Revision as of 02:29, 21 July 2009 edit70.71.22.45 (talk) →Could we split the article into two articles?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:22, 18 December 2024 edit undoNadVolum (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,123 edits →Antisemitism section: I'm not surprisedTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
|- | |||
{{controversial}} | |||
| ] | |||
{{FailedGA|21:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)|topic=Miscellaneous|page=1|oldid=1169718766}} | |||
<div align="left">'''Note''': This is the Talk page for the Misplaced Pages article on external criticisms of Misplaced Pages. Users interested in discussing their own problems with the project should go to the ] where there are specific sections for dealing with various issues. | |||
{{Old AfD multi|result1='''No consensus'''|date1=December 23, 2004|page1=Criticism of Misplaced Pages/2004-12-03|result2='''Keep'''|date2=March 13 2005|page2=Criticism of Misplaced Pages/2005-02-25|result3='''Speedy Keep'''|date3=October 18, 2005|page3=Criticism of Misplaced Pages/18 October 2005|result4='''Keep, don't move and don't merge'''|date4=December 10, 2005|page4=Criticism of Misplaced Pages|result5='''Keep'''|date5=December 13, 2006|page5=Criticism of Misplaced Pages (3rd nomination)|result6='''Speedy Keep'''|date6=August 6, 2008|page6=Criticism of Misplaced Pages (4th nomination)}} | |||
|} | |||
{{Old RfD|page=2012 August 5#Criticism of Misplaced Pages|date=5 August 2012|result='''Moot''' no longer a redirect}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{Old RfD|page=2012 June 18#Criticism of Misplaced Pages|date=18 June 2012|result='''keep''' as a redirect}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
|counter = 3 | |||
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=High}} | |||
|minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} | |||
|algo = old(30d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Press | |||
{{talkheader|search=yes}} | |||
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|small=no|dounreplied=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
{{pressmulti | |||
|author= Naomi Alderman | |author= Naomi Alderman | ||
|date= |
|date= 7 April 2009 | ||
|url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/07/wikipedia-encarta | |url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/07/wikipedia-encarta | ||
|title= Encarta's failure is no tragedy |
|title= Encarta's failure is no tragedy | ||
|org= Guardian News | |org= Guardian News | ||
|section= News:Technology:Misplaced Pages | |section= News:Technology:Misplaced Pages | ||
|author2=Shawn Pogatchnick | |author2=Shawn Pogatchnick | ||
|title2= Irish student hoaxes world's media with fake quote | |title2= Irish student hoaxes world's media with fake quote | ||
|url2=http://www.ctvnews.ca/irish-student-hoaxes-world-s-media-with-fake-quote-1.397534 | |||
|url2=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_wikipedia_hoaxer | |||
|org2=] | |org2=] | ||
|date2= |
|date2=11 May 2009 | ||
{{multidel|list= | |||
* '''No consensus''', VFD December 23, 2004, see ] | |||
* '''Keep''', VFD March 13 2005 , see ] | |||
* '''Speedy Keep''', AFD October 18, 2005, see ] | |||
* '''Keep, don't move and don't merge''', AFD December 10, 2005, see ] | |||
* '''Keep''', AFD December 13, 2006, see ] | |||
* '''Speedy Keep''', AFD August 6, 2008, see ]}} | |||
{{controversial}} | |||
{{to do|small=yes}} | |||
:''For critical examination''' of Misplaced Pages by Misplaced Pages itself, see ] (40 science articles) and ] (7 articles of general interest).'' | |||
|author3=Brian Feldman | |||
== Carolyn Doran and "hive mind" == | |||
|title3=Why Misplaced Pages Works | |||
|url3=http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/03/why-wikipedia-works.html | |||
|org3=] | |||
|date3=March 16, 2018 | |||
Can someone think of a good addition to the "hive mind" section that uses Misplaced Pages's response to the Carolyn Doran article? Most of the stuff I add to articles seems to get reverted, so I'm not even going to try. --] (]) 11:06 AM PST 6 Jan 2008 | |||
}} | |||
== Opening paragraph == | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
|counter = 5 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|algo = old(90d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{To do|small=yes}} | |||
{{Copied | |||
|from1 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
|from_oldid1 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=412775803 | |||
|to1 = Misplaced Pages in culture | |||
|diff1 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_in_culture&diff=412868657&oldid=412861898 | |||
|from2 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
Most other articles start with the name of the article in bold, then define or expand on that subject. Even if slightly unwieldy, the sentence can be structured to fit with that layout. See ] for the precedent. ] (]) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid2 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=413021228 | |||
|to2 = Misplaced Pages in culture | |||
|diff2 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_in_culture&diff=413056590&oldid=412868735 | |||
|from3 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
== Isn't this article a POV fork? == | |||
|from_oldid3 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=410903406 | |||
|to3 = Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff3 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=410909743&oldid=410906331 | |||
|from4 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
This article is so harsh against Misplaced Pages, and it's not balanced at all with alternative, more positive, POVs. I was about to remove a recent edit which I though gave ] to a particular POV, but then I realized that there's only one POV in the article (which is, essentially, that Misplaced Pages sucks). It would be innacceptable if it was, say, about a company or a person, so I don't understand why it's fine in that case. In my opinion, we should perhaps merge it in ], or maybe add positive criticisms to the article to balance the POV, what do you think? ] (]) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid4 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411494833 | |||
:Well, I think that's the whole point of the article, since it is '''criticism''' of wikipedia. This would be merged with wikipedia, and the only reason it is not merged is due to the size. There are also other articles only with criticism, like ], ], ]. As long as the criticism is valid and verifiable (and appropriate), then I think it should be included. I don't see the point of adding positive criticism just to "balance the POV"... Criticism articles/sections are usually about the bad things ] (]) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
|to4 = Misplaced Pages | |||
::If there is a response to the crfiticism (published somewhere), then it should be included here. ] (]) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
|diff4 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=411526211&oldid=411525050 | |||
:i agree... it seems to blatantly fail NPOV... perhaps a rename to "Reception of Misplaced Pages" or "Commentary on Misplaced Pages" would be better... ] (]) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Criticism can be adverse or positive. ] (]) 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::so where is all the "positive criticism" then?? seems like an unbalanced article to me... ] (]) 04:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Since it is criticism section, as long as "xxx said wikipedia is blah blah blah" is used instead of weasel words such as "it is generally believed that wikipedia suksz", it is not POV harsh agasint the wiki, it is merely stating that someone at sometime has criticised (fairly, or unfairly, constructively or not, none of our business, who cares) it. ] (]) 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from5 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
===Could we split the article into two articles?=== | |||
|from_oldid5 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411494833 | |||
|to5 = Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff5 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=411530292&oldid=411526211 | |||
|from6 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
The article is getting rather large, and there is still the fact that it's called "criticism of" which narrows down its content in a non-neutral way. I see that there are two main sections in the article - "Criticism of the content" and "Criticism of the community" so, to make it more neutral, I would suggest splitting the article into ] and ]. That way, since the new titles would be less biased, we could 1) include the criticims and 2) expand the articles with more general and perhaps positive statements about the content and community of Misplaced Pages. Would anybody have any objection to this change? ] (]) 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid6 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411810918 | |||
|to6 = Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff6 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=411930128&oldid=411732156 | |||
|from7 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
:I disagree with a split. The title of this article is appropriate. There is another article called Reliability of Misplaced Pages. Both subjects are notable for their own article. We should not change the title of this article to split it into two articles. We could start a new article called "Criticism of Misplaced Pages community" but that would not change the content of this article. Another article could be "Flaws of Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 19:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid7 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411810918 | |||
|to7 = Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff7 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=412111451&oldid=411930128 | |||
|from8 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
::QuackGuru, please could you explain why a "criticism of" article is necessary when we could easily have more neutral articles and titles? ] states that "creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork". | |||
|from_oldid8 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=413480656 | |||
::''There is another article called Reliability of Misplaced Pages'' - "Reliability of Misplaced Pages" (like ] and ]) is an acceptable title as it allows creating a neutral article. | |||
|to8 = Misplaced Pages | |||
::''Both subjects are notable for their own article'' - the issue is not notability. Any criticism of a website or company can be said to be notable, but that doesn't mean we should have an article specifically about it. | |||
|diff8 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages&diff=413618812&oldid=413480048 | |||
::] (]) 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::You suggestions are not titles describing a criticism. There is already an article like "Content of Misplaced Pages". It is the ] article. It does not make a difference to add "Content of" to this article to change it to "Content of Misplaced Pages" There is a section of the Misplaced Pages article about the community. "Community of Misplaced Pages" is not a specific about a criticism. "Flaws of Misplaced Pages" might work for a title change. There is nothing wrong with the the title of this article. There are other articles with similar titles to this article as explained before. ] (]) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::i agree with laurent1979... it would help the article maintain npov as well! ] (]) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
The should be removed from the article as explained by the above comments of editors. ] (]) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from9 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
The tag looks like a distraction. is what the editor wants to do. References are being deleted over a period of time from this article needed for verification. ] (]) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid9 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=410903406 | |||
|to9 = Reliability of Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff9 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=410904618&oldid=410728373 | |||
|from10 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
:I guess you didn't read my summary or the quote I've removed then. If you feel it should stay, please explain why but don't try to guess what "I'm trying to do". ] (]) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
|from_oldid10 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411018816 | |||
|to10 = Reliability of Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff10 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=411069171&oldid=410911428 | |||
|from11 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
|from_oldid11 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411018816 | |||
|to11 = Reliability of Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff11 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=411072997&oldid=411069430 | |||
|from12 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
|from_oldid12 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411098652 | |||
|to12 = Reliability of Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff12 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=411113165&oldid=411072997 | |||
|from13 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages | |||
|from_oldid13 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=411098652 | |||
|to13 = Reliability of Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff13 = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=411278309&oldid=411146060 | |||
|from14 = Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Partisanship | |||
|from_oldid14 = 842391595 | |||
|to14 = Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages | |||
|diff14 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=842395097&oldid=842390766 | |||
|date14 = 05:08, 22 May 2018 | |||
}} | |||
== Subsection on Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages == | |||
::This article is not going to split into two articles for no reason. This article is about criticism. The suggestions for a new title are not about criticism except for "Flaws of Misplaced Pages". If editors want to change the title then a title about criticism would replace the current title. | |||
::From the top of talk page. ''This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.'' The controversial edits were not discusses or explained on this talk page. ] (]) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Without prejudice to the ongoing discussion of whether merge or keep the current ] as its main article, a new subsection on antisemitic bias is now added. So far, it is based mainly on academic research. The comments of ] and major Jewish organizations, re: ADL as an RS source, also merit inclusion here, even if expanded at greater length in a main article. ] (]) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Look I'm just trying to improve the page. I've reviewed, verified and rewritten part of the text up to section "Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest". If I've accidentally deleted some valuable information, please let me know but don't make general statements. What controversial edits did I make? | |||
:::Other users have expressed concerns as well and the page has been nominated for deletion six times - it means there are issues. Since the article is too big, I think splitting it into two '''neutral''' articles would help. It's still not clear why you want the article to be called "criticism of" when 1) it goes against Misplaced Pages's conventions, and 2) it's possible to find more appropriate neutral titles. ] (]) 11:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: |
:FYI there are more sources on the ADL case cited by the Signpost: ]. Are there any sources that cover a response by Wikimedia? ] (]) 11:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
::For a Wikipedian's published and other responses to one of the academic articles, see: ]. @] ] (]) 12:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::There is no evidence that MaxPont agrees with Laurent and only came here because I am editing this article. See . MaxPont thinks that an article on "Aspartame controversy" is appropriate. If editors want to split this article into two articles we can start another article called "Criticism of Misplaced Pages community" and possibly rename this article "Flaws of Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Thanks for the ping. Did you ] and other responces to that article (recommendation: install ]...). | |||
::::::I have a right to express my views regardless of Quackgurus objections. ] (]) 07:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Regarding: "Several studies have found flaws in Misplaced Pages's handling of the mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust, including Wikipedias in different languages". This is certainly true of the Grabowski paper that I am sadly too deeply familiar with and per above, I consider it deeply flawed, but the current text is an accurate summary of it. | |||
:::Moving to other, better sources cited (IMHO, anything will be better than the paper mentioned above...). | |||
:::I am not sure if is a good source for this sentence, as I am not seeing what "flaws" their research identified. Instead, I note in conclusion that they write that Misplaced Pages's policies "prevents the use of Misplaced Pages for the propagation of views of Holocaust deniers or highly subjective interpretations of the past in general", although he does talk about " the instrumentalisation (e.g. by framing Ukrainians as Holocaust perpetrators in the Russian Misplaced Pages) or disparagement (e.g. by putting emphasis on non-Jewish victims in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages) of Holocaust memory", which perhaps could be seen as a flaw of Misplaced Pages in this context? | |||
:::] (should be linked to , all our current refs in the new section are poorly formatted :( ) also talks about the flaws in the context of neutrality: "the articles in Polish and Hebrew present almost solely cases of heroism performed by members of their own respective nations. The semiotic analysis strengthens the conclusions of the manifest analysis: the appearance of judgmental or evaluative language in the articles is rare, yet occasional choices of vocabulary (such as the interchangeability between the words “Jews” and “victims” in the Hebrew version) reminds us that the articles are written in a certain cultural context." | |||
:::den Hartogh () is a master thesis, so not a very high quality source. Likewise, they seem to focus on issues such as "One of the most significant findings of this research is that the Holocaust entries under study revealed that there does not exist one representation of the Holocaust, but each language version has its own unique account of events and phenomena included in the representation of the Holocaust." and "Another important finding is that it has been found that none of the Holocaust entries under study is rated ‘good quality’, which indicates that the pages are in considerable need of improvement according to Wikimedia standards." | |||
:::Crucial point here is that outside of the first (bad but technically reliable) source, the other mentioned sources don't seem to find flaws in the context of antisemitism. | |||
:::For additional academic sources on this topic, see: | |||
:::* Pfanzelter, Eva (2015) At the crossroads with public history: mediating the Holocaust on the Internet, Holocaust Studies, 21:4, 250-271 [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17504902.2015.1066066#d1e337 - but I don't think she finds any flaws... | |||
:::So outside the first source, we don't really have any reliable (academic) works that argue Misplaced Pages has 'Antisemitic bias' (in the context of the Holocaust). I think this needs to be rewritten or the heading changed; since only one of the three cited sources supports the 'antisemitic bias' claim (so this is borderline DUE...). | |||
:::I am also concerned that the next paragraph is cited to a poor newspaper article and a press statement by the researchers ("In 2023, following allegations of deliberate distortions of Holocaust history, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee subsequently opened a case to investigate and evaluate the actions of editors in the affected articles. Ultimately, the Committee ruled to ban two editors from contributing to the topic areas, although the researchers who studied the issue criticized the proposed remedies as " depth and consequence".). While the first sentence is factually correct, the second is misleading - for example, the two topic banned editors represented "both sides", one of them was criticized and the other praised by the "researchers". Effectively, the community of our experts (ArbCom) reviewed the researchers allegations carefully and found that most of them cannot be substantiated or are unactionable. The researchers were unhappy with that, but I don't think it is due to give their press release much a voice. I'd recommend removing the second sentence with the reference to the PR, and replacing the newspaper citation with what I think is a better analysis by a journalist who specializes in Misplaced Pages: . Note that AFAIK there has been no publication about this after the case; the journalist interest died out before the case was closed, and since the ArbCom did not confirm the researchers claims about major conspiracy, did not even ban anyone (except one sock), and just topic banned two editors (which is pretty much a wiki equivalent of the slap on the wrist), well, this all proved to be just a storm in the teacup. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:PS. I'll @] who merged some content. I don't want to edit this myself, due to some possible COI. I'll leave it up to you folks to figure out what do do here, but the merged content is, as I note above, problematic (only one academic ref supports the assertions made in the heading about antisemitism, the other refs are pretty much saying that Misplaced Pages is incomplete and different language versions of Misplaced Pages have different POVs). | |||
:PPS. I have not reviewed the ADL part, so I am not sure if this is relevant to thread heading or not. I would expect it to be relevant, since after this is ADL. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry about this. I added this with the intention for others to correct it. ] (]) 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for taking the time to write out your analysis and recommendations, @]. I spent much of the day trying to revise and salvage ], after the Merge closure was reverted at my request. I agree with your basic assessment of 3 academic articles and I've removed the "flaws" wording for now. I think they do find some bias worth reporting, but may require some careful way to say it. (For starters, I elaborated on two studies in the above-linked article.) I started to change the sentences about Grabowski and Klein, but will need to pick this up again Sunday or next week. I appreciate your COI situation, so I'm pleased to learn and discuss with you here and then make appropriate edits. ] (]) 21:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Thank you. The topic may be notable, although I am not sure we have much in the way or academic sources (particularly of good quality); there is certainly some newspapers that tackle this (including in the aftermath of the 2022 paper - have you read the three rebuttals to it, including mine?). The version in the Misplaced Pages and antisemitisms covering now seems reasonably due and neutral, thank you, although I have some concerns regarding this sentence | |||
::: {{Cquote|Ultimately, the Committee banned two editors from the topic areas, although Klein criticized the proposed remedies as " depth and consequence"}} | |||
:::as far as its logic and correctness (mind you, I am not sure if we have independent RS to correct it). As I might have mentioned above, some additional sanctions were levied (including, IIRC, a total of three tppic bans); additionally, one of the topic banned editors was someone the authors endorsed. So the sentence implies, roughly correctly, that the ArbCom did not go far enough, but it also implies that the two topic bans were desired by the researchers, whereas in fact only one of them would be. And wasn't her PR published in response to the case closure, of at the stage of proposed decisions? This should be double checked. It's complicated to explain this in the article's body (and probably would be undue, even if we could cite independent sources...). I'd say something like "Ultimately, the Committee's remedies were criticized by Klein as " depth and consequence"", although it would be good to add a short sentence saying that "the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to confirm the researchers allegations" (if there would be any RS for that), since otherwise we are missing some context (as in, why the remedies were criticized). Effectively, the paper made grandiose claims which were not substantiated, hence, lackluster remedies. Feel free to mull over how this can be worded. Frankly, I'd prefer not to be involved in this too much, both due to COI and because I find this issue quite upsetting/stressful (since from my POV, I was subject to significant slander there). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Whoever approved the merge and finalised it: | |||
:Why did they delete almost all of the actual content in the original article and not reproduce it here? | |||
:It seems less like a merger and more like a deliberate burying of the original information. ] (]) 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::fwiw, the previous Main article was turned into a draft at ], with the possibility that it could be moved to Mainspace as an article. ] (]) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Hmm. Let’s come back in a week or two and see just how much ends up actually being published here. | |||
:::Given some of the users involved there, I don’t have very high hopes given the Pirate Wires allegations. ] (]) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Pro-forma COI declaration== | |||
I may be a bit late, but I think that the article should be merged. Besides, we could make this a page with the links to these two articles, and there we go!--] (]) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Since many critics of Wikipediocracy act as though they are members of a cult, bending WP site rules to advance their objectives, I will note here that I replaced a 404ed link for a permalink to a Wikipediocracy external link. I am a registered user and regular participant of that site but have no formal connection to its ownership or management, nor a financial connection of any sort. Derp derp. —Tim Davenport /// ] (]) 18:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC) /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO | |||
:There is no place to merge this notable topic. I could create "Criticism of Misplaced Pages community" if editors continue discussing a split. ] (]) 06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: you are again ignoring the input of other editors! i agree that a split would be a good idea and that the titles suggested by Laurent are better than what we have now ] (]) 16:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::QuackGuru, I get the feeling that my request is not clear. A "Criticism of Misplaced Pages community" article would have the exact same problem as the current article. The issue is not just the size of the article but the fact that it uses a non-neutral title and gives a biased picture of Misplaced Pages (which is strange in an article that's supposed to discussed the neutrality of WP). So please let me ask again the same questions, and I hope you can answer as that would help us move the discussion forwards: why do you want to call the article "criticism of" when 1) it goes against Misplaced Pages's conventions, and 2) it's possible to find more appropriate neutral titles? ] (]) 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Well the ARE a cult, as evident by them removing Newsweek from reliable sources, which is middle of the road, and adding Vox, which is far left with a long list of bad articles and few retractions ] (]) 22:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::There are other articles such as Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Windows XP. There are numerous source that cover the topic of criticism of Misplaced Pages. If you change the title to something as Content of Misplaced Pages it would delete the article. If you think the article is bias because of the title you should AFD it. If editors want a split because the article is too long then the title "Criticism of Misplaced Pages community" would be most neutral. ] (]) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::othercrapexists, othercrapexists, othercrapexists... changing the title would NOT delete the article but it would ensure npov which neither the current title meets or ""Criticism of Misplaced Pages community"" meets ] (]) 02:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Discussion at ]== | |||
== Bloviation. == | |||
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
:To update the redlinks above -- The article is currently being edited and discussed at: ], input welcome! ] (]) 04:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Bloviation in this article. Look it up: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define+bloviation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 | |||
-------- | |||
Sorry, I didn't sign this before. ] (]) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Link to ] in the Gender bias and sexism section == | |||
:Why would I want to do that? If you can't be bothered to explain what your point is, I can't be bothered to find out. ] (]) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Good point. The article is overwritten, filled with self-important trivializing and ponderous opinions that mean very little. Sincerely, ] (]) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
The ] section has a link to the ] article (emphatised in the quote below). I am not sure why. | |||
== Disclaimer == | |||
{{Quote frame|Misplaced Pages has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism. Gender bias on Misplaced Pages refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of ] are male, which allegedly leads to ''']'''.}} ] (]) 14:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This was a server side error on my part. ] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
One of my major criticisms of Misplaced Pages is that it doesn't include a prominent disclaimer at the top of every page. It used to say "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but no longer. IMO it should an even stronger prominent disclaimer than that, indicating that the information may not be correct, and to check the sources. Far too many people I know are completely ignorant to the fact that anyone can change the information, and far too many people take the information that is presented at face value and as fact. Perhaps Jimmy Wales thinks that such a prominent disclaimer would undermine the encyclopaedia, and make the start of the articles look less aesthetic, however, such a change would make me much more inclined to recommend Misplaced Pages to others. As things stand, the lack of a clear disclaimer just makes me tell people to AVOID Misplaced Pages information whenever possible. ] (]) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Does Jimmy Wales even have a strong voice in the matter any more? You might want to raise the issue at one of the ]. I wouldn't object to the idea. Such a disclaimer certainly wouldn't ''hurt'' any one—at least no more than someone's ego. Let me know on my Talk page whether you pursue this any further. ] (]) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: | |||
== Antisemitism section == | |||
==Mathematical accuracy and editing diffculties caused by coding problems== | |||
Many of the mathematical entries in Misplaced Pages lack the accuracy and the precision expected from any mathematical entry. The problem is compounded by the very poor interface with any TeX, Latex, TeXML code that often sacrifices readability in the HTML format<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Documented Readability and Coding Problem</ref>; however, this is mostly, or at least partially, restored in the PDF format which is also available at Misplaced Pages<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia</ref>, but that is not available at many of the online "💕"s. This serious TeX compatibility coding problem for mathematical entries needs to be adequately addressed by the Misplaced Pages's programing team as it does severly limit its contents especially in areas that require diagrams that can be very nicely built in Latex or TeX, etc, but are not available at Misplaced Pages through its very limiting mathematical interface. Another easy route for improving Misplaced Pages's mathematical problems is the importing of available entries from mathematically and physically oriented websites that do have acceptable Latex or TeX coding and HTML conversion ability such as ] or ]/ where many such useful mathematical and ] entries are available <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Misplaced Pages and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries</ref>; the existing exchange program between Misplaced Pages and ''Planetmath.org''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Misplaced Pages and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries</ref> is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section <ref>]]</ref>-- a major Misplaced Pages limitation that needs to be addressed by Misplaced Pages programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websites<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Books</ref><ref>http://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books section</ref><ref>http://planetmath.org/?op=browse&from=books</ref> do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present. ]/ where many such useful mathematical and ] entries are available <ref>http://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books Section</ref>; the existing exchange program between Misplaced Pages and ''Planetmath.org'' is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section-- a major Misplaced Pages limitation that needs to be addressed by Misplaced Pages programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websites do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present. ]/ where many such useful mathematical and ] entries are available; the existing exchange program between Misplaced Pages and ''Planetmath.org'' is a first step in this direction, but so far only relatively few exchanges have taken place between the two Encyclopedia websites (less than 0.1 percent of the available entries) because of the coding conflict problem pointed out in this section-- a major Misplaced Pages limitation that needs to be addressed by Misplaced Pages programers as soon as possible. On the other hand, the PDF books sections of such websites do not suffer from this coding problem, and therefore the percentage exchanged of the GNUL, PDF formatted books is greater than 10 percent at present. | |||
- The ] project at Misplaced Pages can only address a small part of such coding issues because of the cumbersome and inherently limited/inflexible/difficult to use Wikipedi's coding for mathematical purposes. Last but not least, in the NVOP sense, Misplaced Pages does have superior graphics and color illustrations in comparison with other online, 💕 websites, especially on its WikiCommons; such illustrations greatly enhance the explanations, and also substantially facilitate the understanding of the entry contents, with the notable exception of the absence of mathematical diagram building capabilities that Misplaced Pages now sadly lacks, and that the Latex-based websites, archives, on-line mathematical and theoretical physics journals, and so on, do have right now, and that have had such capabilities for at least the last 10 years. Thus, in terms of the Latex/TeX mathematical encoding abilities, Misplaced Pages's capabilities for mathematics and theoretical physics are at least ten years out of date, which is a pity. + The ] project at Misplaced Pages can only address a small part of such coding issues because of the cumbersome and inherently limited/inflexible/difficult to use Wikipedi's coding for mathematical purposes. Last but not least, in the NVOP sense, Misplaced Pages does have superior graphics and color illustrations in comparison with other online, 💕 websites, especially on its WikiCommons; such illustrations greatly enhance the explanations, and also substantially facilitate the understanding of the entry contents, with the notable exception of the absence of mathematical diagram building capabilities that Misplaced Pages now sadly lacks, and that the Latex-based websites, archives, on-line mathematical and theoretical physics journals, and so on, do have right now, and that have had such capabilities for at least the last 10 years. Thus, in terms of the Latex/TeX mathematical encoding abilities, Misplaced Pages's capabilities for mathematics and theoretical physics are at least ten years out of date, which is a pity. | |||
.Bci2Nu 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)(User:Bci2|Talk)Bci2Nu 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
===References=== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
:Sorry, we like it this way. You'll just have to deal with it. ] (]) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I added a {{tl|reflist}} template after Bci2's post so that his inline citations would show up. ] (]) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
This new section contains: {{tqb|However, as early as 2010, one study found that antisemitic bias occurred through "a systematic use of criticism elimination", which refers to the ability of Misplaced Pages editors to prevent criticism of organizations that deploy antisemitic discourse.}}This is sourced to:{{pb}}{{Cite journal |last1=Oboler |first1=Andre |last2=Steinberg |first2=Gerald |last3=Stern |first3=Rephael |date=October 11, 2010 |title=The Framing of Political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through Criticism Elimination |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19331680903577822 |journal=Journal of Information Technology & Politics |language=en |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=284–299 |doi=10.1080/19331680903577822 |issn=1933-1681}} {{pb}}And that is a touch ironic, because in discussing a case study regarding editing of the War on Want article for criticism elimination, the writers describe an edit and says, {{tqb|This is a sophisticated edit that alters the public record in Misplaced Pages through selection and misrepresentation of an alternative source.}}Now that source does contain case studies regarding antisemitism, yes, but the paper is not ''about'' antisemitism. It is about critcism elimination of NGOs, and so when it speaks of "a systematic use of criticism elimination", it is saying something about how editors edit Misplaced Pages, yes, but it is not specifically talking about antisemitism. Antisemitism forms part of two of the case studies, but the criticism of Misplaced Pages here is that editors can take sources and misrepresent them to make the points those editors want to make. Which is exactly what we are doing here by including this in our antisemitism section. ] (]) 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Reference deleted needed to verfiy the text == | |||
:I have attempted to . It seems to me it wasn't inaccurate, per se, but I take your point. | |||
:The key points seem to be: | |||
:* There's systematic removal of criticism of NGOs | |||
:* Two instances of such removal included NGOs accused of antisemitism or an anti-Israel bias | |||
:* The latter is a subset of the former, but not the whole of it. | |||
:I hope it's clearer now. ] (]) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hardly an unbiased set of authors! Oh well I suppose criticism of them would be a fourth level criticism I think, I'm fairly happy though to have all and sundry criticism of Misplaced Pages in this article wherever it comes from! ] (]) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:22, 18 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Criticism of Misplaced Pages was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 5 August 2012. The result of the discussion was Moot no longer a redirect. |
This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 18 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep as a redirect. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2022-01-07
|
Subsection on Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages
Without prejudice to the ongoing discussion of whether merge or keep the current Misplaced Pages and antisemitism as its main article, a new subsection on antisemitic bias is now added. So far, it is based mainly on academic research. The comments of Deborah Lipstadt and major Jewish organizations, re: ADL as an RS source, also merit inclusion here, even if expanded at greater length in a main article. ProfGray (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- FYI there are more sources on the ADL case cited by the Signpost: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-07-04/In the media. Are there any sources that cover a response by Wikimedia? ProfGray (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- For a Wikipedian's published and other responses to one of the academic articles, see: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-02-20/In the media. @User:Piotrus ProfGray (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- @ProfGray Thanks for the ping. Did you User:Piotrus/Response and other responces to that article (recommendation: install PubPeer...).
- Regarding: "Several studies have found flaws in Misplaced Pages's handling of the mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust, including Wikipedias in different languages". This is certainly true of the Grabowski paper that I am sadly too deeply familiar with and per above, I consider it deeply flawed, but the current text is an accurate summary of it.
- Moving to other, better sources cited (IMHO, anything will be better than the paper mentioned above...).
- I am not sure if Makhortykh is a good source for this sentence, as I am not seeing what "flaws" their research identified. Instead, I note in conclusion that they write that Misplaced Pages's policies "prevents the use of Misplaced Pages for the propagation of views of Holocaust deniers or highly subjective interpretations of the past in general", although he does talk about " the instrumentalisation (e.g. by framing Ukrainians as Holocaust perpetrators in the Russian Misplaced Pages) or disparagement (e.g. by putting emphasis on non-Jewish victims in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages) of Holocaust memory", which perhaps could be seen as a flaw of Misplaced Pages in this context?
- Wolniewicz-Slomka (should be linked to , all our current refs in the new section are poorly formatted :( ) also talks about the flaws in the context of neutrality: "the articles in Polish and Hebrew present almost solely cases of heroism performed by members of their own respective nations. The semiotic analysis strengthens the conclusions of the manifest analysis: the appearance of judgmental or evaluative language in the articles is rare, yet occasional choices of vocabulary (such as the interchangeability between the words “Jews” and “victims” in the Hebrew version) reminds us that the articles are written in a certain cultural context."
- den Hartogh () is a master thesis, so not a very high quality source. Likewise, they seem to focus on issues such as "One of the most significant findings of this research is that the Holocaust entries under study revealed that there does not exist one representation of the Holocaust, but each language version has its own unique account of events and phenomena included in the representation of the Holocaust." and "Another important finding is that it has been found that none of the Holocaust entries under study is rated ‘good quality’, which indicates that the pages are in considerable need of improvement according to Wikimedia standards."
- Crucial point here is that outside of the first (bad but technically reliable) source, the other mentioned sources don't seem to find flaws in the context of antisemitism.
- For additional academic sources on this topic, see:
- Pfanzelter, Eva (2015) At the crossroads with public history: mediating the Holocaust on the Internet, Holocaust Studies, 21:4, 250-271 [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17504902.2015.1066066#d1e337 - but I don't think she finds any flaws...
- So outside the first source, we don't really have any reliable (academic) works that argue Misplaced Pages has 'Antisemitic bias' (in the context of the Holocaust). I think this needs to be rewritten or the heading changed; since only one of the three cited sources supports the 'antisemitic bias' claim (so this is borderline DUE...).
- I am also concerned that the next paragraph is cited to a poor newspaper article and a press statement by the researchers ("In 2023, following allegations of deliberate distortions of Holocaust history, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee subsequently opened a case to investigate and evaluate the actions of editors in the affected articles. Ultimately, the Committee ruled to ban two editors from contributing to the topic areas, although the researchers who studied the issue criticized the proposed remedies as " depth and consequence".). While the first sentence is factually correct, the second is misleading - for example, the two topic banned editors represented "both sides", one of them was criticized and the other praised by the "researchers". Effectively, the community of our experts (ArbCom) reviewed the researchers allegations carefully and found that most of them cannot be substantiated or are unactionable. The researchers were unhappy with that, but I don't think it is due to give their press release much a voice. I'd recommend removing the second sentence with the reference to the PR, and replacing the newspaper citation with what I think is a better analysis by a journalist who specializes in Misplaced Pages: . Note that AFAIK there has been no publication about this after the case; the journalist interest died out before the case was closed, and since the ArbCom did not confirm the researchers claims about major conspiracy, did not even ban anyone (except one sock), and just topic banned two editors (which is pretty much a wiki equivalent of the slap on the wrist), well, this all proved to be just a storm in the teacup. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- For a Wikipedian's published and other responses to one of the academic articles, see: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-02-20/In the media. @User:Piotrus ProfGray (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- PS. I'll @Hemiauchenia who merged some content. I don't want to edit this myself, due to some possible COI. I'll leave it up to you folks to figure out what do do here, but the merged content is, as I note above, problematic (only one academic ref supports the assertions made in the heading about antisemitism, the other refs are pretty much saying that Misplaced Pages is incomplete and different language versions of Misplaced Pages have different POVs).
- PPS. I have not reviewed the ADL part, so I am not sure if this is relevant to thread heading or not. I would expect it to be relevant, since after this is ADL. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about this. I added this with the intention for others to correct it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to write out your analysis and recommendations, @User:Piotrus. I spent much of the day trying to revise and salvage Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, after the Merge closure was reverted at my request. I agree with your basic assessment of 3 academic articles and I've removed the "flaws" wording for now. I think they do find some bias worth reporting, but may require some careful way to say it. (For starters, I elaborated on two studies in the above-linked article.) I started to change the sentences about Grabowski and Klein, but will need to pick this up again Sunday or next week. I appreciate your COI situation, so I'm pleased to learn and discuss with you here and then make appropriate edits. ProfGray (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ProfGray Thank you. The topic may be notable, although I am not sure we have much in the way or academic sources (particularly of good quality); there is certainly some newspapers that tackle this (including in the aftermath of the 2022 paper - have you read the three rebuttals to it, including mine?). The version in the Misplaced Pages and antisemitisms covering now seems reasonably due and neutral, thank you, although I have some concerns regarding this sentence
“ | Ultimately, the Committee banned two editors from the topic areas, although Klein criticized the proposed remedies as " depth and consequence" | ” |
- as far as its logic and correctness (mind you, I am not sure if we have independent RS to correct it). As I might have mentioned above, some additional sanctions were levied (including, IIRC, a total of three tppic bans); additionally, one of the topic banned editors was someone the authors endorsed. So the sentence implies, roughly correctly, that the ArbCom did not go far enough, but it also implies that the two topic bans were desired by the researchers, whereas in fact only one of them would be. And wasn't her PR published in response to the case closure, of at the stage of proposed decisions? This should be double checked. It's complicated to explain this in the article's body (and probably would be undue, even if we could cite independent sources...). I'd say something like "Ultimately, the Committee's remedies were criticized by Klein as " depth and consequence"", although it would be good to add a short sentence saying that "the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to confirm the researchers allegations" (if there would be any RS for that), since otherwise we are missing some context (as in, why the remedies were criticized). Effectively, the paper made grandiose claims which were not substantiated, hence, lackluster remedies. Feel free to mull over how this can be worded. Frankly, I'd prefer not to be involved in this too much, both due to COI and because I find this issue quite upsetting/stressful (since from my POV, I was subject to significant slander there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Whoever approved the merge and finalised it:
- Why did they delete almost all of the actual content in the original article and not reproduce it here?
- It seems less like a merger and more like a deliberate burying of the original information. KronosAlight (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- fwiw, the previous Main article was turned into a draft at Draft:Antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, with the possibility that it could be moved to Mainspace as an article. ProfGray (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let’s come back in a week or two and see just how much ends up actually being published here.
- Given some of the users involved there, I don’t have very high hopes given the Pirate Wires allegations. KronosAlight (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- fwiw, the previous Main article was turned into a draft at Draft:Antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, with the possibility that it could be moved to Mainspace as an article. ProfGray (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Pro-forma COI declaration
Since many critics of Wikipediocracy act as though they are members of a cult, bending WP site rules to advance their objectives, I will note here that I replaced a 404ed link for a permalink to a Wikipediocracy external link. I am a registered user and regular participant of that site but have no formal connection to its ownership or management, nor a financial connection of any sort. Derp derp. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC) /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO
Well the ARE a cult, as evident by them removing Newsweek from reliable sources, which is middle of the road, and adding Vox, which is far left with a long list of bad articles and few retractions 76.150.163.26 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Misplaced Pages and antisemitism § Proposal to merge to Criticism of Misplaced Pages
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Misplaced Pages and antisemitism § Proposal to merge to Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- To update the redlinks above -- The article is currently being edited and discussed at: Draft:Antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, input welcome! ProfGray (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Link to Misplaced Pages in the Gender bias and sexism section
The Gender bias and sexism section has a link to the Misplaced Pages article (emphatised in the quote below). I am not sure why.
Misplaced Pages has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism. Gender bias on Misplaced Pages refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of Misplaced Pages editors are male, which allegedly leads to systemic bias.
Neixe (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- This was a server side error on my part. Neixe (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Antisemitism section
This new section contains:
However, as early as 2010, one study found that antisemitic bias occurred through "a systematic use of criticism elimination", which refers to the ability of Misplaced Pages editors to prevent criticism of organizations that deploy antisemitic discourse.
This is sourced to:
Oboler, Andre; Steinberg, Gerald; Stern, Rephael (October 11, 2010). "The Framing of Political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through Criticism Elimination". Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 7 (4): 284–299. doi:10.1080/19331680903577822. ISSN 1933-1681.
And that is a touch ironic, because in discussing a case study regarding editing of the War on Want article for criticism elimination, the writers describe an edit and says,
This is a sophisticated edit that alters the public record in Misplaced Pages through selection and misrepresentation of an alternative source.
Now that source does contain case studies regarding antisemitism, yes, but the paper is not about antisemitism. It is about critcism elimination of NGOs, and so when it speaks of "a systematic use of criticism elimination", it is saying something about how editors edit Misplaced Pages, yes, but it is not specifically talking about antisemitism. Antisemitism forms part of two of the case studies, but the criticism of Misplaced Pages here is that editors can take sources and misrepresent them to make the points those editors want to make. Which is exactly what we are doing here by including this in our antisemitism section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have attempted to reword the text in question here. It seems to me it wasn't inaccurate, per se, but I take your point.
- The key points seem to be:
- There's systematic removal of criticism of NGOs
- Two instances of such removal included NGOs accused of antisemitism or an anti-Israel bias
- The latter is a subset of the former, but not the whole of it.
- I hope it's clearer now. Lewisguile (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hardly an unbiased set of authors! Oh well I suppose criticism of them would be a fourth level criticism I think, I'm fairly happy though to have all and sundry criticism of Misplaced Pages in this article wherever it comes from! NadVolum (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class Misplaced Pages articles
- High-importance Misplaced Pages articles
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
- C-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists