ...or should we merge the section in the main article with this one? Argh, I hate duplicate content. JRM 15:21, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
I recently removed a link from the article whose abstract would suggest that the article is about the circadian rhythms of spores. User:JRM reverted my removal. I guess I would like to have explained the following two items:
- lethe talk 23:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
{{Mergeto|Wikipedia:Criticisms|date=October 2006}} would be preferable IMHO SV| t 19:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
But that would be a redirect from article space to Wikipedia space. I thought we don't do that. Anyway, this won a VfD fight, which should mean that is stays in article space. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I've done my best to clean up two recently added sections, which may have a point to make but do not make it well. I think I've improved them somewhat; they may or may not be salvageable. The second of the two does not have a single decent citation. I, for one, will not be bothered if they are just deleted, but I figured I'd do my part toward trying to make them useful -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I took out this paragraph "Proponents of Wikipedia point out, however, that when facts are in dispute (such as in controversial passages), writers are encouraged to cite sources extensively to support these facts or risk having them removed by other editors; citation of sources may be more reliable than the knowledge of a "specialist" or the presumed "authority" of a print encyclopedia." because it replies to a criticism about unnoticed errors, not controversial ones. Kappa 09:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
This article doesn't include one of my biggest gripes about the Wikipedia, but I couldn't figure out where to put. Quite frankly, too many Wikipedia editors are lazy, so they write what they think they know is correct, rather than what they have verified as correct. It may take two minutes to write up what you think is right, but it can take sometimes take an hour or two to properly verify the information online (or an afternoon's visit to the local library if the information is not available online). BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I hold WP:BB in high regard, but it also says "be bold, but not reckless". After some deliberation and especially careful reading of Wikipedia#Evaluation, I am of the opinion that this article in its current form should not exist, on these grounds:
Since there's probably been some cross-breeding between this and the main article (and since a third VfD is unlikely to succeed, because people just vote Keep on articles that survive VfD on prI'd like to merge and redirect this to Wikipedia, removing the links to it.
I intend to do this in, say, three days; the time for counterarguments would be now. (Of course my merge can also be undone, but since that's more work, I'd like to have it settled up front). Opinions? JRM · Talk 21:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I disagree - I see a merge/deletion after two failed VfD's as inappropriate. Thank you for posting on talk first because I would see such an action without the talk as not done in good faith, and as bold and reckless. I see no reason to rehash the discussion on the VfD - although the vote was close- there was no consensus - so it stays. There are many articles here I don't think should be here and some a majority agree, but they are still here. Trödel| talk 12:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I offer my complete support to JRM to go ahead and do the merge. Some reasons:
Pcb21| Pete 15:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soda80, please take your concerns to the talk page instead of automatically reverting. Please source your claims. Any editor will be quite justified in removing statements based on Wikipedia's own Deep Throat "Some People". You are also in danger of breaking the Three Revert Rule: if you do, you'll get blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Per the last two comments by JRM and Pete under "Warning:I intend to kill this page", which nobody has so far contradicted, I will go ahead and merge/redirect this page to Wikipedia. Crossposted from Talk:Wikipedia:
I have merged the unique content of Criticism of Wikipedia into this article and turned Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. There was striking overlap, so the unique content didn't amount to much, see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. Mostly it consisted of fuller quotes from authorities already cited in Wikipedia, e. g., this well-known and telling quote from Robert McHenry: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." Anything like that has been tenderly merged into Wikipedia. The only things I've knowingly let fall by the wayside, as being too low-quality for a featured article, is unsourced grinching by Some People, for example "Some people predict that Wikipedia is going to end up as "just as a bunch of flame wars"" (some people seem to be quoting some other people here).
If anybody's planning to revert my actions, please give some thought to the issue of references, because the Criticism page did have something Wikipedia was in want of: an appropriate (if short) "References" section. Wikipedia had and has a very fine collection of references, but before my meddling, they were given only in a footnote section (confusingly titled "References".) Footnotes are not enough, the reader also needs an alphabetical list of the sources used. But won't such a list merely duplicate information already given in the footnotes? Yes. Well, isn't that a wanton waste of space? No, it's an essential reader convenience. The reader who wonders if Simon Waldman's Guardian article was used, or who wants the bibliographical information for it, needs to be able to find it on an organized list, as opposed to having to dig it out of a disorganized list, which is what the footnotes are. The alphabetical list can be dispensed with if there are only a few references—usefulness and what the reader really needs are the overriding principles—but the larger the number of references, the more important it becomes to have it.
I have made a start on a proper "References" section by importing the short References list (only three items) from Criticism of Wikipedia. I have also inlined references to these three sources in appropriate places in the text, where required. These references and their placement in the text were valuable information in Criticism of Wikipedia, and I have been careful of it. Oh, and I have renamed the footnote section "Footnotes".
I'm hoping somebody else will help with the work of adding all the other footnoted sources in alphabetical order to the new References section. Alphabetize by author's name where known, please, otherwise by article name or page name. If you like, feel free to list the sources without taking any trouble over formatting, I'll be dropping by to format them if required, and to add them myself if necessary. (I admit I'd like to see first if anybody's going to revert the work I've done so far. Feel free to be bold, as I was.) Bishonen | talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see this proposal before, but I disagree with it. This topic is substantial enough to have its own article. A full merge would make the Wikipedia article too big, and the merge that you did actually removed a lot of information, leaving only about a third of what was there. NoPuzzleStranger 21:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whats your problem Bishonen -- are you unable to add anything constructive to the Wikipedia, so you try to remove articles while pretending you are doing us a favor? We have a
Criticism of Wikipedia article; if you don't like it, don't look at it. Go ahead and improve the
Wikipedia article if you want... but don't waste our time by deleting this article.
Fredy3332
What is the relevance of this recently added link: Wikipedia and a possible Meta-Encyclopedia exposing gaps? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure Sunny256's recent edits were well-intentioned, but I think they are wrong. If the article is copied elsewhere, we want links out of the encyclopedia space to still work correctly. The way they were changed, they wouldn't. I used rollback to revert, because I have a slow connection. -- Jmabel | Talk
In regards to, "[w]hile it has long been one of Jimbo Wales' goals to distribute Wikipedia in the poor nations of the world, the current Wikipedia would give them a product that does an inadequate job of covering their regions" I think this might be a premature statement. Our coverage is surely not perfect (in fact, it's more flawed than incomplete I would think) but the reasoning behind that statement might be off. We have (most) every little county's census data in the US. That means the US is going to be mentioned 1000s of times when it is not in any other major encyclopedia. We (because of lack of information and lack of manpower) have not done the same for smaller countries. We have thousands of obscure television shows, musical albums, etc. not mentioned in any other major encyclopedia. However, our main source of news on parts of the world not English speaking (or without media pervasive in English speaking countries) is Encyclopedias. We have limited access to English language material on Nigeria for the most part. However, we have unlimited access to English language material on American bands. So, I don't think we can conclude that wikipedia is inadequate in covering those regions (though it could be, and we could always use more), the conclusion is that coverage is really skewed. I just thought it should be reworded, or explained better... but, I didn't want to add original research of course :O gren グレン 07:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Grenavitar that my figures are a measure of quantity rather than quality. It in no way takes into account the fact that History of Rwanda is a better article than History of Belgium. At the same time, that there are many more articles at Category:History of Belgium than at Category:History of Rwanda makes the encyclopedia as a whole far more useful for someone studying Belgian history than Rwandan.
I just reran the relatively crude test I did a year ago. The ratios have improved somewhat, but we are still below the other encyclopedia. Belgium vs. Rwanda fell from 11:1 to 5:1. Canada vs. Nigeria fell from 27:1 to 25:1. We are making progress, but CSB is unquestionably a long term project. - SimonP 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Odd question, but how does Bangladesh compare to Slovenia? I ask because Bangladesh is also a large country and it's GDP is even larger then Slovenia's. [2]-- T. Anthony 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Does Daniel Brandt's apparent personal vendetta really belong linked in the external links? Weird that he is complaining about the invasion of his privacy by the existence of an article almost no one would read if he just let the matter rest; and here he is publicizing it. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you want to add me to your list of evil Wikipedia adminstrators, go right ahead. Judging by who is on it, it would be an honor. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion 1) that being unfunny is a fault and therefore the unfunniness of Wikipedia is a valid criticism; 2) Everyking removing my criticism was really funny. -- 68.255.163.63 05:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
And why I am removing the tag! Firstly, pages in the Wikipedia namespace do not have to be as vigorous as the articles must be in the main namespace. There must be references to the critics on this page.
Next, the merge tag has been on the Criticism of Wikipedia page since August 6, 2005, and people have attempted to redirect even before the tag was added.
What I am doing, instead, is submitting this to AfD. I will section the AfD into the following sections: keep as is, delete entirely, redirect, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is really pointless!! There is thousands of people editing articles, that is why it works. Thousands versus minutia. Sounds like the work of someone who has probobly been kicked out of Wikipedia. I hope they decide not to delete article, it would show the flaws of the people who dont have any social skills. JedOs 11:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As part of my own wiki project, I'm interested in providing links (and especially reviews) to sites that claim to criticize Wikipedia. I say "claim to," because the more interesting (and sillier) criticisms usually boil down to this: "Waaahh! The bad WikiNazis won't let me edit my pet articles the way I want, so therefore they're censoring me!" So far I have three notable examples of this sort -- including Brandt's "Wikipedia Watch" -- but I'm definitely interested in more whining of this kind. If you're tired of folks like John Byrne coming in and threatening the folks here because they don't like what we say, then please send them in my direction. My Web site is http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Sucks -- I'm not inserting a blatant plug into the article itself, because I'd probably be accused of promoting my own Web site if I did so. Feel free to drop by and take a look. -- Modemac 13:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's contributors have no authority on the subjects they speak. If they did, it isn't immediately clear who has what authority based on what experience. This lack of authority creates a clear problem, one that wikipedia alone cannot escape. Furthermore, if all this energy went into actual works and already existing works and projects, it would certainly have advanced each and every one of those projects further. Instead, information is being duplicated.
Wikipedia should position itself to provide an online version of currently existing encyclopedias, a front end, a user interface, that well-established authority figures can use to update content as it is discovered and so forth. Instead it tries to be the Linux of the encylopedia world. It tries to copy what others have done and in doing so wastes our resources needlessly. While access to an encyclopedia through a wiki interface is nice, the authoritative nature of the data is far more important.
Accessing this information on wikipedia, one often asks themselves "How do I know if this is valid, accurate, or true?". Or rather "how do I trust this website, from many other websites?". Wikipedia cannot provide an answer to any of these questions.
This section doesn't seem to either fit the article's title or to be appropriate as an encyclopedia entry at all. I think it should be removed, but since it obviously represents some hard work and thought, I'd like to hear other people's opinions about that. DannyWilde 08:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter McConaughey apparently disagrees, so I've reverted my removal. I still believe this essay-style section is unencyclopedic, and I'd like to have more input on how we can integrate its contents in a better way. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Not much about quality issues on this page. - Xed 13:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted what appears to me to be a long, POV essay. Perhaps this belongs in Wikipedia namespace, or on Meta, and I certainly would not delete it from there, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
...could use a little bit more attention: it seems to conflate two mostly unrelated privacy issues. Daniel Brandt agitates on both fronts, so mentioning him doesn't clear things up.
One issue is the desire for individuals, whom Wikipedia editors happen to consider notable, to not have biographical articles on Wikipedia. (One could divide this into the case of those who wish no biography at all, under any circumstances; and those who wish to have editorial control of their biographies, or failing that, remove it completely). It would be interesting to know traditional encyclopedias deal with this issue--if someone called up Britannica and demanded that the article on them be removed, how would they react?
In the US at least, people who want to be excluded from the Wikipedia probably have very little legal recourse, especially if the article in question follows WP:V. This isn't true in other countries (including several English-speaking countries, like Australia), where privacy laws are stronger (and in many case, trump freedom of the press).
The other privacy issue which is relevant is what Wikipedia does, if anything, with access logs. Nobody (save, perhaps, for a small number of administrators) can view what articles I read; but anyone can see what articles I've edited recently [4]. Hope there's nothing embarassing in that list. The latter is probably necessary for Wikipedia's editorial function to work correctly.
Wikipedia promises, in numerous places, to not make inappropriate use of its server logs; but several critics do not trust those assurances. Given that many organizations (mainly corporations, and some charities) are more than happy to sell customer databases and such to anyone willing to buy them--I can certainly understand why outside parties might not trust us; just because Wikipedia is non-profit, isn't a guarantee of absolutely pure motives.
-- EngineerScotty 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I just now wrote the section. Be bold! Improve the section! I don't really see the validity of your points, but I bet if I could compare this version with your new and improved version I would clearly understand the validity of your points. Give it a try! WAS 4.250 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I just added the following to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Wikipedia has increased with its prominence. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of the articles. Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable, that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals.
Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues:
I just added the above to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the anti Wikipedia sites and I MUST say Wikipedia covers criticism of Wikipedia better than anyone else! WAS 4.250 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This essay was written before the Seigenthaler incident became known. It takes several swipes at Wikipedia; however it deals with many other Internet fora besides Wikipedia and wikis. The essay is Nicholas Carr's The Cult of the Amateur, and it rails against the so-called Web 2.0--a term, coined by Tim O'Reilly, which refers to the current state of the web where forums, wikis, blogs, and other sites editable by the rabble, predominate.
Certainly, the article is worth mentioning at the bottom; though it's charges against Wikipedia specifically are already covered--except one: the notion that Wikipedia may put publishers of "reputable" encyclopedias out of business (an argument I consider specious; but then I consider lots of 'em to be specious).
What might be worth its own article, is the larger argument against the "editable" web. Does such a thing exist today on Wikipedia, or is anyone up to writing that? -- EngineerScotty 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think whoever wrote the section on Wikipedia crowding out professionals missed the point. The current quote isn't particularly compelling without the paragraph before: "Those despised "people in a back room" can fund in-depth reporting and research. They can underwrite projects that can take months or years to reach fruition - or that may fail altogether." The criticism is that a free resource like Wikipedia makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone to be financially rewarded for providing a professional-quality resource, or to move to a professional 'encylopedia writing' career; this means that there's no one developing these skills except as a hobby, and thus there simply won't be the skills around to improve beyond what we've already got. 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it the intent of the external links list to be a complete catalog of anti-Wikipedia articles, or is some degree of notability required? Certainly, articles in major publications should be listed, alongside high-quality criticism. But some of the articles cited are incoherent rants penned by insignificant nutbars. (The Rex Curry article, in which Mr. Curry takes Wikipedia to task for declining to host his largely unsubstantiated black helicopter propoganda, is a prime example).
If a complete catalog of such articles is desirable; I suggest it be moved into a separate page; and the links on this page be limited to a) those that support the claims in the article's text, and b) a sampling of other sensible or notable criticism. -- EngineerScotty 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:FrankZappo added Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines on 2006-01-05, which I removed after reading the first few paragraphs — it looks like a strange attempt at humor. User:Pgio put it back on 2006-01-06. Comments on whether to rm or keep? -- Jeandré, 2006-01-07 t15:27z
I'm involved in aetherometry so I won't vote, but IMHO its not as funny as their anti-wiki version 1. There should be *somewhere* for recording things like this though - but where? William M. Connolley 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation
The content on this website is 100% participant created and is not checked for accuracy. YMMV. Have a nice day.
If you're a teacher, teach them to be skeptical to what they read on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.217.99 ( talk • contribs) .
The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia. Possible slogans for the boycott could be "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission." Aspects of the boycott could include acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended, that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc, and that Wikipedia is based on false assumptions and ideals. Consequently, the boycott could seek to refuse to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so and to actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool. Participants could consist of Wikipedians as well as non-Wikipedians. Eventually, the boycott could consist primarily of non-Wikipedians. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia for details. -- JuanMuslim 1m 12:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This section was added by User:SEWilco, who appears to have a few axes to grind with the arbcom. While I have little knowledge or comment over his dispute, or on his proposed "Bill of Rights"... I am certain that this proposal does not belong in the article namespace. If articles cite the Wikipedia namespace (which is appropriate when writing about Wikipedia); they should only cite official policies or guidelines; not proposals (or essays written by individual editors). Most discussions in the Wikipedia (or user namespaces), as well as arbcom actions, are not encyclopedic, after all.
OTOH, there are occasional allegations of abuse of power-- Daniel Brandt frequently alleges such, and Andrew Orlowski has repeated them. I have no idea if any abuses occurred, or if those who allege such are simply unable to admit fault--and thus interpret an adverse action as bias or malice towards them. However, it is a frequent criticism of Wikipedia which has been noticed by the press--even if it's outright horseshit it probably is worth a mention here, cited appropriately. -- EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed it to:
I just read this and wonder to what extent the "toothless" arbitration committee is conducting dry runs for when editors become converted to members whose identities ARE verified. WAS 4.250 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I know of no place that defines "member" or suggests an end to anonymous edits or editors. I am very mildly concerned as opposed to worried in any way. The ability to fork the content due to its copyright makes my concern never rise to the level of worry. WAS 4.250 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Does the title of this article mean only "criticism" in the sense of "It has its critics" or in the sense of "literary criticism" or "film criticism"? The latter seems to me a much more encyclopedic topic and much less subject to inherent bias. Offhand, there is nothing in this article I'd remove, but I think it should contain much more about views, especially outside views, that have positive things to say about Wikipedia, and those positive views should not be present only as rebuttal. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM · Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems some people on here have nothing better to do than go around trying to edit and delete articles, and being very rude and condescending in the process. 24.65.52.82 03:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has been copied and moved to the Village Pump. Please continue discussion there. -- Revolución ( talk) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This article contains many link to articles in Wikipedia name space, they should at least be made into external links but may also indicate a problematic writing style. — Ruud 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
While it may be crap; we probably don't need to editorialize on this page, that it's crap. Anyone who wanders over there will see that it's crap. :) -- EngineerScotty 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this forum even relevant? The most users it's ever seen were 56 on December 11, 2005. Hardly a hotbed of debate. This is a forum set up by one disgruntled 'pedia editor who has received an indefinite ban. -- malber 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have taken a look at this site, and while there are many disgruntled banned users, there are also disgruntled non-banned users, and even some non-disgruntled users. There is no question but collectively they are quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and repeated deletion of a link to the Review makes it look like Wikipedia has something to hide. -- HK 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I added some criticisms of NPOV to the page and they were removed "for being POV" a minute later (I actually made my best to try writing them in the sort of "purified", "strangled" and "apologetic" style of prose this site really likes). Here it is. If you think these criticisms are too harsh and unjustified, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.
Examples of criticisms:
Misleading redefinition of known concepts:
Pretension of fairness:
Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:
Unsuitability:
-- 84.228.107.148 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking we should expand the scope of this article, and rename it "Commentary about Wikipedia". This would include criticism and other commentary about the project. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a change from criticize -> criticise; it's generally considered rude on Wikipedia to replace one correct spelling of a word with another correct spelling of the same word, without good reason. (If the other editor had replaced a correct British spelling with a correct American one, I would have also reverted). See the Wikipedia:Style_guide for more info on this issue. -- EngineerScotty 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Might the copyright problems in Wikipedia be highlighted as a criticism? I was just reading through the article and noticed that there's hardly a single mention of copyright. Now, personally, I have no idea about copyright law, and I'm not sure that copyright violation is an angle that Wikipedia is externally criticised in.
But I remember, what a month or two ago? That the German Wikipedia had to get rid of a shedload of stuff because it was just copied straight out of a print encyclopedia? The fact that the stuff was there for so long was that it was in print and not available online. Any thoughts? Worthy of a paragraph? - Hahnchen 09:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge problem with regards to copyright violations. Most of the content here is not sourced, and reads as it has been paraphrased onto a site. Wikipedia shouldn't be named a Free "Encyclopedia", it should be called Free Peer based, ages 10 & up, cronyism, and systematic biased "Information "Database". I agree with that a "copyright" problem section in Wikipedia should be highlighted as a criticism. I also think the "Suitability as an encyclopedia" section needs to be expanded. Anakinskywalker 12:21, 01 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is usually noticed right away but well written and scholarly sounding nonsense can have a long life on Wikipedia. The article on Larry King had whimsical references his flatulence removed January 26, 2006 that read:
Larry has quietly persevered for many years, with great dignity, both in his daily life and professional career, despite suffering, since childhood, with severe gastric infections otherwise known as IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) or Malabsorption Syndrome. Never the one to be embarrassed by life's peculiarities, Larry has often been said to have a bit of a flatulence habit while on air at CNN, which isn't curbed by having guests in the studio. A favorite moment of his, and an often repeated story, involved an interview conducted with former President Jimmy Carter who, after some length of time in studio, chided Larry & asked him to please stop, or he'd have to end the interview. Larry ever present in the moment adeptly steered the conversation to global warming and the effects of bovine emissions on the ozone.
The apocraphyl anecdote was online for over one month. The transcript from the show with Jimmy Carter has no such conversation. If nonesense is added in a scholary sounding way, no one notices. If it was written: "he farts all day", it would be removed quickly. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed another issue that I guess it's not listed anywhere: when some articles start getting big and full of information, wikipedia users refrain from deleting weak or even nonsense parts. They believe it's good to keep all that (useless?) stuff, probably reasoning that some information is better than none. That's why many many articles get huge and are tagged to need the attention of an expert (who would hopefully clean up all the junk).
I strongly disagree with this behavior of keeping junk on the main page. I guess the editing system should allow two versions of an article: the main one, with the information that was agreed by everyone (intersection of information) and another, longer one with all the possible information for that subject (union of information). In this way people would not be so afraid of deleting junk because it would be stored on the second page, and the main article would always be a cleaned up version, which, if not complete, at least would not fail on quality.
After catching banned user Lir spamming his own website [5] [6] as well as another Uni.edu one he's probably associated with [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] I've added Lir's website to the spam blacklist (with the Commitee's blessing). Sine qua non to this is that it be removed from this article, as it will cause the spam blacklist to stop all attempts to edit it. Raul654 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is unclear why we don't consider Wikipedia review a source of constructive or illuminating criticism, please see the following post by Blissy2u:
In case noone has realised where the problem is, here goes:
As such, I don't feel that this website has anything to offer to the average reader. If they actually addressed issues, then sure, I'd put the link back in a jiffy. As it is, it's not a terribly reputable site, as I feel my large quote from the site itself proves. Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the rather twisted mindset of the Wikipedia Review participants can be seen here:
Despite all of this, I still actually favor including the link, given that some other similarly twisted anti-Wikipedia sites are also linked, and we don't want to look like we're censoring criticism. Our readers should be trusted to be smart enough to read criticisms and draw their own conlcusions. *Dan T.* 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Blu, I like you and I think you try generally to take a constructive approach to Wikipedia's problems. However, your board is mostly just a whinefest for editors who mostly got what they deserved on WP. An awful lot of the content is bitching about particular users, rather than about any broader issues at Wikipedia. And it's of no wider interest. No one who posts to it is an outsider, that I can see. The posters are either the targets of opprobrium or their cadres, banned users who mostly want to bitch about how unfair it was, shitstirrers, what my friend Jay likes to call "problem users" (that's you and me, mostly, and posters such as laurels) and some cryptoNazis who recognise it as a good venue for Jew-baiting. It's nearly entirely concerned with wikipolitics, and consequently it's of little broader interest. Its entire potential audience already knows where it is and what it is. And its actual audience, as measured by post views, is very small. If this were any other forum, Blu, I'd be cutting it from the page, particularly on a big-ticket article. I don't see why your flame board should be treated to any different standard from any other elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
When the cabal agrees, that is called "consensus". When the cabal disagrees, that is called "no consensus".
I've just spent a few days slugging it out with the folk at the Wikipedia Review. While I have some serious fundamental and practical issues with how Wikipedia is operated, and therefore don't consider myself any sort of lapdog to this organisation, Wikipedia Review lacks significant public uptake, and in any event shows very little in the way of balance, common sense, or sophisticated criticism. In a nutshell, this pie chart (taken from membership data on the site as of 13 February), gives an idea of how much "consensus" it represents:
Note that fully half of all posts were made by just five people: Blissyu2 (banned from Wikipedia); Blu Aardvark (administrator of the site); Lir (banned from wikipedia); Igor Alexander (banned from Wikipedia; founded the site) and qwerty (administrator of the site). 11 posters account for over 75% of all posts, and of those 11, at least two (Tony Sidaway and thebainer) are antagonists on the board and don't actually seem to agree with its point of view.
In short, the Wikipedia Review is largely the work of a handful of people who have an axe to grind. I don't think it deserves any mention in any encyclopaedia, even as a link. ElectricRay 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This debate isn't helping anything, nor is it really about the article at all anymore. I understand where everyone is coming from, but I think we'll all be better off if we just drop it, please. Thanks.-- Sean Black (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Blu has gone and made Mistress_Selina_Kyle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a global moderator at Wikipedia Review. This is a person who has been blocked from WP no less than 33 times since registering in December 2005, the most recent block being one month for edit warring, personal attacks, equating Jimbo with Hitler, and vandalising policy pages [13]. This juvenile and immature user sees no problem with violating the privacy of forum posters, and has done this to SlimVirgin and Grace Note. I've taken the liberty of removing several of my posts to protect the IP information of one of the computers I frequently post from. This is further evidence that this forum is not to be taken seriously and certainly should not be listed in the article. -- Malber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not an open forum. You banned donkey for expressing himself. You allow trolls to defame respected Wikipedia editors with impunity but you do not allow criticism of your own members. donkey was welcome to post extremely crude invective until he questioned an administrator's posting of a respected Wikipedia editor's personal information, at which point he was blocked from your "open discussion forum". Nazis can post antisemitic rubbish but donkeys cannot ask your administrators why they are posting what they take to be people's personal information. --Grace Note.
Looks like this discussion is now moot. Igor Alexander, the board's neoNazi founder, has posted frank Holocaust denial to the board and banned most of the participants. Grace Note 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Critics include current and former Wikipedians, representatives of other encyclopedias, and subjects of articles. They certainly include those described, but what has been left out? Which of those was John Seigenthaler Sr.? I thought he was a ... oh, yes ... critics include members of the news media.
Maybe "omissions" should be added as a notable criticism, along with "disproportionate weighting of subjects".
Also, others say Wikipedi is functioning well as an encyclopedia. The world's first encyclopedia that "functions". hmmm... What did Britanica and Encarta do? It's been so long, I forgot. Oh, yeh.... that's it.. They SERVED as an encyclopedia. Service... now that's a rare concept around here, where we are doing something "undoubtably good" (sic) as the godking said when he recently blanked a talk page. Funny, "wikipedia edit war" gets twice as many google hits (467) as "wikipedia serves" (231). Shurlock 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Proponents of Wikipedia point to such statistics to show that systemic bias will diminish over time. Opponents point out that these articles drew attention from the Wikipedia community because they were specifically mentioned by Hoiberg, and this increase in size was not universal." And just plain worng! I am a proponent, but I would point out the latter issue! Rich Farmbrough 22:03 25 February 2006 (UTC).
I happened to notice the beginnings of what looks like another edit war looming over this articles history whilst perusing Special:Recentchanges. In the interest of encouraging discussion rather than blindly reverting, I am making note of the dispute here, so it can be discussed. Personally, I believe the site should be included, but only because I feel it enhances this article, but also recognize that a) I am blocked, and b) I am involved with the site. Nonetheless, discussion is preferable to reverting, so let's try that :). If the edit war I thought I was seeing has now ended, well, feel free to disregard. -- 72.160.70.218 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone explain what's wrong with linking to Wikipedia Review in an article about Criticism of Wikipedia? Also, I'm a bit irked that you got involved and were the protecting admin, Raul. -- Golbez 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking for alternatives to Wikipedia. More specifically, there was one called WikiInfo or InfoWiki that had a lot of open source content from Wikipedia but allowed POV without heavy editing found on Wikipedia. I've tried all sorts of searches on Wikipedia and google with no success. Does anyone have a link to this page? Vcarless
In the section entitled "criticism of contributors" the article absolutely needs to include the complaint that seems to be one of the most prominent criticisms leveled against wikipedia. That the contributors are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.
In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.
Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.
The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.
I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.
I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.
People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover. Wikoogle ( talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I’m more inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.
There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.
Why are we using the word "fanatics"? Calling people involved in criticms of Wikipedia, especially the Christian Post article and Conservapedia, fanatics, is pejorative, insulting, and amounts to little more to substituting childish namecalling for any response to the points made by these people. StaticElectric 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIAJIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kidding lol. this article seems like its criticizing itself just to let ya know. -- Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia Signpost interview dated 10 September 2007, WS asked question to wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 'As a follow up, does the Foundation have data backup/recovery plans in place should a disaster occur?'.
In reply to this question, Jimbo wales replied: 'Ask User:Brion VIBBER. I am not really qualified to answer detailed technology related questions' [1]
According to Jimmy Wales, User talk:Brion VIBBER is competent to answer the question. But User talk:Brion VIBBER may not read this question on his talk page and can be contacted only by email. And emails are not reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Hence whether wikipedia foundation has data backup/recovery plans is unclear.
I just want to whether wikipedia has such plans in place. If yes, please answer it here with reliable source. If no, please allow me to post single line that, 'whether wikipedia has data backup/recovery plans in place if disaster occurs to wikipedia main server is unclear'.
I believe I am commenting on very important question by giving reference to interview with Jimbo Wales.
I politely request wikipedia editors/administrators not to push me too far. Otherwise unfortunate situation may arise and wikipedia will have to block three IP addresses. And that is like blocking one billion peoples and cellphone users in almost all countries on earth.
I politely request you to either answer my query or allow me to post single line.
Thanks Casey and I apologize for my frequent edits.
When I figure out this database dump, I will write article for average reader and Jimbo Wales.
But I have figured out that google, yahoo catch almost all wikipedia articles every week or so. Hence nothing to worry about data loss.
You may remove my addition to 'prediction of failure' section if you think it is unwarranted there. If I remove it, someone may consider it as 'vandalism'.
Thanks very much.
abhishka 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a key criticism of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN Antony272b2 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see some of the dated external links (those that are news articles posted on a particular day) to be folded into the main text as inline references. I think that this should be done even if it requires that new assertions be made in the text. The process is simple: read the external article, read this article and find a home for the link. Again: if the external article makes an interesting and relevant claim not in the Wikipedia article does not, then add a new sentence to the article and add the link as an inline citation and remove from the external links section. Maybe we should have a template that suggests such.-- Mightyms 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please delete sub-page Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of the concept. I mis-read the guidelines. -- Cat Lover 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the graph at the blog here. I think it is because of developing negative internal dynamics and the inability of the administrative staff to keep up with the growth of users. The project is far from complete. Should something like this be addressed in this article?-- Filll 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have realized that this comes from a very interesting page on Wikipedia. If you click on the image, you get directed to pages of User:Dragons flight with a lot of interesting discussion about this: [14] I hope it turns into an article especially if we can find someone outside who picks up on this so it is not OR.-- Filll 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is too early, particularly since it has really received minimal interest in secondary sources so far. But it is quite interesting. I am quite interested in the subject personally, so I will keep an eye out for any further mention outside of WP.-- Filll 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an attack site. I see no harm in putting a link to the site there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.59.46 ( talk • contribs)
Some editors have been edit warring a link to Wikipedia Review into and out of the external links section here. I don't think that site is a source to which we should link, per WP:EL. Until consensus can be demonstrated that its value as a source is sufficient for us to use, I propose that the link not be used. Accordingly, I've removed it from the article, and I've created this section to facilitate discussion of the site's merit as a source. Opinions? - GTBacchus( talk) 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
BADSITES strikes again. The top page of Wikipedia Review contains nothing offensive in any way, unless a critical attitude towards Wikipedia is considered offensive in itself. I often read the forum to view criticism of Wikipedia that is unavailable on the encyclopedia itself. A couple threads have been personally critical of me, but I can live with that. Among other notable items, Wikipedia Review help break the Essjay story. The BADSITES crowd censored linking to the site on Essjay controversy. Now they want to banish all mention of it here. This is typical of a scared, silly, censorious attitude. Instead of selectively removing links to threads on the site which may be unacceptable, the BADSITERS rise up in holy horror at the entire site – which makes Wikipedia look like a timid old maid from the 1840s.
Yanking all links to Wikipedia Review is disruptive, unnecessary, and unjustified by policy or ArbCom decisions. Now the article has been protected in its scared and silly form, where we can't even mention one of the leading criticism sites. More BADSITES insanity. Casey Abell 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, of course it's BADSITES. The users removing the link have been among the most prominent supporters of this nonsensical non-policy. As for the EL argument, Wikipedia Review has often been dead-on in its factual accuracy and citation of relevant diffs from Wikipedia. I mentioned the Essjay controversy, and a major contributor to the site was also a key player in the Siegenthaler incident. If a site that often offers accurate and important criticism of Wikipedia can't be linked in Criticism of Wikipedia, what can be linked? If a specific thread from Wikipedia Review is objectionable on EL grounds, then remove the link to that thread. But removal of every link to the entire site is exactly BADSITES, and it exactly resembles censorship and Victorian-old-maid silliness. Casey Abell 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, you ask "if WR can't be linked, what can?" That's easy to answer; look at WP:EL. We can use sites that are reliable sources, offering notable views, and which publish responsible, verified information. Is WR one of those, in the case of this article? That's my question. I'm not "removing every link" to anything; check my contributions. If you think I have any interest in "Victorian-old-maid" silliness... heh, heh... you don't know who you're talking to. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're concerned about EL, then apply it on a link-by-link basis, as any policy on references should be applied. If a link to WR or any other site violates EL criteria, remove the link. But blanket removal of every link to Wikipedia Review is silly, censorious and an exact example of BADSITES. The link to the top page of WR does not mislead anybody or violate any other criterion for referencing material relevant to this article. We already reference in this article many criticisms of Wikipedia that I think are unfair, misleading and downright dumb. (That asinine image from Encyclopedia Dramatica is the groaner of all time, for instance.) I haven't removed those links because I believe the reader should be given the right to decide on the validity of the criticisms. I only wish that other editors would stop removing links merely because they don't like the site where the link resides...which is the exact definition of BADSITES. Casey Abell 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been extremely frustrated with the purges of which you speak, and that is precisely why I am trying to refocus the discussion on policy, one link at a time, patiently and with application of "sound editorial judgment", as ArbCom requested. Now... can we talk about the policy already, or would to make up some more bullshit about me first? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a broken record, but "What value does that link provide?" Stating that "it's a very prominent forum" doesn't even take a step there - there are lots of very prominent things that linking to provides no value to our readers. Reading this specific forum as a non-player of inside wikipedia actually misinforms our readers - it is like linking to a creationist claptrap site on the article about the Piltdown Man. There are many good criticizers of Wikipedia - is the goal of linking to this rubbish to discredit real problems? If so, I suggest said strategy is backfiring, and leaving our readers stupider. MOASPN 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not know about WR until I read these lines. Why were admins so concerned about linking to this web site? It seems very interesting to me. 128.227.27.99 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Four out of the five people who removed the link make comment that make me suspect the believe some policy REQUIRES the deletion-- they are clearly in error about this. But GTBacchus clearly states that's NOT his concern, that he considers the matter to be something to be decided by consensus, and that he's not acting out of a blanket purge mentality-- and I believe him on all counts.
Furthermore-- as much as I would love a nice test case to prove to everyone BADSITES is dead once and for all, I think I have to actually agree with GT on this. This article is about "Criticism of wikipedia", not "Critics of wikipedia". Looking over the article, it seems like we have no shortage of good secondary sources, so we should be able to satisfy WP:V without resorting to a primary source. WR, as a forum, isn't a very good EL, since it presents its content in threaded conversation instead of static prose. If it were a different article and WR merited mention in the text, I think NPOV would say we'd have to link to it. But honestly, given the current article, it looks just kinda tacked on at the end, just sort of hanging there. If it were notable enough to have its own article, or it there are enough news stories to support an article about the "critics of wikipedia", that might make an article, but I'm skeptical that subject is sufficiently notable to have enough reliable secondary sources.
But this is the beauty of living in a post-BADSITES world. We get to actually decide these things based on what's best for the encyclopedia. We get to talk about it, share our views, swap ideas, and form a consensus-- rather than having the answer dictated to us.
When the link was first removed from this page, I took it for a blind "vandalism-esque" deletion based on BADSITES-- I would have instantly reverted it, and fought to defend it. But now that we're being encouraged to actually form consensus again, we wind up having a discussion. And GTBacchus, invariably one of the most reasonable people in the room, has made an excellent point, eloquently explained it to me why this particular link isn't a very good one, and changed my mind anyway.
So for those that doubted-- let it be seen. The revolution was never about promoting our critics-- it was about improving our encyclopedia. :) -- Alecmconroy 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent blind-insertion of the innapropriate external link, I question the initial comment. While it appears those in support of a BADSITES proposal were focused on encyclopedic value, at least some of those in opposition were certainly not. MOASPN 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Casey Abell for finding so diligently these sources. After our flurry of edits over the last couple of days, the article is better sourced and more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article deletions are affecting our donations to the extent that it is notable news about Criticism of Wikipedia. If we created the article Wikipedia article deletions sourced with those news reports we could at least have a place that mentions and says something about stuff that does not otherwise warrant an article and redirects could be created pointing at that article. Might help with fundraising too. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. Anyone care to give it a shot? WAS 4.250 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begantable ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert any more on this. But I'll put on record my objection to attempts to eliminate even a mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica from this article. Like it or not, ED is now a very popular parody of Wikipedia, and efforts to hide this fact are, in my opinion, foolish and counterproductive. One thing's for sure, I never want to hear "Wikipedia is not censored" again.
And by the way, a backhand reference to ED remains in the article. Casey Abell ( talk) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm just appalled that there is not an article on ED on the wikipedia. That is just the most fascist f'd up behavior for what I thought promised to be an uncensored collection of human knowledge. How childish and what a waste. I'm really floored and have lost a lot of respect for something I thought was really great. Cyclopsface ( talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The simple fact is that ED doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. The fact that a lot of Wikipedians don't like ED may create the appearance that we deleted the article as a grudge, but we actually deleted it because the site is not notable, per our usual standards. The notability guidelines apply to all website articles, and I'm not defending any article that sits here in contravention of them. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is in the nature of the two systems but there appears to be a preference for open source software on Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles about open source software which should is questioned as far as its notability while commercial software is not found even though it is widely used in a particular profession. The commercial software is possibly deleted because it could be an advertisement. 98.195.185.125 ( talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just stumpled across conservapedia and felt a little sick, they spout hatred, thank the lord (oh dont worry that`s not me being conserative) for intelligence here on wiki. Realist2 ( talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"There are indications that academics' view of Wikipedia may have improved during the last few years. There has been an increase in the number of citations of Wikipedia in international scientific journals, though this may be at least partly the result of the greater prominence of the project."
I do not like the section that starts like this. "There are indications [...] may have improved"... this sounds very vague. I find two words in that sentence that are very vague and are leaning more to weasel words than referring to a source.
The section goes on presenting some statistics over some site ScienceDirect. Where is the source for this? This looks like original research.
This section just states some claims that might be correct, and doesn't ever refer to a source. It should be removed.
Besides that, I love Wikipedia and do not agree with most of what this article has to say... so don't you think I'm criticizing this section because I'm some Wikipedia-basher... PureRumble 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wiki-deathstar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am sure that this probably needs a paragraph or two, it seems that (a) you are cribbing almost directly from the Register article, using mostly direct quotes instead of actually writing a Wikipedia article and (b) at least one of the editors identified by user name is not actually identified by any name in the Register article, so including his user name is original research. This particular article is way too much of a battlefield for me to play around with, but I just want to point out that we *do* have some quality standards here, and it would be nice if the criticism article would uphold them. Risker 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are even discussing a tabloid here? I have removed the material. In any other article, such material would not survive 5 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! This is the last edit I ever make here. I'm sick of this crap. jericho4.0 ( talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the two Register articles belong here. They are unquestionably "criticism of Wikipedia", and they are notable, given that they were both Slashdotted, Digged, and heavily blogged. Mentioning and linking them does not mean that we're saying the articles are accurate or objective, only that they were notable criticism. *Dan T.* ( talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since wikipdia review links here, I thought i should point out the following quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia
The secret dossier was leaked, and turned out to be a deeply flawed quasi-profiling purportedly establishing the suspected contributor as, paraphrased, a sleeper agent for an enemy cell (that is, from Wikipedia Review) bent on disruption. Yet official actions were taken to stop the leak from being posted in Wikipedia discussion under the pretext of "policy and violating copyright" (tinyurl.com/ytj9qo). Of course, the material was immediately available on Wikipedia Review (tinyurl.com/2sjrmj) and another site, Wikitruth.info, thus giving those sites redeeming value, whatever their flaws.
This is just something I think we are wise to remember every time the subject of these 2, by some referred to as WP:BADSITES, pop up. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually wanted to post this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss , but couldn't.
I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.
The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.
Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.
Justreg'dforthis ( talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent>When I see this sort of criticism, I am struck by how unrealistic it is. People expect there to be "one right answer" and "one truth" that agrees with their own personal opinion. If Wikipedia does not agree with their own personal bias, then they complain. Bitterly. Loud and long.
For example, if a contributor does not believe that men landed on the moon, this contributor will complain bitterly if the article about the moon landings on Wikipedia is written from the viewpoint that men actually landed on the moon. If articles debunking the moon landing deniers are linked in or mentioned, this will be viewed as evidence of a secret plot of the evil global media / Jews/ Americans/ Bilderbergs/ Council on Foreign Relations / Vatican/ Masons/ etc.
If Wikipedia is not written from the viewpoint of a given contributor, such as a moon landing denier, then all kinds of charges of bias and unfairness will be levelled. Of course, if Wikipedia acquiesces and allows the moon landing articles to be written only by moon landing deniers, then another group will charge that Wikipedia is biased etc.
The same is true on just about every issue. For example, the Miquelon and St. Pierre article discusses the origin of the name Miquelon. Several scholarly texts discuss the name "Miquelon" as being of Basque origin, which was mentioned in the article. There are also many other pieces of evidence that the early visitors to the island were Basques. This is standard knowledge that appears in many reference books and is taught in many schools. I was taught this in school growing up and required to memorize it.
However, there are people in Spain who are sensitive about Basque nationalism and Basque separatist movements. So an editor from Spain was highly incensed that our Wikipedia article should suggest that the name "Miquelon" was of Basque origin, but had no references to suggest that Miquelon is not a name of Basque origin, but instead is Spanish. This turned into a minor dust-up, and I am certain the Spanish editor went away positive that Wikipedia is biasd that they would take the word of textbooks and scholarly publications over his own personal say-so.
As another example, I have encountered several Polish editors at Frere Jacques who claim that it is well known that Frere Jacques is supposed to be a pilgrim on the Way of St. James who has not woken up his fellow travellers in time. They had no references for these claims. I looked and looked but could find none. The references they suggested were in foreign languages, and when translated, did not support their claims.
On the other hand, I had dozens of other references in scholarly journals and other sources for the identity of Frere Jacques which did not agree with their theory. However, the Polish editors were positive that it should be obvious to me and everyone else that their own personal theory, unsupported by a single reference, should be the correct one and should be the main or maybe even the only theory discussed in the Frere Jacques article. And when I did not give in, they went away furious and fuming about the "bias" in Wikipedia and the terrible unfairness.
After dealing with a few of these situations, and then reading the complaints of people about the bias and unreasonableness and errors in Wikipedia, I am struck by how silly this is. How many left wing extremists think Bill O'Reilly is unbiased? How many right wing extremists think that Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was a good president? Have any of these people complaining actually read the articles in World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Britannica? This sort of complaint is just pure nonsense.-- Filll ( talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. And your posts above would be a good example of this principle?-- Filll ( talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not broken. It's just going through a natural course of all things that reach prominence. It started out with a vision and much of the content was written while still in obscurity. By the time it became a top 10 website most of the major content of the truly encyclopedic subjects had been written. Now it is really a matter of improving and maintaining the current articles which is more of a management function than a creative one which is not as much fun. There are still some kinks to work out and the more contentious subjects will take longer to develop so it would be best to give this project at least 10 years(from its inception) to fully develop and then come up with an evaluation of the success or failure of it. MrMurph101 ( talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to excessive edit warring this page has been protected for 5 days. Someone should reinstate semi-protection when the full protection expires. Please discuss as opposed to slow revert warring. Stifle ( talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can an admin please reverse this? It's not NPOV, it's a content dispute. I don't care about sides, but I thought this wasn't allowed? Lawrence Cohen 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it was a good edit. The Register articles does indeed allege material, as the neutrality and accuracy of their reporting is in question. Saying that the article discusses the use of a private mailing list for the purpose they describe is begging the question. Since JzG's edit has been reverted (to the original protected version of this article) is there any opposition to putting up an {editprotected} request to make a consensus change to the more neutral wording (discussed → alleged)? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this kind of bias is discussed anywhere on this page, but it's something that's troubling me.
I recently added an NPOV tag to the "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" page. The problem here is that a well-educated group of people who care a lot about having a page reflect the beliefs of their religion are able to cite a great deal of apologetics in favor of their point of view while burying research that might contradict their beliefs. I'm sure these are honest and sincere folks who believe what they are saying, but even though I'm no archaeologist (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it) I'm equally sure that mainstream archeology finds a lot of what they are defending laughable (e.g. Native Americans descending from Jewish tribes, horses, wheat, sheep, and iron in Pre-Columbian America). I also suspect that it will be a lot harder to get mainstream archaeologists (who could cite reputable sources to contradict the weak and erroneous text cited) to spend their time keeping an eye on the page than it will be to get church members to dig up all kinds of backup for their holy book. Every piece of evidence that contradicts scripture ,therefore, gets disputed by a lot of references to (often church-funded) research that casts doubt on the archaeological evidence.
I have no axe to grind against the LDS church. In fact I have a feeling that this is not exclusive to Mormon religious beliefs. Perhaps someone else could point out similar problems elsewhere (articles on male circumcision overwhelmed by pro-circumcision evidence posted by Jewish people? Articles on contraception being overwhelmed by information posted by Catholic and fundamentalist believers? I haven't looked at either of those articles). Probably there others I haven't even though about.
The problem here seems to be that of a fairly large minority with fervently-held beliefs being able to "outpost" a smaller group of experts who can cite the justification for the viewpoint best supported by the evidence. In particular this is likely to happen when one viewpoint is held by scientists, for whom all knowledge is tentative and subject to contradicting evidence and the other viewpoint is held by religious believers, who feel they are starting from the truth and must discover evidence that supports it and find fault with evidence that contradicts it. It will be particularly bad if the religious group has the numbers, time, and resources to counter every argument from evidence.
This problem may not be exclusive to religious believers I'll even bet there are biases like this in articles about sectarian branches of Marxism -- please don't make me read them, though.
If I'm right, how should Wikipedia handle this? The Neutral Point of View page suggests that "partisan screeds" can eventually be "...cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially" but I doubt this can happen in the circumstances I've described
If I was the Emperor of Wikipedia I would suggest a variation on the NPOV tag that says something like "The neutrality of this article is compromised by an imbalance of evidence supporting religious beliefs that contradict widely-accepted or scientific evidence"
Sorry to be so wordy. Comments from more experienced Wikipedians?