Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:22, 18 December 2024

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: Speedy Keep, August 6, 2008, see discussion. Keep, December 13, 2006, see discussion. Keep, don't move and don't merge, December 10, 2005, see discussion. Speedy Keep, October 18, 2005, see discussion. Keep, March 13 2005, see discussion. No consensus, December 23, 2004, see discussion.

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:

Misplaced Pages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Naomi Alderman (7 April 2009). "Encarta's failure is no tragedy". Guardian News. Shawn Pogatchnick (11 May 2009). "Irish student hoaxes world's media with fake quote". CTV News. Brian Feldman (March 16, 2018). "Why Misplaced Pages Works". New York magazine.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2022-01-07 Flesh lead out a bit - an extremely long article should have a large lead.Rewrite and shorten the lead - it's very long and not well-organized. Add more images

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages in culture (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages in culture (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → Reliability of Misplaced Pages (diff) Copied Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Partisanship (oldid, history) → Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages (diff) on 05:08, 22 May 2018

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)

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

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)

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