Misplaced Pages

Talk:Criticism of - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 20 July 2009 (→Isn't this article a POV fork?: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:55, 20 July 2009 by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) (→Isn't this article a POV fork?: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Village Pump where there are specific sections for dealing with various issues.

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Template:Multidel

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.
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
For critical examination of Misplaced Pages 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).

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

Opening paragraph

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 Criticism of sport utility vehicles for the precedent. 92.0.150.111 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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 undue weight 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 Misplaced Pages, or maybe add positive criticisms to the article to balance the POV, what do you think? Laurent (talk) 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 Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of Windows XP. 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 SF007 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If there is a response to the crfiticism (published somewhere), then it should be included here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 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... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism can be adverse or positive. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
so where is all the "positive criticism" then?? seems like an unbalanced article to me... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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. Yifanwang99 (talk) 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 Content of Misplaced Pages and Community of Misplaced Pages. 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? Laurent (talk) 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". QuackGuru (talk) 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? Misplaced Pages:Criticism 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 Content of Misplaced Pages and Community of Misplaced Pages) 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.
Laurent (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
i agree with laurent1979... it would help the article maintain npov as well! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag should be removed from the article as explained by the above comments of editors. QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag looks like a distraction. This is what the editor wants to do. References are being deleted over a period of time from this article needed for verification. QuackGuru (talk) 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". Laurent (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Laurent (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Laurent, his arguments are valid and I don't need to repeat them. MaxPont (talk) 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 here. 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". QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a right to express my views regardless of Quackgurus objections. MaxPont (talk) 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!--Dullstar (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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? Laurent (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloviation.

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. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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. Richerman (talk) 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, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

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. Jonto (talk) 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 village pumps. 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. SharkD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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; however, this is mostly, or at least partially, restored in the PDF format which is also available at Misplaced Pages, 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 PlanetMath or Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics 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. Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics 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. Planetphysics/PlanetPhysics.org where many such useful mathematical and mathematical physics 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 WP-MATH 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 WP-MATH 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Documented Readability and Coding Problem
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Misplaced Pages and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_PlanetMath Exchange program between Misplaced Pages and PlanetMath.org for mathematical entries
  5. Planetmath
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/Books
  7. http://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books section
  8. http://planetmath.org/?op=browse&from=books
  9. http://planetphysics.org/?op=browse&from=books PlanetPhysics.org Books Section
Sorry, we like it this way. You'll just have to deal with it. SharkD (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a {{reflist}} template after Bci2's post so that his inline citations would show up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference deleted needed to verfiy the text

This edit deleted a sentence but also deleted the reference needed to verify the previous sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: