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 Useitorloseit (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 22 February 2014 (→Claims not verified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:59, 22 February 2014 by Useitorloseit (talk | contribs) (→Claims not verified)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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.
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:

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: 3 months 

Template:Copied multi

Redirects for discussionThis page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 18 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep as a redirect.

Template:Multidel

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

Untitled

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).

Article on Misplaced Pages in the Harvard Educational Review

This article may be related to this page: 

Fall 2009 Issue of the Harvard Educational Review

High School Research and Critical Literacy: Social Studies With and Despite Misplaced Pages by Houman Harouni

http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/742

"Drawing on experiences in his social studies classroom, Houman Harouni evaluates both the challenges and possibilities of helping high school students develop critical research skills. The author describes how he used Misplaced Pages to design classroom activities that address issues of authorship, neutrality, and reliability in information gathering. The online encyclopedia is often lamented by teachers, scholars, and librarians, but its widespread use necessitates a new approach to teaching research. In describing the experience, Harouni concludes that teaching research skills in the contemporary context requires ongoing observations of the research strategies and practices students already employ as well as the active engagement of student interest and background knowledge."

The Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Misplaced Pages

As of 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Misplaced Pages because its board members were not able to reach a consensus.

New source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. This is the problem with purists. They lose all sight of common sense, even manufacturing arguments that "common sense" is somehow a misdirected ideal in itself, and as a result end up making some fairly simple mistakes even when all variants of a "slippery slope" argument is made. IPA is one such debacle. The edit war over the image in ejaculation is another. Ignorning the solutions to the large number of cited references that just do not say what they're purported to say is yet another.173.48.201.245 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's role

Is there a better place to put this or a better way to qualify it:

According to Business Insider, "In September of 2012, there was a quite a bit of media attention surrounding two Misplaced Pages employees (yes, they do have some paid personnel – including Jimbo who makes more than $50K per event where he is a speaker) who were running a PR business on the side and editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of their clients."

It's in the section "Jimbo's role" but it's not about him; it's about two Misplaced Pages employees who are not Jimbo. Kind of misleading. If this was added to criticize Jimbo's role, it should only be for the dollar figure (which is itself misleading -- as though he writes himself a check from WMF coffers when he goes and talks somewhere). --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Section detailing a broadening or narrowing of "Office Actions" ???

Misplaced Pages is not perfect and has numerous failings. Everyone has a chime-in on that of course. However, one particular problem (both in public understanding of current policy, and whether or not the policy itself is a good idea) is the degree to which wikipedia remains "hands off". There have been an increase over the years in explanations of "office actions", but none of them AFAICT explain really where the line is drawn currently, and where the momentum for changing it may or may not lie.173.48.201.245 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

best wikipedia article

ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.68 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparative_study_on_scientific_articles_conducted_by_Nature

The section on the Nature v Britannica survey suggests that the results were similar. It is also apocryphally bandied about Nature and Britannica have roughly the same accuracy. A 25% higher failure rate by WP is not similar. 25% is not a negligible. 3 is not the same as 4. The section and the myth are misleading. Span (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Claims not verified

@Useitorloseit: made this edit In the source, there are no hits for "abuse" and none of the hits for "2006" or "2009" are related to the claim. Yes, the source talks about administration and admins, but I see nothing at all in the source that supports the claim as it appears in the article. The overall jist of the study is that following a following an early balloon creating a ginormous amount of content content, there was a balloon in edits related to maintenance and organization/administration. There doesnt seem to be any "criticism" at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read that article and say it is not critical. The gist of the section I'm quoting from is that Misplaced Pages is getting sidetracked into arguments over "process", and the increase in edits for organization/administration is a symptom. Nonetheless, I think this might be better in another section of the piece. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Categories: