| Revision as of 00:14, 1 August 2009 editWilldw79 (talk | contribs)209 edits →New Categories to criticize?: Removed my last post← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:24, 21 August 2009 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages/Archive 3.Next edit → |
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
== Isn't this article a POV fork? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::If there is a response to the crfiticism (published somewhere), then it should be included here. ] (]) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Could we split the article into two articles?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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". |
|
|
::''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. |
|
|
::''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. |
|
|
::] (]) 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I agree with Laurent, his arguments are valid and I don't need to repeat them. ] (]) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (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) |
|
|
::::::I have a right to express my views regardless of Quackgurus objections. ] (]) 07:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
===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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reference deleted needed to verfiy the text == |
|
|
|
|
|
This deleted a sentence but also deleted the reference needed to verify the previous sentence. ] (]) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
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
To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2022-01-07