| Revision as of 23:48, 3 August 2008 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Should we include this material?: - I guess the answer is "no"← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:05, 6 August 2008 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages/Archive 2.Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| 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 | 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 | ||
| == Criticisms in articles about critics == | |||
| How much coverage of crticisms of Misplaced Pages is appropriate in articles about the critics? A "]"/"]" mostly-online magazine, '']'', has critiqued its coverage in Misplaced Pages. Is this notable and to what extent? Is it excessively self-referential? ]] ] 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : A short mention should be OK in most cases. The long text at ] may be too much for such a short article. What is missing from that article are viewpoints ''other'' than the magazine itself. ] <small>]</small> 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In most cases, it shouldn't be mentioned, per ] (ask if "Misplaced Pages played a major role in the subject of the article") and ] ("An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"). A magazine or a writer has probably treated hundreds or thousand of different topics during its history/his life; it is quite likely that the decision of a Wikipedian to single out Misplaced Pages among those subjects to be mentioned in the article has more to do with his perspective as a Wikipedian than with its notability with respect the actual subject. A good test is whether other, independent publications have reported on such criticism, ] passes this test. Regards, ] (]) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Defensiveness? == | |||
| One thing I've noted is that in several sections, criticism is not allowed to stand on its own, but instead has either a refutation or 'last word' from "The Misplaced Pages Perspective". Whilst balance demands that criticism can be discussed and refuted, it seems to be more of a 'last word' than a response on its own merits. Particularly awkward to my reading was that of the debate between Jimmy Wales and a Britannica editor where, not content with merely a response, goes on to give more credence to the WP POV. This is a hard one to judge. It's hard to put fingers on it, but it seems like every section is compelled to show "but that's not really true", and comes off defensive. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::no, ] is a better description for it. Thats when you have moderators refusing anything by shouting "WP:NPOV!", "WP:CRYSTAL BALL!", and every other obscure rule they have for every obscure thing. I`ve been looking at the discussions on wikipedia for almost 2 years and I still find rules that I have never seen before. Its their way of boosting their ego online, which sadly, doesn`t matter at all except here. ] (]) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that there is an element that comes off as defensiveness in some of the sections, although in general I don't mind the criticism/response format. As the article title is about criticism the lead in any section should be the criticism, but comprehensive coverage requires a response from Misplaced Pages as well. Without turning to analysis at the end of the section, which would be ], I'm not clear what the alternative might be. For the most part ] and readers can draw their own conclusions, but certainly there's plenty of room for a good old-fashioned copyedit. ] ] 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Criticism of editors == | == Criticism of editors == | ||
| Line 65: | Line 50: | ||
| *** I'm not "insistent" at all. I'm just suggesting that if you want your issue fully addressed, a comprehensive list is more useful than an example or two. I'd agree that the ''Onion'' is a stretch. I'm not sure how to handle the CAMERA incident; it may not belong on this page. Did you see the piece in ''Harper's'' about it? It was definitely a conscious attempt to subvert the Misplaced Pages process. Things like deliberately making 100+ good edits to innocuous subjects before pushing a POV that was one's real intention in joining in the first place; having people who would totally avoid Israel-related topics until they could become admins, then use the admin role in an agenda-driven manner; etc. - ] | ] 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | *** I'm not "insistent" at all. I'm just suggesting that if you want your issue fully addressed, a comprehensive list is more useful than an example or two. I'd agree that the ''Onion'' is a stretch. I'm not sure how to handle the CAMERA incident; it may not belong on this page. Did you see the piece in ''Harper's'' about it? It was definitely a conscious attempt to subvert the Misplaced Pages process. Things like deliberately making 100+ good edits to innocuous subjects before pushing a POV that was one's real intention in joining in the first place; having people who would totally avoid Israel-related topics until they could become admins, then use the admin role in an agenda-driven manner; etc. - ] | ] 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Should we include this material?== | == Should we include this material? == | ||
| I think . Should we include such material here? I asked , but the answer from Mukadderat was not particularly convincing. Thank you. ] (]) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | I think . Should we include such material here? I asked , but the answer from Mukadderat was not particularly convincing. Thank you. ] (]) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :No reply. Fine, let's forget about this material.] (]) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | :No reply. Fine, let's forget about this material.] (]) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:05, 6 August 2008
| 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: 30 days  |
 | 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. |
 |
 | Misplaced Pages B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2022-01-07
|
- For critical takes on Misplaced Pages covered by Misplaced Pages itself, see Misplaced Pages:External peer review/Nature December 2005 (40 science articles) and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-10-31/Guardian rates articles (7 articles of general interest).
Controversy with the Authors and Readers of Webcomics
A frequently cited criticism of Misplaced Pages and one that is sometimes blamed for the decline in traffic is the manner in which an admin determines that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes the article written about the topic. As a result of this policy, several articles about popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to Alexa, many of which won critical praise had articles about them deleted by wikipedia. <references/http://www.webcomicker.com/?p=33> <references/http://comixtalk.com/terrence_markswikipedia_and_y> It was viewed as not acceptable my many webcomic authors and readers that articles about websites and webcomics that have tens of thousands of regular viewers are deemed as candidates for deletion as a result of an admin who is personally unfamiliar with the comic. Others found it counter intuitive that because of Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, users who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site were unable to find it. This seemed to go against what was traditionally considered one of Misplaced Pages's greatest assests, it's ability to provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica were too limited in scope to cover. Others view as a sign that Misplaced Pages has become too hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" and Misplaced Pages itself is becoming burdened by the bureacracy of of it's editing staff.
- I'm not sure on this one. I personally think a lot of admins/editors tend to delete stuff for "non-notability" just because they haven't heard of it, or aren't familiar with it. But then again, the policies of wikipedia pretty much say you gotta cite stuff, and if you don't/can't, then the assumption is that it's not notable enough. I could be wrong though, and like I said, this is just my opinion. However, I do think it's a bit unfair sometimes; different people have different definitions of what "notability" is. I saw an AfD (is that the correct term?) for an article on a Dallas-area radio show host one time. The guy has been, and continues to be, number one in the ratings and is pretty well known in the area. But an editor nominated the article for deletion because essentially he was of the opinion (paraphrasing), "Well, I haven't heard of him, so he can't be all that well known". This was despite the fact that the editor wasn't a Dallas-area resident...then again, of course, I think all of this just goes back to one of the core debates within Misplaced Pages: do we include everything or just some things? Do we strive to "provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica too limited in scope to cover", or do we try and be just as "professional" as said encyclopedias? Perhaps these points could be expanded upon or added to the "Notability" section. Shnakepup (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
De Facto Leader
Why in the devil does it say that Jimmy Wales is the de facto leader of Misplaced Pages 3 times? I think most readers of this page probably could care less from knowing that he is so much cooler than us "mere mortals", that it has to be mentioned 3 times.
Carolyn Doran and "hive mind"
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. --Fandyllic (talk) 11:06 AM PST 6 Jan 2008
Criticism of editors
There doesn't appear to be any mention of the treatment of neophyte contributors (or their contributions) by the established editorial community. It has been my repeated experience that articles I contribute are arbitrarily merged into broader topics without consideration of the worth of the distinction. Is it the active policy of wikipedia to constrain the number of articles in this fashion, or is this a minority experience? Is there any documented criticism of this behaviour, or should I start complaining elsewhere so I can cite it? Daveph (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that criticism is covered under the Community section of this article. You could possibly add something to that, but then again, since you're a new user, it might not last ;) Plus, I think it's bad form to write an article/complaint somewhere else just so you can cite it on wikipedia. I think it's considered original research or something (i'm not sure on the policies -- anyone care to correct me on this?) Shnakepup (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OR
There are several sections where the text dangerously sways into WP:SYNTH problem of original research. The smaller sections which deal with criticism of particular wikipedia rules and traditions are OK. However the larger sections, such as about meddling of politicians and "humorous criticism" are not good. While they look referenced, but many of them are basically primary sources from which implicitely drawn conclusion is that they constitute criticism. This is not right. This article must have references which explicitely say that, e.g., "the Onion's" article 'Misplaced Pages Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence' is humorous criticism of wikipedia". Otherwise it is a personal opinion of a wikipedian and it is unproven why it is criticism and not simply a joke: "A lawyer and a priest meet in a bar" is not necessarily about criticism of a priest. I may continue the list of this kind of nitpicking, but I invite everyone to reread the text carefully and get rid of "coatrackish" pieces. Mukadderat (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be specific about sections and passages that you have issue with? Otherwise, I don't see how someone can address your issue. - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was very specific with one example (Onion): why says that Onion's was criticism, not just making fun of wikipedia? Also I explained how someone can address the issue: review at least the two sections mentioned and judge whether given examples are described someone in reliable publications as criticism. If you are so insistent, please expolain why "In April 2008, the Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organized a campaign to correct Israel-related biases and inconsistencies in Misplaced Pages" is "critisism"? On the contrary, it looks as wholehearted acceptance and willing to work on improvement of wikipedia (possibly from their POV, but that is a totally different issue). I could have deleted this and other passages myself, but I 98.5% sure I will be reverted on spot, due to high visibility of the page. Therefore I am asking for other opinions. Mukadderat (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not "insistent" at all. I'm just suggesting that if you want your issue fully addressed, a comprehensive list is more useful than an example or two. I'd agree that the Onion is a stretch. I'm not sure how to handle the CAMERA incident; it may not belong on this page. Did you see the piece in Harper's about it? It was definitely a conscious attempt to subvert the Misplaced Pages process. Things like deliberately making 100+ good edits to innocuous subjects before pushing a POV that was one's real intention in joining in the first place; having people who would totally avoid Israel-related topics until they could become admins, then use the admin role in an agenda-driven manner; etc. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was very specific with one example (Onion): why says that Onion's was criticism, not just making fun of wikipedia? Also I explained how someone can address the issue: review at least the two sections mentioned and judge whether given examples are described someone in reliable publications as criticism. If you are so insistent, please expolain why "In April 2008, the Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organized a campaign to correct Israel-related biases and inconsistencies in Misplaced Pages" is "critisism"? On the contrary, it looks as wholehearted acceptance and willing to work on improvement of wikipedia (possibly from their POV, but that is a totally different issue). I could have deleted this and other passages myself, but I 98.5% sure I will be reverted on spot, due to high visibility of the page. Therefore I am asking for other opinions. Mukadderat (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we include this material?
I think this is criticism of wikipedia (see last paragraph). Should we include such material here? I asked at another talk page, but the answer from Mukadderat was not particularly convincing. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- No reply. Fine, let's forget about this material.Biophys (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)