Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia blocks Qatar

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467653137&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Should this be added to the criticisms?

Difficulty of Editing

It is difficult for users to know what changes have been recently added to articles, or how long the article has been in its current state. This makes the examination/discovery of subtle changes and deletions more difficult to detect.

Some have proposed highlighting recent changes a different color to alert readers that the information is new and as such has not had much time to be reviewed/corrected by the community. On Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (see Wikipedia talk:Provenance), Pseudo Socrates made a proposal to provide temporal provenance by placing a Temporal Provenance button on each article that would produce a dynamic page that was a version of the current article modified as follows: Each interval of text would be colored according the following algorithm: Text of vintage less than 24 hours would be colored red, vintage more than 24 hours but less than one week would be colored green, remaining text would remain black.

18-November-2006: Coloring one-week text green sounds like a good idea, and could help find goofs after multiple quick revisions, but coloring "2-week text" might be better: for Hurricane Katrina, the landfall time had been reset/botched for 11 days before I spotted it, and I found vandalism to "Semmelweis" mothers after 10 days. For now, we can view a wide-difference under the "history" tab, by checking the selection-dots of 2 revisions about 2-weeks (or 3) apart, and then look for issues in the wide-difference results. It is too tedious to compare each revision to the previous, one by one. However, two-week text in green would be great to alert readers to "new growth" being, still green, in the article. -Wikid77 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No Original research

It seems there are a number of refutations to criticism that are "Original Research." One Example "Waldman gave this interview on October 26, 2004. By March 28, 2005, without counting subarticles, the Chinese art article had become three times as large as the article on Hurricane Frances, while the article on Tony Blair was 50% larger than the article on Coronation Street. Proponents of Wikipedia point to such statistics to show that systemic bias will diminish over time. Opponents point out that these articles drew attention from the Wikipedia community because they were specifically mentioned by Hoiberg, and this increase in size was not universal." This violates WP:NOR and needs to be deleted or sourced. This isn't the only one. When will this page be unlocked? --Tbeatty 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unintended consequences criticism

Needs to be added: Siegnethaler said: "I'm glad this aspect of it is over," But he was also concerned that "every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff — think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result." [1] --Tbeatty 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that

Here's another article. Isn't it nice. [2]

JHJPDJKDKHI! 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Does anyone know what happened to the wikipedia review link? It looks like there was some revert wars and such but AFAIK our policy does not cover removing what seems to be a fairly valuable notable (albiet notorious) link? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Check the archive. It's a thoroughly beaten dead horse. (2) It's not notable. They seem to think that are (and have been creating new accounts to insert the link, in violation of previous bans/blocks), but that does not make them so. Raul654 21:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just wondering :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not required for external links. Only relevancy and quality. It's obviously relevant, so now it's a quality argument - but don't trot out "notability" please. --Golbez 01:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It fails a test for inclusion using any measure. It's a forum for disgrunteled ex-users to vent their ideas about how about how the OMG ABUSIVE ADMINS conspired to kick them out, not to mention previously mentioned low-point discussions about Snowspinner's teeth. 'Nuff said. Raul654 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'm not saying it has to be there - I'm trying to encourage you to give a better reason than "notability", which doesn't apply, so that succeeded. --Golbez 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, your views are nothing to do with being named as one of the abusive admins would it? =]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.155.95.163 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 May 2006.

AFAIK, the 'teeth' discussion was on another forum, at proboards.com -- there has never been any such discussion on wikipediareview.com; and on proboards, that discussion took place in an off-topic forum which could arguably be considered to be part of a different forum. Furthermore, the fact that the forum is run by disgruntled ex-users does not necessarily make it invalid, anymore than a group of army veterans criticizing the army would be invalidated -- in addition, Blu Aardvark became an ex-user after he joined the forum, and arguably because he joined the forum. Of course, as Golbez has noted, the forum is relevant, and its 'notability' is not relevant. So, with your top complaints being thus refuted, Raul, I think you have to consider your POV in this issue, the manner in which you have repeatedly violated the rules regarding admin behavior, and the fact that the only thing which has been "beat to a dead horse" is your tendency to misrepresent the facts and censor critics. Whisperknot

At the very least, wikipediareview.com has an RSS feed of news sources about Wikipedia, which thus makes it a useful site for anyone interested in criticism of Wikipedia. Whisperknot

The original and the new forums are run by most of the same people, and at least two of the people who are still moderators/admins on the original one are also staff on the new one. Also, the supposed physical descriptions of Wikipedians didn't take place in any sub-forum. The posts were eventually moved to one, but they were on the main board for quite some time. I don't see how Raul is violating any rules. He's acting as an admin to stop the spamming of a link to a non-notable website maintained by a very small number of posters, and containing a lot of arguably defamatory material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE Whisperknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions are to his userspace and this talk page. Yet another Wikipedia Review sock.

Wikipedia Review doesn't meet the tests of relevancy and quality when they don't even live up to their name. They ban users who don't toe their party line. They preach about freedom of speech but don't allow it on their own site. They bemoan censorship on Wikipedia and in the same breath suggest that it somehow illegally makes pornographic material available to minors. Oh and about the teeth disscussion? Does post on David Gerhard's pictures make the site more relevant? Before you start putting words in Golbez's mouth, consider this eloquent quote:

"This [Wikipedia Review] is a forum for people who were banned from Wikipeida and want to complain about it. There is no review here, just empty complaints from people who...probably deserved to be banned considering how disconnected they are from reality and civil discussion." -Golbez on Wikipedia Review (post was deleted by Selina)

I was banned from the site for having that quote in my signature. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do enjoy that quote. The thing is, I just wanted to make sure the proper process was followed on this link, as not to give them any further ammunition. I stand by my quote, and had left WikipediaReview until Internodeuser/Zordrac made a comment so mindblowingly stupid about David Gerard that I had come out of retirement. Now I'm trying to slowly wean myself again. I do not have any interest in engaging in or defending the multiple attacks on the personal aspects of some admins, and I do not enter those threads (except of course in the David Gerard example). I keep wanting to think WikipediaReview has potential, and they keep stealing it back away. --Golbez 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify this claim. Malber was not banned for having that quote in his signature - in fact, I specifically stated on numerous occasions that I considered that quote to be acceptable. Even when I removed other objectional things from his signature, that qoute remained. Malber was banned for changing his avatar to a picture of a penis. Although WR has few official "rules", I believe that we had been very clear on that. --72.160.68.9 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Blu Aardvark. Are you referring to the picture of the Prince Albert piercing from Wikipedia that you liked to put on my userpage? Or how about the "Yep, I'm gay!" navy picture that Selina has replaced as my avatar without my ability to alter it? Yep, definately a hotbed of intellectual, constructive criticism. :-\ -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Malber's guess was correct. I spotted a half-dozen Lir socks this morning, including Whisperknot. As such, Lir is about to get the same LARTing previously used on Wonderfool. Raul654 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia Review is notable to this article. It's only natural for the banned/outcasted/expats of a community as large as this to gather someplace. It's certainly more notable than some of the solo rants/crusades getting inked/linked here, and it's entirely misleading for a section like Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse_of_power to mention only users who have "quit" and not those who've been "banned". heqs 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Having reviewed this discussion, and having seen what goes on at that site, may I suggest that this article is not entitled "Abuse of Wikipedia administrators" but is in fact entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia". The site should not be added as an external link on this article, this would be insulting to true critics of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The link should be added. There is no requirement of notability for external links, only relavancy, and as one of the major bastions of criticism against Wikipedia it should be included in the article. This is [b]not[/b] linkspam, this is a relevant external link in a article, and whatever has been done with the link outside of this article (spamming, vandalism, etc) does not change that fact. Additionally, many active members of Wikipedia post, reply, and discuss on Wikipedia Review (admittedly, myself included, amongst many others). Additionally, compared to some of the other links we have in the article, this surely belongs. --Avillia 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same User:Avillia that just reverted the link for being non-notable? --Coroebus 08:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This website appears to be a focus for banned wikipedia users, I would have thought that a link to it would provide a valuable source for criticism of wikipedia from those on the receiving end of its perceived failings. Also, if they're particularly keen on seeing a link posted, it seems like shooting yourself in the foot to try and censor it. It does seem to have a lot of discussion of individual wikipedia editors and administrators, but we do have a section on abuse of power and censorship, so that would be pretty relevant - I know it isn't nice seeing yourself slagged off by others, but that'll be there whether we link or not. I also can't see the notability argument being relevant, and it seems lots of people that want to keep the link off the page seem to keep track of what is going on there, supporting claims that it really is a relevant nexus for criticisms (of a very particular kind) of wikipedia --Coroebus 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Searching through wikipedia I see that this site gets namechecked constantly, seems like there is some kind of conflict going on between its members and a number of wikipedia editors (many of whom are active here to keep it from being listed) which makes it perfectly notable for this section, I'm minded to put in a hyperlink or at least a reference to the site --Coroebus 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Unlock

Do we really have to lock the whole page over a dispute concerning a link to an external site? Let 3RR and consensus decide the link. Locking the whole page over a link to a super-low traffic site smells more like a desire to censor than a legitimate concern about an inappropriate link. Please unlock the article and work out the external link issue separately. --Tbeatty 15:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the consensus is not to include the link, and the problem with letting 3RR decide is that the WR banned users are creating sockpuppets to revert, and so page protection becomes necessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR only works when there aren't sockpuppets at play. The moment that happens, a protect is the only option, until things die down. The protection is not because of a 3RR violation, it is because an edit war was occurring. I don't think semiproect would work - they seem to be using sleeper accounts. (look at Pigfodder's contributions) --Golbez 16:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. It just seems silly that a single external link is so "contentious" that the whole page is locked. Wouldn't it be better to let these "sleeper accounts" surface so their IP's can be banned and the sock puppets exposed? It seems that it would be worthwhile to expose them over an external link as opposed to false information or vandalism. And wasn't this one sockpuppet that could easily be dealt with? Please unlock it and deal with the sockpuppets as sockpuppets are dealt with. There are plenty of articles that are hit with sockpuppets that aren't completely locked.--Tbeatty 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of technical problems with your suggestion, Tbeatty, which I won't elaborate on in case the socks don't know them all, but page protection was the best, if not the only, solution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What's technical about unlocking a page and making it semi-protect? Just warn anyone who puts in the link faces permanent IP and user banning. --Tbeatty 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Except for a handful of special cases, permanently banning IPs is about the worst thing you can do. IPs tend to be shared and easily redistributed. In most cases, it is trivial for a banned user to be re-assigned a new one; anyone unfortunate enough to get that IP afterwards would be unable to edit wikipedia. Raul654 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's handled for over a million other pages without needing complete lockout. Please unlock. Jimbo's page explains that security at the expense of "you can edit this page right now" is not an acceptable solution. --Tbeatty 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was this protected again after only two reverts? We can't keep this protected forever. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection in case there are lingering sockpuppets. Other admins should feel free to completely unprotect if desired. -- Beland 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks--Tbeatty 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Date of Larry King Vandalism

Is there a source or at least a date associated with the flatulence-related vandalism of the Larry King article? I looked through the history and didn't find anything (I imagine it was deleted). Does anyone know the date this occurred?--Ejconard 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I pulled stuff that is unsourced and appears to be Original Research.

• While it has long been one of Jimmy Wales' goals to distribute Wikipedia in the poor nations of the world, the current Wikipedia would give them a product that does an inadequate job of covering their regions. Below is a comparison between how many times Canada and Nigeria are mentioned in four encyclopedias. The second column is the ratio of mentions of Belgium to mentions of Rwanda.

Canada: Nigeria	Belgium: Rwanda	Encyclopedia
27:1	11:1	Wikipedia
19:1	4:1	Encarta
12:1	4:1	Columbia
5:1	4:1	Britannica

• Waldman gave this interview on October 26, 2004. By March 28, 2005, without counting subarticles, the Chinese art article had become three times as large as the article on Hurricane Frances, while the article on Tony Blair was 50% larger than the article on Coronation Street. Proponents of Wikipedia point to such statistics to show that systemic bias will diminish over time. Opponents point out that these articles drew attention from the Wikipedia community because they were specifically mentioned by Hoiberg, and this increase in size was not universal.

I think this is fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If mailing lists, web forums, etc. are legitimate sources of information, then someone could "fix" this just by posting the arguments to some forum or mailing list.

Of course, if they are not legitimate sources of information, then we have to get rid of references like these:

"Others have suggested that while Wikipedia may not be an encyclopedia, this is not such a bad thing. A discussion on MeatballWiki on the topic contains the following introduction:"

"Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade noted on his online webcomic that..."

"Former editor-in-chief of Nupedia, Larry Sanger, stated in an opinion piece in Kuro5hin that..."

Ken Arromdee 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for weasel word sections

The following sections are filled with weasel terms and are in need of citation:

• Anonymous editing
• Copyright issues
• All of Criticism of the community

I suggest that they either be cited or deleted. Criticism of the community is very suspect because this is difficult to cite and is very self referential. It wouldn't stand on its own as a notable phenomenon. This should not be seen as an opening for a certian obvious troll site for disgruntled banned users because they don't meet the criteria of a reputable publication.

In general, I think this article has become bloated. It's already larger than the main article on Wikipedia. Do the sources for Criticism of Wikipedia indicate that it is such a widespread phenomenon that it warrants an article of this magnitude? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia Review

Is it my imagination, or did Talk:Wikipedia Review just get nuked? While WR does not, at this time, merit an article of its own (it's still pretty non-notable, even if Daniel Brandt and Andrew Orlowski occasionally show up and post there), it's talk page wasn't hurting anything.

--EngineerScotty 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but as I was involved in the active conversation that the deleter was clearly trying to disrupt, I feel it would be inappropriate if I did the undeletion and would prefer if someone else did it. Pcb21 Pete 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing of any use or interest on it, and lots of posts from at least one banned user. I can't see the point in restoring it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

comic

Merge from Wikitruth.info

Sounds like a dandy idea to me. Wikitruth.info isn't any more predominate than other critical sites, in fact, it's much less so than a lot of the national news. When we think about the prohibition on self reference it this case, the question should be "would another similar but unrelated online encyclopedia say these words?". I can certainly see another encyclopedia having an article on Wikipedia which was large enough to split the criticism out, but I just can't see Wikitruth having it's own article in such an encyclopedia, unless their bar for notability was much lower than ours. I also believe that it would be unlikely that a non-wikipedia-editing reader would care to read about wikitruth without reading about the other criticism. --Gmaxwell 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike wanted to setup a poll [3], but I think thats premature. Lets discuss a little first. --Gmaxwell 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotta ask you, Gmaxwell, since when is it cool on Wikipedia to remove people's contributions on a talk page, even if you disagree with their procedure? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Material restored and poll proceeding. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The poll is completely inapproiate from multiple angles. We need to discuss not poll. No decisions on wikipedia are made via pure polling. Plus, everyone the poll is voting keep.... Well, duh, it's not proposed that we delete it, we're proposing to merge it. --Gmaxwell 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:DR, "Note that informal straw polls can be held at any time if there are enough participants in the discussion". While deletion of other people's comments from the talk page except for the purposes of archiving or when severe personal attacks are present is usually considered vandalism. -- noosphere 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

2 of the most bad editors on whole Wikipedia want Wikitruth deleted:

• Tony Sidaway ---- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_1 -- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_2
• Doc Glasgow ---- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/February_userbox_deletion

Conflict of interest with gmaxwell, has personal interest vested in removal of WIKITRUTH:
www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Quotes#Our_Reviews - see "ladyboy" part —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seoul Jjang (talk • contribs) .

As far as I know I've never been mentioned on that site. --Gmaxwell 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You have. Click the above link.--Nick Dillinger 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Indeed. In any case, it's completely irrelevant. --Gmaxwell 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it's not clickable is a story in and of itself, ain't it? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That fact certainly kept me from following the "link". -lethe ^{talk +} 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April/May 2006 Straw Poll Re: Merge to 'Criticism of Wikipedia'

(Restoration of material deleted by Gmaxwell. Gmaxwell, please do not remove people's contributions to talk pages, even if you disagree on how procedure should be carried out.)

We're not holding a vote right now. --Gmaxwell 21:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

During the AfD I'd originally voted to merge, as there was far too little information in this article to merit its own article. However, even before the AfD was over it expanded in quality and size, and I decided to change my vote to Keep. Now the article is better still. It definitely deserves to stay. Also, if you look at the AfD debate, you'll see that only about 1/4 of the editors wanted it merged, 1/4 deleted, and 1/2 wanted it kept, iirc. -- noosphere 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We're not suggesting it be deleted right now, we're trying to discuss merging it with Criticism of Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 21:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

the website does follow the spirit of inclusion of content into Wikipedia. The only reason a large page with actual interest among user is under deletion/merge considerations is because of the subject.--Nick Dillinger 17:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We normally add such content into the article on the site, in this case it would be Criticism of Wikipedia because the wikipedia article has become big enough to split. How would treating this like we'd treat any other such site be a sign of bias? It seems to me that the opposite would be true. --Gmaxwell 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be merged, as it is a decent article in its own right now. As a disclaimer I worked on the article quite a bit while it was on AfD and a little afterwards. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge, per another star/RN and Gmaxwell. Ombudsman 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's just delete it. That'll show those boys who say we censor stuff that doesn't reflect well on us! Grace Note 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposing merge. Criticism of Wikipedia is already long enough as is, and wikitruth.info is more than significant enough in and of itself (the breach of security, the public accusations from Jimbo that it's a "hoax", the indications of serious dissent within the ranks of admins, the intensely unflattering personal attacks on admins and censorious users) that it deserves its own separate article. As a site which is apparently so very dangerous to the foundation that the very act of linking to it could merit blocking, it moves far beyond "just another criticism."Captainktainer 10:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As above. Don't merge. ShaunES 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose to merging. Wikitruth is beyond criticism of Wikipedia. It should be kept separate so that legitimate and sourced criticism about wikiepdia (and not external blogs about wikipedia) can be maintained. This page should be dedicated to the documented criticism of wikipedia by reliable sources, not about the goings-on of a website. --Tbeatty 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose to merging. I think here we are looking at a situation regarding level of difficulty. Wikitruth focuses heavily on the internal politics of administrators of wikipedia: conflicts between admins and the office, conflicts between admins on policy, abuses by admins, conflicts regarding software writers and admins, details regarding how administrators do things (command level details). The site assumes a knowledgeable editor to be understandable at all. The criticisms article conversely focuses on users of wikipedia with a light focus on editor's issues. They really are two different topics. As an analogy criticisms of congress by lobbyists might be about things like how badly the bathrooms are laid out, the poor organization of the offices on the 3rd,4th and 5th floor; problems with voice mail forwarding system.... That isn't what your average American would think of when they talk about "criticisms of congress". jbolden1517^Talk 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix incorrect link when page is unlocked

The Penny Arcade link should be Penny Arcade--BigCow 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As this is just fixing a disambig link, I will do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editing

Is the criticism of anonymous editing limited to IPs, or to users with usernames (such as myself) that are not their own legal name? I was curious on this point and found: "so-called 'anon' votes, as if Wikipedia usernames were less 'anon' than IP numbers" http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_III_5.html - although that is a rather odd-looking site, and a blog post: "Thus it's a little misleading to call unregistered contributors "anonymous," since registered usernames actually provide greater anonymity both for mischief and for good." http://slashdot.org/articles/05/12/05/2010247.shtml There's an article that touches upon WP and anonymity here http://www.alistapart.com/articles/identitymatters but that is in reference to IP editing. Шизомби 17:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why contributers have to be anonymous. It would be handy for people to contact them (if they wish) to point out any suggestions or feedback to their writings here, and give credit (or blame) where it is appropriate. I'd be delighted to hear from people about any of my edits on W. (User:arthurchappell

• Pseudonymity is not as much of an issue as anonymity; anonymity is a more intense problem, because when someone edits from an IP address or a throw-away account there is no way to tie together that person's edits. That is, not only can you not verify who they are in the real world, but cannot tell whether they are a persistent vandal, a frequent good contributor, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of "American" English

Perhaps we should also discuss how the American way of doing things is insidiously pushed on Wikipedia in respect of the forced use of "American" English. e.g. total denial of the hyphen (cooperation instead of co-operation is a classic example), no "u" in favour,colour etc, advise instead of advice. Why should the rest of the English speaking world have this rammed down their throats? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a vehicle for Americans to force their culture onto others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.122.20 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 May 2006.

Have you visited humour recently? I don't think this is a frequently voiced criticism -- remember, this page isn't for us to journal our beefs with Wikipedia, but to document the major criticisms that have been published. — Matt Crypto 11:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How is using British spelling any more neutral than using American spelling? -- noosphere 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your childish comment, thought you were a fan of no personal attacks? Ahh, the hypocrasy of the academic is indeed alive and well. A little confused as what "journal our beefs" means? Clarification please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.127.70 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 May 2006.

What personal attacks? See humour. But thanks for calling me a hypocrite. Next! — Matt Crypto 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack, as in lecturing the underclass in how to behave with - "this page isn't for us to journal our beefs" . What gives you the devine right to decide how this page is used?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.119.57 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 May 2006.

By "journaling your beefs", Matt meant listing things about wikipedia that you personally don't like. This article is only for well-documented (i.e. published) criticisms. Furthermore, this talk page is specifically for discussion about how to make this article (Criticism of Wikipedia) better. It's not a place to lodge new complaints. For your personal complaints, visit Wikipedia:General complaints. There, you can complain about our predilection for American English. By the way, we do have a policy about national varieties of English, see WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English. We try not to be too American-centric, but we're only as good as our volunteers. Maybe you can help? -lethe ^{talk +} 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried in vain on many an occasion but the wikipedia guardians always revert to the previous version.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.119.57 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 May 2006.

Wouldn't it be just as much "forcing things down people's throats" if American contributors were compelled to use all those quaint British spellings with superfluous extra letters and stuff? *Dan T.* 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Was wondering when someone would trot out that tired old chestnut. The point I am making is that people visiting this site (who speak English as a second language) are being given the impression that "American English" is the accepted way of doing things English wise. Gross hypocrasy on the part of a site that advocates neutrality.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.119.57 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 May 2006.

Righty, this looks like trolling to me; I suggest we ignore. — Matt Crypto 14:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it that administrators like Matt ("You will assimilate" "resistance if futile")routinely get away with personal attacks, accusing people of trolling for advancing reasonable concerns? A valid criticism shared by many, whose documents I would cite if I were inclined to donate more than a comment to this project, is not so much that Wikipedia doesn't provide nationally appropriate language for diverse dialects, but that the group process after several years has still failed to resolve these critiques, leading to inevitable conflict between users in the absence of policy. C right thru 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on these comments there is no reason to call 'troll'. Could be an upset person who's had legitimate edits reverted just because they are using an ip (this is pointless and happens far too often on WP lately). heqs 07:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear user: in addition to WP:MoS#National varieties of English, you may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. heqs 07:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I find the dismissive replies from established users here almost as offensive as the supposed trolling remarks. Anonymous user raises valid complaint (albeit in the wrong place and in an inflammatory way), and is greeted with derision. I think if you don't feel like responding in good faith, then just don't hit the edit button at all. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When people start using words like "childish" and "hypocrite", that typically gets people's backs up, oddly enough. — Matt Crypto 08:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. Like I said, anon was inflammatory. There's always the high road option, though. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, point taken. Will try to be less tetchy! — Matt Crypto

Perhaps we should have uk.wikipedia.org, ca.wikipedia.org, us.wikipedia.org, au.wikipedia.org, nz.wikipdia.org, ie.wikipedia.org, and any others I forgot... so that users who desire a particular dialect of the English language can browse Wikipedia in peace, secure in the knowledge that they will never encounter a superfluous or missing, depending on your POV, letter u during their browsing experience. Seriuosly, (and in full observation that this isn't really the correct place to discuss this), Wikipedia policies concerning regional dialects of English are well-established; and no, they don't permit or encourage arbitrary conversion of pages from one dialect of English to another, without a good reason (it would be awkward, for instance, were the page on Manchester United to be written in anything but a UK dialect). It probably happens that US-based editors outnumber our UK-based counterparts; and often times the dialect used by the initial editor of a page becomes the dialect used throughout the page's existence. If you have a better suggestion than that, I'm all ears. --EngineerScotty 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• uk.wikipedia.org, ca.wikipedia.org: speaking of narrow perspectives, these would actually be Ukrainian and Catalan, respectively. - Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, after all the Chinese Wikipedia has broken out into Min Nan and Cantonese apart from Mandarin now, so there is no reason why the English one shouldn't. To be honest I'm not a big fan of American English either, so I second the motion! 219.95.161.233 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. Churchill's "divided by a common language" should not be taken so literally as to divide up the English wikipedia. WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English is an excellent and fair treatment.

The Americans', Aussies, Canadians', Indians', and the UKs' various "standard" forms are not so unintelligible to each other that they deserve segregation. The Story of English. ISBN 0142002313. is an excellent study of these and treats them all with deserved respect. Frankly "Standard American" and "Standard Canadian", outside of minor spelling and punctuation, have far more in common than American New England, Californian and Southern have. Then there's Black American and Tex-Mex. I have a friend, a recent immigrant from Ethiopia, who finds Black American almost opaque, yet his British English is serving him just fine elsewhere.

The comparison with Cantonese/Mandarin is mis-placed. There is serious debate as to whether or not these are in fact different, if related, languages. Nobody seriously considers American English to be a different language from the Commonwealth varieties.

I agree with EngineerScotty that the usage should be natural to the subject. That's covered in WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English.

I've found the differences enlightening. I think the American use of quotation marks ridiculous now that I've tried out the English usage. And don't ask me why I have to think about spelling it c-o-l-o-r and c-e-n-t-e-r when colour and centre fly from my fingertips. The difference can also be humorous: trunk/boot, boot/rubber, rubber/condom. <chuckle> MARussellPESE 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

POV slant.

Can we break off statements like "Also, to stop the continuous reverting of pages, Jimmy Wales introduced a "three revert rule", whereby those users who revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period are blocked for 24 hours." and "Wikipedia's policy is to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct" into a section called "Wikipedia's Reply to Criticism", or, better yet, just shift it completely to WP:RCO? Reading the article fully for the first time it sounds a lot like Wikipedia is trying to defend itself or negate negative arguments rather than show the criticism it generates. (Oh, hey, look at the irony of the quotes I picked.)--Avillia 17:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. WP:NPOV says, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." -- noosphere 20:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. This isn't a forum for bickering pro-wikipedians versus anti-wikipedians. This is an article about the criticisms of wikipedia's failings. And wikipedia does has its limitations, as we've learned the hard way. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla you are removing most of the citing info also, a few parts should be removed of course, especially the one sentence in the lead but others including info on the Nature study should stay. Lets discuss what sections would be removed and what not. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Re-add what's in contest, just been getting a lot of browbeating before I even -made- the removals. --Avillia 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the obvious though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed expert editors guideline

While this page isn't normally the place to address policy proposals; this one is relevant. A new proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Expert editors, is in the works; and further comment and suggestions are now being sought in advance of a vote to adopt. If you have comments, questions, or suggestions, feel free to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Expert editors. --EngineerScotty 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Guarding the Status Quo

I wrote this in wikipedia talk:Why Wikipedia is not so great#Why NPOV is not so great, but I think it applies here too. Tell me what you think:

"Another point [regarding to why the NPOV, and Wikipedia along with it, is no so great]: It favors well established and widely accepted ideas over ideas held by minorities. This is the kind of thinking that helps the status quo, strenghten those who are in power and harms possibilities of social and economical change.

Example: Some centuries ago most people thought the Earth was plane. According to the idea of NPOV, in those times saying that the earth isn't plane would have been dismissed as a marginal and not notable idea, as it actually happened at the beggining. That, of course, served those in power: the church. It slowered the spread of ideas contraries to those approved by the church, ideas that later on undermined its authority.

This is just an example among thousens I could give. I'm not sure I'm allowed to post this directly in the page couse Wikipedia is not a place tu publish original thought (another problematic point BTW), and I happened to have thought this by myself. Of course, this is not wholly original, it's a pretty obvious consequence of marxist thought and neo-marxist criticism as applyed in many other fields, and it wouldn't surprise me to find a similar argument somewhere else. The marxist idea that the established way of thought (part of the superstructure) is meant, first of all, to justifie the established relations of power (and above all the production relations, the infrastracture) is widely explored in literary, media and cultural studies. Sorry for my english."

--Rataube 09:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth is a nonexample, as that article will explain. Scholars (and the Church) have known that the Earth is spherical since early antiquity. The idea that before modern times people believed in a flat Earth is a myth, part of a range of modern backlash against medieval thought. There were (and are today) particular people who have held the belief in a flat Earth, but now and throughout history, the educated majority has believed in a spherical Earth. Therefore, following mainstream thought is correct in this instance. Your thesis that "well establish ideas" are somehow wrong and harmful is dubious. But you'd be much better off citing belief in meteorites as an example; for a few decades, the bulk of scientific opinion refuted the existence of meteorites, even after direct evidence was observed. Didn't last too long though. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Change the example if you like, use the meteorites thing or whatever. The example is just an illustration of the idea. Pardoxically, I had to choose a widely accepted idea as the examplification, for the sake of simplicity. Besides, I am not saying that mainstream thought is harmful in itself, the harmful thing is to mark any thought as legitimate on the grounds it belongs to the mainstream. The automatical bias in favor of mainstream thought is indeed harmful, and that´s what the NPOV does.--Rataube 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say this criticism is a reasonable "theoretical objection". That is, if someone described Wikipedia's NPOV policy to me and I didn't know anything about the content actually on Wikipedia, I would definitely come up with that potential problem. However in practice it does not seem to be a problem at all. Pcb21 Pete 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Notable

We have Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Doesn't this article seem just a bit redundant? Outside of Wikipedia this isn't a notable subject of discussion except by disgruntled banned editors. We don't need to keep it around just to acknowledge criticism of the project. That's not the point of the project! This article is flame-war and edit-war bait and saps the resources of talented editors and administrators. The topic is only mentioned in the press when Wikipedia itself is discussed. Why can't this be condensed and merged into the Wikipedia article? Then we can just delete it. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the criticisms of Wikipedia are notable, if for no other reason than they are well-publicized and/or come from notable sources. No notable criticism (which isn't repeated elsewhere) is found on WR, unfortunately; unlike most critics, several of the ex-Wikipedians there seem determined to piss in the well. However, this page is a good summary of some of the interesting criticism; and I think that writing about our deficiencies in a NPOV-way is a good thing.

You're free to propose another AfD if you like, of course. This page has already survived at least one.

--EngineerScotty 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally I view this subject as not being substantially notable by itself, but this article doesn't exist alone... it's a section of the main Wikipedia article which has grown too large to avoid being split out. So the question is not "should we delete this?" but rather "should we shrink this down?" or "should we delete Wikipedia?" and I think the answer to those two are clearly no. ... Now why are we making seperate article for various non-notable criticism sites rather than just including them here? The only thing I can say is that we're falling prey to our own bias. --Gmaxwell 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's redundant, as the Wikipedia namespace articles are not encyclopedia articles. For example, the they do not need to be written from the NPOV. — Matt Crypto 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Malber. It is notable. Malber has also made this and this personal attack (as well as uploading an attack image WRquote.JPG that was deleted)and reverts any talk page edits that mention wikipedia critcisms. DyslexicEditor 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Malber's personal opinion of WR is probably irrelevant to this discussion--as is the notability (or more appropriately, lack of notability) of WR. In Malber's defense, he (along with User:SlimVirgin, User:SnowSpinner, and User:Raul654 and Jimbo himself) seem to be the Wikipedians most often subject to the juvenile and abusive rants which permeate that forum. --EngineerScotty 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He is constantly doing talk page vandalism by content blanking of Talk:Daniel Brandt. I found also he does User page vandalism and he was blocked for other personal attacks and again for talk page vandalism (which he still does) DyslexicEditor 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of External Link

Noted author and essayist Neil Gaiman posted a lengthy criticism of Wikipedia on his blog; I would ask that an admin add it to the external link section under "dated links":

• Neil Gaiman: What Bears Do On the Lawn, May 11, 2006.

Thank you. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

done. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno that I'd call that a "lengthy" criticism. It's not much more than your average, anecdotal, blog post about a relatively trivial topic. heqs 19:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He denotes how one of his own creations is inadequately covered on Wikipedia; I think it's worthwhile as an external link. Maybe not main coverage in the article, but still worthwhile to have in here. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of such links we could add. Not worth including imo. heqs 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given Gaiman's popularity and prominence as an author, I respectfully disagree. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that if indeed there are "hundreds" of authors complaining about how their own creations have entries with errors on them on Wikipedia, then we're in more trouble than we already are. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The unencyclopedic category of fictional characters is among the least of WP's concerns. heqs 07:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd respectfully disagree and furthermore suggest that your belief on this point is in the minority. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: your belief being in the minority on two distinct points. First, that fictional characters are unencyclopedic. Second, that an article being criticized publicly in a very high profile weblog is something that should be considered "the least of [Wikipedia]'s concerns." Of course, my disagreement is entirely my own opinion, but I do believe it's a shared one. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Another link to consider adding to the page. "We chose 50 entries from the websites of Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica on subjects that represented a broad range of scientific disciplines." --Keithg 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Why is this page protected, anyway? I don't see any recent section in the talk page justifying it. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like the page unprotected, you could request same at WP:RFP. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a particular reason to want to see the page unprotected. But protection is supposed to serve a purpose. It's supposed to force people to use the talk page when there's a dispute. The person who protected it is supposed to keep a close watch, and unprotect as soon as it's feasible. I see no signs of edit warring, and apparently the person who protected took a hike.

Rather than go to RFP, I can also simply unprotect it, which I now do. But thanks for the pointer. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

External links section

Some articles listed under Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source are critical of Wikipedia, eg. this one. Should those articles be listed under this article under its external links? Shawnc 08:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why has someone removed the commenting for notability requirements? It now looks messy. --Coroebus 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, fixed.--Coroebus 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It was uncommented in this edit [4]. Based on the edit summary I don't think it was accidental, but no reason was given. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing standards

Are we using different standards for this article than other articles? I can't believe that we would allow talk page comments or edit summaries to be allowed as references. They certainly aren't reliable sources. -Will Beback 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They're primary material surely. WP:V says "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." although WP:RS says "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.", but that still wouldn't rule out edit summaries. Certain leeway has to be given when talking about wikipedia itself, see the first three references at wikipedia for instance. -- Coroebus 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that talk page comments and edit summaries are equivalent to forum posting. Wikistatistics and emails to the mailing list from Wales are very different. -Will Beback 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How? The wikipedia entry relies heavily on references from within wikipedia, violating the WP:RS objection, and highlighting that articles about wikipedia need more leeway than other articles because of the problems of being self-referential, I note that we take wikipedia's statistics on trust, while we wouldn't for many other organisations --Coroebus 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending the Wikipedia article, perhaps its sourcing should be improved. But a general principle of RS is that we don't accept sources that editors can modify easily to prove their point. So we don't allow someone to post a "fact" on a blog and then cite it in an article. That's just what is being proposed here. An editor is asserting his own criticism that was contained in an edit summary is proof that such criticisms exist. It's a self-fulfilling citation. It's the equivalent of my saying that Pres. Bush is criticized for his poor choice of ties and then if you asked me who had made that criticism I were to respond "I just did." If we follow that route even for this article then anyone can add anything that comes to mind. -Will Beback 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted you shouldn't just take 'facts' from wikis at face value, I still think there is some validity in considering the goings on in edit histories and talk pages in the round. For example, the edit history and talk for this page suggests a battle between a number of wikipedia admins and users over the inclusion or exclusion of a link hostile to wikipedia - that seems like it would be a relevant point (although I'm not going to add it, that would escalate it into a meta-battle). --Coroebus 07:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• It has been said [5] that this section of text itself has been censored to prevent the addition of material which is not sympathetic to Wikipedia by those who are themselves perceived to be censors.

Can I add, "It has been said that people who complain about censorship on Wikipedia wouldn't know a censor from a sensor"? It would be accurate, since it has now been said. -Will Beback 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph should clearly not be included. Saying that "Wikipedia is censored because this paragraph will be removed soon" is quite frankly, ridiculous. Talk about criticism another way, but don't make it self-referencial and point to the removal of that paragraph as a source to your claim. It's circular logic. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WW again

Concerning User:Malbers recent edits to nowiki the URL for Wikipedia Watch: If the site is deemed notable to include as a reference, and/or have an article, we shouldn't treat it as a spam link. Links which are truly spam should be deleted completely from article space (and perhaps nowiki'd in talk space, if we have to mention them). Links which merit an article should be clickable.

(As a technical note, is there any way in Wikipedia to tag a specific URL as nofollow? Actually, I've always thought that it might be a good idea for WP to put nofollow in its robots.txt file, or at least for anything other than the article space.) --EngineerScotty 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated "spam link" in the edit summary because Brandt has chosen to redirect traffic from Wikipedia to an attack forum whose sole purpose is to abuse WP editors and admins without providing them an opportunity to respond. This is Brandt's way of spamming Wikipedia with links to that site. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that was a reaction to Wikipedia Review being blacklisted as "spam" in the first place...

Like I said earlier, it's only natural for the banned of a community as large as Wikipedia to congregate some place. They really have very little power to "abuse WP editors and admins" considering their locus of power resides on an external site. I think it would be best for the people distressed by WR to just ignore it. heqs 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

However, Brandt's decision to redirect to another site makes all links to his site invalid. Hence the de-link. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See most recent edits which add a "disclaimer"/explanation to the link. The reason I used red in the note is to point it out as a meta-note. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Troll Forum

Could we have a definition of 'troll forum' and a reference to policy about such forums? I would have thought the existence of a forum of disgruntled ex/banned users is sufficiently notable for this article, particularly given the efforts gone to to exclude it, the widespread mention of it on wikipedia itself, and the reading of/contribution to it by many wikipedians (e.g. 'snowspinner'). What is gained other than a fleeting feeling of 'victory' by excluding it? We're starting to look very silly here, and rather nicely making people's point for them --Coroebus 07:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review again

First off, we've got an odd problem here - namely two sites that seemingly take you to the same place. I am unaware if this works for everyone from this site, but clicking on the wikipediawatch link sends me to the wikipediareview site. Looking at the alexa of the site it has crushed past 100,000 already, so notability arguements are starting to become more questionable (although perhaps it needs a light warning about possible personal attacks etc.)... perhaps a compromise would be to keep the explanation in, and then link to wikipediareview like:

• Wikipedia Watch by Daniel Brandt Note for users reading this article on Wikipedia: As of May 2006, the preceding link may instead take you to a forum that critiques Wikipedia called "Wikipedia Review" (WARNING: May contain trolling and/or personal attacks), as the site's administrator has configured their web server to do so when following a link from Wikipedia. To properly view this site, manually copy the URL from the article text, and paste it into your web browser's address bar.

What do people think? Maybe this will end the revert war... RN 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if you leave that sentence you proposed as-is. Let me extract it here, and you tell me what's wrong with it:

... (WARNING: May contain trolling and/or personal attacks), as the site's administrator has configured their web server to do so when following a link from Wikipedia.

Hint: it's an error in logic, easily fixed in editing. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Should we be promoting a site whose sole purpose is to harass and intimidate Wikipedia editors, contains no valid commentary or criticism but does list the personal information of editors, has been responsible for driving off three administrators and one being harassed by the local campus police, and is populated by primarily disgruntled users who were banned for being too disruptive to the project? Is this exemplary of the typical Wikipedia criticism? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the way you've posed the question that's ridiculous. How on earth is including a link to this site "promoting" it? Or even implicitly claiming that it's somehow "exemplary"? I see no such claims in the article, neither implicit nor explicit. It's just a link. Let it be. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple, linking to it helps improve its Google page rank. We don't need to be helping them like that. It's also inapropriate to link to a site that publishes personal information on Wikipedia editors. Doing so is considered a personal attack. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First, whether it does or doesn't improve a website's page rank is utterly irrelevant (I refer you to Stormfront_(website) for something worth getting angry about). Secondly, personal attacks are linked to from here, for instance this was referenced from one of our pages for some time, and WP:NPA has nothing to do with linking sites. Third, the site is relevant because it's whole raison d'etre is criticism of wikipedia, and the wikipedia community. Let's just face facts, there is a website where people who've been booted off wikipedia, or who have criticisms of it congregate, they often criticise individual editors and administrators on wikipedia, everyone talks about it, but people are trying to suppress references to it because they don't like the criticism. By preventing this link we are just confirming a large part of the wikipedia review's criticism of wikipedia, particularly when you look at the shifting and often incoherent arguments that have been deployed against including it. If we can just remove links to websites because we don't like those websites wikipedia would be in a state of utter chaos, maybe I should be heading off to delete that stormfront article to prove my WP:POINT --Coroebus 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of anti-Wikipedia sites to link to without including a cesspit site whose sole purpose is to compile information on Wikipedia editors and admins for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and blackmailing those editors in real life. As Golbez once said:

"This is a forum for people who were banned from Wikipedia and want to complain about it. There is no review here, just empty complaints from people who...probably deserved to be banned, considering how disconnected they are from reality and civil discussion."

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that its "sole purpose is to compile information on Wikipedia editors and admins for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and blackmailing..."? (are you the same User:Malber that I see has contributed to that site?) -- Coroebus 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All it would take is a cursory review of several of their subforums and a brief review of the Katefan0 and Phil Sandifer incidents to come to this conclusion. Besides, WP:NOT a link farm. There are already enough reputable anti sites linked. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A cursory look at the Katefan0 incident suggests to me (like I say, cursory) that someone else, already deeply involved in a campaign against individual wikipedia admins, was responsible for that - that they posted about it on WR doesn't seem particularly good evidence that the site is setup specifically to harass people (as an aside, I'm British so I don't really understand the whole journalistic ethics argument behind the controversy, our journalists don't have ethics). The Phil Sandifer (User:Snowspinner) incident, where it seems someone (presumably from WR, although I didn't find who) told the police about a story about murder on Sandifer's website (i.e. 'ooh, was he writing about a real murder he committed officer?'), and some people agreed with it, others thought it was stupid, also seems like pretty poor evidence that the website is a conspiracy, it looks like Phil Sandifer has also posted to that same website. Wikipedia is also not censored, the link farm argument does not hold water, even if the WR people had been responsible for the Katefan0 and Sandifer incidents that would just make it even more relevant! --Coroebus 14:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What valid and reputable review/criticism did you find? Tinfoil hat wearing crackpottery doesn't count. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

looking further, both the User:Katefan0 and Phil Sandifer incidents appear to have been attributed to Daniel Brandt, who has his own bloomin' wikipedia entry, plus links to his websites! User:Malber, you, and others opposed to referencing this website, have constantly ducked and dived, failing to give consistent or valid reasons why it should not be included, I, and others, have frequently asked you to explain your reasoning, yet I have still not seen any good reasons, or references to relevant wikipedia policies, why this site should not be referred to. Having looked at the website, and references to it from within wikipedia, I can only conclude that the opposition is driven by personal grudges, not by considerations of what does and doesn't belong in an online encyclopedia. --Coroebus 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've stated my reasons very clearly: The site is not about criticism or review; its an attack site. It is off-topic to include this site in a list of links about criticism when it contains none. It is certainly not a notable website. Several editors have already expressed this sentiment in the consensus reached above. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not find consensus in the archive or in the discussion above, and I am asking you to state clearly, here and now, valid reasons to oppose the website. It has already been pointed out that reference to 'notability' is a red herring. I say it is relevant because it does contain criticism (e.g. here, and here, and here and here and here and here). --Coroebus 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "personal attacks", I took out the disclaimer (that I had put in). I first considered copying it over to the Wikipedia Review link, as this is the same site the disclaimer referred to, but then I realized, no, that's insane! What, now we're warning people that there might be bad language and not-nice things said on a website? What the fuck? That's like warning people before reading a newspaper that there might be articles that would be "a bummer, man; might bring you down all day". What is this world turning into, Disneyland, where every protruding thing that could possibly hurt you is covered in nice soft padding? Sheesh! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

If I wanted to be a real arsehole I'd point out that the article User:Malber has added is not a criticism of wikipedia, or about criticism of wikipedia, but about the Phil Sandifer case, and mentions WR only in passing, and that it is sourced from a weblog. So it doesn't really belong here. I'd recommend you add it to Wikipedia Review if you could, it is already in Phil Sandifer. --Coroebus 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Boing Boing is not a blog. If weblogs are not suitable references, then a link to Wikipedia Review (a web forum) is wholly inappropriate. Can you please provide a synopsis of the valid criticism you found? I prefer not to divulge my IP address to a hate speech site where the administrators may use that information for stalking purposes. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Boing Boing...is a publishing entity...later becoming an award winning group blog" according to BoingBoing. And you are misunderstanding the distinction between a reference to a source, and a reference to an entity. So while Boing Boing may not be suitable as a reference for whether or not Phil Sandifer was visited by police, it would be a suitable link from the bio of Cory Doctorow. "Blogs...and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself...". You can read those links yourself, you have posted on that site before, and as far as I can tell they already know your IP range. --Coroebus 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, quick summary of those links (in order) - critiquing individual wikipedia articles for style and content, essay by Avillia on wikipedia the project versus wikipedia the community, discussion about improving dispute resolution on wikipedia, discussion of flaws in current event reporting on wikipedia, discussion of what made people question wikipedia, discussion of WP:OFFICE. --Coroebus 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Not enough active participants" (from User:Malber's edit summary) - what is that supposed to mean? What new policy is this? Looking at some recent contributions of yours (e.g. here and here) I'd say your interest in this is not entirely dispassionate. --Coroebus 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So I guess Wikipedia Review has now been cited in a real source. Time to fire that article back up! :) heqs 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Coroebus. The boingboing link does not belong in the article. This is just getting silly. heqs 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring

Can we stop revert warring please. How about a discussion on the talk pages? I'm sure no one needs WP:3RR pointed out to them --Coroebus 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho, want to place bets on how long it lasts? --Coroebus 19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh... 67 cents, a paperclip, and three melted gummybears. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

20mins, not even long enough to take the damn bet! --Coroebus 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying again. Sigh. --20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to remove links to trollboards...er, ahem forums and stick to sites that post articles and essays. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unclear statement

"Criticism in general: Entries for criticism are needing citations, obviously the person editing the page holds that criticism or is only a public figure allowed to hold criticisms."

I moved the above statement from the text because I wasn't sure what it was trying to say. BuildControl 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia review 3rd

I don't particluly care if the link goes in or out but if it's going to go in then .org doesn't seem to actually work whilst .com does. Why is there a revert war over this, I don't understand? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because some people really don't like it, I guess. I think it is to WP's detriment if it doesn't include the link though... RN 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The .org site is the more legitimate site run by Blu Aardvark. Most of the posters and admins defected to the .org site after some totalitarian moves by Selina. (Wikicriticdrama!) However, several other editors seem to view that the link is not necessary at all as it has since been removed by no more than three administrators. The .org site was working yesterday but appears to be experiencing DNS difficulties today. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, why not add both sites with a brief explanation of what happened so that the reader gets to decide rather than us. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should encourage or reward the very same trolls who have a history of harassing contributors (both on wiki and in real life). Raul654 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Harly a reward.They all look like twats. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would we even consider including a link to such a ludicrous forum were the article on any other topic? Gamaliel 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No we probably wouldn't. This is an unusual subject because we always try to make ourselfs look good by embracing all criticism. We can't have anyone saying that we are trying to censor critics. But this probably does make us swing too much in favor of linking to lower quality sites than we would not link to on another article. Does wikipedia review have any redeeming features? Why do those who are adding it think it should be linked to? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a Criticism article (total side note: now that I've read it reads really silly and if I was the dictator I would probably just redirect it to wikipedia until there was more real substantive stuff to put here), it seems appropriate to have a link to a "traditional" forum of some kind (other articles have them as well, for example Criticism of Microsoft). RN 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally changed the link to .org because Blu Aardvark had made a promise to keep his forum clean and police any harassing behavior. However, in a hissy over his pending Arbcom decision, he's taken the site down. The question is this: how do we link to a community that is this unstable? How do we call this genuine criticism and not just a rabble of disgruntled blocked editors, crackpots, loons, and conspiracy theorists? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Malber's comments are contrary to any policy related to Wikipedia content. Raul's assetion that decisions about content may be related to encouraging the subject of content are not consistent with policy. Knott's assertion that WR contributors look like twats presumes twats are not attractive, inviting or conducive to survival of a species. "Crackpots, loons..." is a personal attack against critics. Malber is not an arbiter of legitimacy. His original research about the reasons one site was taken down is original research, and perhaps not at all accurate -- he offers no source other than his claims. His assertion that most members went to the new site is not based in evidence. Malber's assertion that he included the link based on his views of what he claims is a personal promise to him from one site owner is an attempt to edit based on his point of view. His assertion that "we link to a community that is unstable" is poor analysis. The link is to a Web site that includes content by members who come and go, not to a community where legitimacy is defined by stability. Stability? The site in question was created to review Wikipedia. When does Wikipedia plan to release a stable version? Waldon 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This wikilawyering is the first and only contribution by Waldon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and is a fairly good representation of the type of contribution you'll see at WR.com. Where is the authority "Wikipedia Review" site, Igor Alexander's proboards version, Zordrac and Selina's private site, or Blu Aardvark's? Might as well just delete the link as none are really that relevant. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is comparing Wikipedia's content to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines nothing more than "wikilawywering"? Why is Wikipedia operated as an open wiki if talk-page comments are discouraged? What is Malber's reason or justification for disclosing alleged personal information of someone who operated a critical forum in 2005? Waldon 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Advocron

I have moved Advocron's threads to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Moved_from_Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV argument

I've been going through the article and replacing all the old cites with <ref> tags which makes the citations clearer. I wonder though, would people here consider MediaShift a reputable source? I think this blog entry would fit as an example of someone denying the attainability of NPOV. Last, is there something special about the dated links section of external links or is that just to separate the links? Otherwise, I'll try to take evidence from those links and add them into the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

original synthesis

The term "community" appears in the article nine times as of now. Few critics refer to Wikipedia as a community. In one case, a critic that refers to it as a cult is characterized as criticizing dynamics of the "community." Whether or not some or all Wikipedia editors are a community is debatable. But it is original synthesis to conclude that all Wikipedia editors are members of a community and that all criticisms of any process in Wikipedia is a criticism of "the community." The article reads as if someone is attempting to reinforce a sense of community and not as if it is intended to accurately represent perceptions of critics and their criticisms. 01:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's really more of a communist regime than a community. -Debunktor 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I just took it out. Ken Arromdee 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Integrate The Onion parody into a reference?

Obviously The Onion's article (recently linked at the bottom, but I saw it on the cover of the paper yesterday) is a parody, but at the same time it's definitely one of the more public criticisms of the website. Despite it's aim at humor, the article is clearly a statement on the problem of vandalism and other shenanigans. Any of the more experienced caretakers of this article want to try and integrate mention of the piece into the main body of the article? --Bobak 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very confusing sentence

In the section Usefulness as a reference: "Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source for serious research according to Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales." What exactly did Wales say? Did he perhaps say "principal source"? Wikipedia could really only be a primary source for research about Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to be the topic of this section. On most topics, Wikipedia is inherently a tertiary source. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What should be done with wikipediasucks.com?

Please see What should be done with wikipediasucks.com?. Imgroup 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Information overload?

Why there is no statement of information overload in this article. Wikipedia is cool, but some people experience information overload after reading it too much. And another thing - who or what protects children from reading explicit content on Wikipedia?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.240.234.212 (talk • contribs) 20 August 2006.

Got something citable on either point? If so, please, feel free to edit. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no citation, yet StantonBG added it anyway. I am removing it. Captainktainer * Talk 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On NPOV and neutrality more generally

The section Systemic bias in perspective fails to differentiate between neutrality of coverage (a very broad issues) and neutral point of view; the latter is a technical issue about what is said in the narrative voice. For example, if I were to write "According to Rush Limbaugh, Iran is merely trying to buy time until Bush is out of office," there is nothing non-neutral about the point of view of the sentence, nor should there be any doubt that the sentence is true. It is an entirely separate question—a question of neutrality, but not a question of neutral point of view—whether Rush Limbaugh's opinion belongs in an encyclopedia.

Colloquially, among those of us writing Wikipedia, we lump these both as "NPOV", but this article is not in Wikipedia space, it is in encyclopedia space, and it should follow normal usage of words, not our internal jargon. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See also

See also Wikipedia:Expert Retention and Wikipedia:Expert rebellion. Olin 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia has too many rules. People don't want to sit down and read all day all Wikipedia's rules on every different page. My advice to you is let all the rules be put into a big list on one page so maybe we're spending an hour or less on it. I think some of the rules allow for editors to make foolish little corrections like this NPOV thing and then throwing in all these spoilers. Another thing is no disputes ever get resolved on wikipedia. damn! TareTone 09:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Waffling" prose and "antiquarianism"

This section is basically a summarization (though lengthy) of the Roy Rosenzweig essay. There aren't any other writers mentioned in this section. I think in the interests of editing down the length of this article, we should incorporate the material in the rest and remove this section. It really only relates to one person's opinion, not a general topic of criticism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. This is a summary of the criticisms raised in what is probably the single most thoughtful, insightful, evenhanded essay that has been written about Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's by one guy. Are we going to include a section for everyone who writes an essay critical of WP if well written? The article is already overlong. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of it being "well written". It's a matter of it being good academic work about Wikipedia. It is an even-handed essay about Wikipedia, nearly 40 pages in length, written by a prominent academic historian and published in a major journal. It is one of the few works cited in this article that clearly meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

Just a note that I'm having some trouble with people who don't want Angela Beesley to contain references to her article deletion controversy. Sbwoodside 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of discussion pages

Another criticism could be that some discussion pages do specify that they are meant to be discussions of the article as it appears in Wikipedia, not for discussing the topic in general, but some Wikiepdians (and I shall plead guilty here) may still have used discussion pages to discuss a topic rather than the article. ACEO 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: this is an article about notable, citable criticisms. This is not a substitute for internal discussions in Wikipedia-space or on our mailing list. Your comment is a perfect illustration of the issue you are raising! - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Incredibly vague statement about universities

"The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper. Some educational institutions have blocked Wikipedia in the past while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources." No citation. No school or university named. No indication of what is meant by "use". Are we just saying it is not citable as a source of facts in a student paper? Of course it is not. And neither is Britannica, as a rule. Encyclopedias are not generally considered citable sources in academia: they are considered reality checks, good introductory overviews, etc. and often a good starting point on research, but never more than that. Is there any evidence that Wikipedia has a different status in this respect than a typical mid-range encyclopedia, say World Book? If not, this is more a criticism of encyclopedias than of Wikipedia. It should not necessarily be removed, but it should be qualified, clarified, and cited. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided a cite which actually quotes a teacher on the use of Wikipedia in schools. As for the general use of encyclopedias in schools and universities, that sounds more like a discussion point for the Encyclopedia article, rather than this specific article on criticisms of Wikipedia. I don't see the need to comment on school use of World Book, Britannica, or any other encyclopedia in this article. Casey Abell 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony in the article re: style

I find it ironic that there is inconsistency in this article in two obvious ways:

1. "Wikipedia" being spelled variably with a capital and a lowercase 'w'

2. Inconsistent use of the emdash and, also, with spacing before and after or not spaced.

Apollyon48 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a pretty low irony threshold. If you wish to make this consistent, I can't imagine anyone will object. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you are wrong! There is at least one editor who pretty strongly objected, and reverted my changes (on other pages), referring me to the style manual - which completely supported what I had done. When I quoted same in reply, this editor has been notably silent.

As far as a low irony threshold...ahh, I got nothin'. Apollyon48 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Intelligent design articles are "biased", says ID activist...

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, the intelligent design creationism publicity machine says of Wikipedia:

I know of numerous people who have tried to suggest changes to Wikipedia to lessen the current bias of the ID entries -- including staff of Discovery Institute. They were rebuffed. The moderators of Wikipedia's ID-pages have repeatedly rejected and censored changes that would provide some semblance of balance or objectivity to the discussion. Basic accuracy on dates and names have suffered, never mind the downright falsehoods about the science.

Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries

1. Should this be put in?
2. Where should this be put in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul A. Newman (talk • contribs)

This is little more than a "letter to the editor" and isn't significant enough for inclusion. Gamaliel 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but what about other extremist groups having a whine? Like holocaust denialists, or scientologists or Moonies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul A. Newman (talk • contribs)

Or AIDS denialists, global warming denialists, Jehova's Witnesses, Momons,

All the right enemies. - Jmabel | Talk 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

need help

Can anyone help me, im looking for the article about the most famous wikipedia flame wars. I cant find it anymore. Thanks for help...

Unencyclopedic topic. I would imagine that if it ever existed it has been (appropriately) deleted or moved somewhere other than Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Wikipedia namespace, under "Lamest Edit Wars Ever" or something. It's kept around as an example of what not to do on Wikipedia; I've found it helpful. Captainktainer * Talk 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing a Little Too Gung-Ho

Despite the best intentions of Wikipedia's ideals and guidance provided, people don't want their articles changed, period. Given the high qualify of work submitted and the enormous amount of free time people devote to their efforts, this is understandable. And normal human nature.

But at some point people need to let go and accept that more data in an article is good. Data that are on topic and otherwise acceptable for inclusion should be included. Stuff that I see flagged for "quality" doesn't really seem bad at all and so long as it is not egregiously wrong, I would err on the side of leaving it in.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.183.188 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The signpost as a reference

Do we want that? See the last ref in the list... It may be against the law, and is certainly against the spirit. - crz crztalk 04:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

For a site allegedly being NPOV there certainly is a bias to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.153.96.166 (talk • contribs) 2 December 2006.

In what direction? - Jmabel | Talk

I would say negative. The whole article is a WP:POVFORK. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly negative about what? Wikipedia or its critics? Also, of what article are you saying it is a POV fork? - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Changes

Someone add a criticism about how some people have access to revert changes and others don't. And that people are reverting changes without knowing if the information is right or not and not even citing them. And the fact that someone they don't know who isn't registered is making the edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006.

This isn't intended as a general complaints department. This is intended as an encyclopedia article about criticism of Wikipedia published in sources that meet our usual criteria for reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 09:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Slap This In Later Somehow

The The Shiny Diamonds controversy arose when the Wikipedia entry for the Shiny Diamonds was deleted by administrators. The band was labeled Non-notable, and thus the page was protected to prevent re-creation. Ironically, the incident has brought much public attention to the band, thus making them more "notable" . The controversy arises from the argument and critical examination into the true nature of wikipedia being the "sum of all human knowledge" . For some wikis "all" literally means "every single bit of human information"; this idea conflicts with the more practical goal of having all "notable" human knowledge recorded on the pages of Wikipedia.

In addition, press coverage on the event, such as the Amber MacArthur CityNews International newsclip has brought more people into the debate between what are known as inclusionists and deletionists.

The "Articles for deletion" page for The Shiny Diamonds has the following quotes:

“ ...Non-notable band. 97 GHits, and they all seem to be myspace or other self-promotion. According to their entry on "New Music Canada Artist", they haven't even released a single single or album. Article created by spa (purports to be the vocalist of the band). yandman 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC). ”

“

• My name is Tim the mute and I am the lead singer for the shiny diamonds. Although it was my account this was written on, I didn't personally write the entry. I did however author the new music canada page and I did forget to post our albums on it. We have three albums and a few singles, while they didn't recieve much play across Canada, they were still featured on singles and compilations and the like. I can assure you we are indeed a real band and we are just as "notable" or relevant as anything else on this website. Now in the name of sharing information on the worlds only universal medium, please do not delete this article. I wasn't even aware that we were being considered for deletion until a newspaper contacted me about it this morning. Anyways, thank you for your time. -Tim

”

Stipulating for the moment that it's notable as a criticism of Wikipedia, which I still doubt: several external links have now been added to the article, but not in a way that gives anyone a clue why they are there. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

• EMAC: Emerging Media at UTD
• The Shiny Diamonds Myspace page
• CityNews International Video

News articles

• Segal, David (3 December 2006). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link'". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Just H 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I copyedited the section Criticism of Wikipedia#U.S. copyright law dictatorship#U.S. copyright law dictatorship. Imaginably a legitimate topic, but the content seems only loosely related to the title and the content looks to me like it is entirely legitimate research. All of the citation links (which I have moved to references, they were linked directly from the text itself) are simply links to the images under discussion. It seems to me that this content is just someone's complaint that should be handled in a fair-use-related project, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia article.

Conversely, I could imagine a useful section on how U.S. copyright law, which is what Wikipedia generally follows, is among the stricter copyright laws in the world, limiting content that would be perfectly legitimate in some other country. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The following section Soviet Union images was clearly written by the same person (it had the same stylistic problems), and seems to have the same original issues, but it I find it so incoherent that I can't even copyright it into something vaguely coherent.

Again, this seems like some individual Wikipedian's complaint about the handling of certain images. There might be something potentially encyclopedic, even properly citable, that could be written about Wikipedia's policies on Soviet-era images, but it would seem to me that this is not it.

I would endorse either the removal of these two sections as original research, or their replacement with more appropriate content related to their topics. - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I also made an attempt at copyediting and gave up. As you say, somebody with knowledge of the issue could possibly work the material about Wikipedia's Soviet-era images into a reasonable part of the article. But the current comments are almost unintelligible and should be deleted. Casey Abell 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed. If anyone still wants to do a salvage job here's my removal so you can easily recover the content. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What original research is in fact that Stputnik image has NASA lisence ? Are you crazy american that knows that all things were made in America ? What original research is in fact that great number of images were deleted as probably copyvio ?(That are just strings in logs) What original research is in fact that official foto of Gagarin has stupid promo lisence ? --Evgen2 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JMabel - couldn't make head or tail of the Soviet Union section.--Shtove 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Gangs

THere are political editing gangs on wikipedia pushing pOVs, tag teams which block any form of opposition to their agenda.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More source material

• Metz, Cade Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain The Reigster

Hope this helps. Ra2007 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh, we don't come off looking so good in that one, do we? So, has this got a place in this article? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that should matter. Whether or not it is verifiable via a reliable source is more important, don't you think? Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I wasn't trying to suggest that it matters whether or not Wikipedia looks good in the article. What matters is whether the source is reliable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Worthless source, though. It is completely unreliable, repeats Bagley's lunatic ravings as fact, and the only things that come anywhere close to sane are actually two editors stating their side of a bilateral dispute without benefit of any balancing facts from the other side. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your reliable source for Bagley's claims being "lunatic ravings"? In fact that's a potentially libelous suggestion about a living person and should probably be expunged, even from a talk page, per BLP - at least per the way BLP is applied when it comes to any criticism of Gary Weiss or others who seem to enjoy highest-level protection. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for Bagley's claims being specious, including Gary Weiss' columns in various publications, the Motley Fool and others - and (more importantly) none supporting his claims, particularly in respect to his claim of Weiss being one or more Wikipedia editors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Bagley has yet to provide any evidence at all, extraordinary or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Has The Register deemed unreliable? Ra2007 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For this subject, yes. No fact-checking, clear agenda, polemical tone, it's essentially a blog or personal opinion piece. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so awesome. Guy, you're absolutely right, the article in the Register is crap. The quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica is also totally biased and self-serving, and should be removed. It fails to AGF, and that invalidates it right there, really. This page could use to be a lot smaller. Don't you think? 207.112.75.38 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We should remove everything, and just have a blank page! All criticism of Wikipedia is, by definition, polemical, with a clear agenda, and just plain wrong, since we all know that Wikipedia is and has always been perfect in every way! *Dan T.* (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So, lots of hyperbole in the hopes of obscuring the fact that The Register is clearly polemical, not a reliable source, sources its data from two named editors both of whom - amazingly! - are active here in agitating for its inclusion, and in sundry other ways makes a great case for excluding itself. Does a web-based tech tabloid compare in reliability for asessment of an encyclopaedia with the world's most famous encyclopaedia? Well, funnily enough, not it doesn't, and it would be absurd to even suggest it did. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register's Doran story has so far completely checked out. Not mentioning the Register in this article is censorship, pure and simple, which is counter to the principles on which this project are founded on. Why don't we take a straw poll, announced on the AN, ANI, Village Pump, and other community pages, on whether the Register articles should be mentioned here? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit over-dramatic. Why not just use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? That's what it's there for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's an excellent idea. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of Register's Bagley article in another source

Another source, the Daily Herald, has confirmed much of the information that was reported in the Register's article on Overstock.com and Bagley [6]. This is a regular newspaper and meets the reliable sources guidelines, plus they did their own research. I believe the information reported in both sources can now be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like this might be considered more of a controversy than a criticism. I have no rooting interest in this but always believe that any perspectives that can be conformed within policy should be included and personal feelings should be left at the door. Personal feelings have led to much inconsistency of content inclusion and it leaves a lot of holes throughout the encyclopedia or, possibly even worse, bad content stays in that is very hard to remove due to the interests of those who take care of a given article. Unfortunately, this controlling of content makes wikipedia more like The Establishment in deciding what content is allowed instead of a truly independent gathering of information that does not filter information that some may find displeasing. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think you mean repetition, not confirmation, and I don't think much of it - a grammatical error in the first sentence, for example. I note you're still promoting a story sourced to you, Cla68, that's very bad form. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not mentioned in the Herald story, and I wouldn't be the one to write about it in the mainspace. Also, it is confirmation, because they checked it out for themselves, not just repeated the Register story. So, if anyone is ready to write about it, please go to the admin who locked this article and ask for it to be unlocked so that you can add the material. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not so very sure they checked it out that carefully, since they appeared to miss minor but significant points like overstock's consistent failure to show a profit as possible alternative explanations for their poor share performance. Why is it that constant loss-making is never the explanation? Why do Bagley and Byrne blame everybody but themselves? It's a funny old world. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe because the point of the article was Wikipedia's apparently overzealous blocking, not the cause of Overstock's poor share performance? You seem to have an "IDONTLIKEIT" approach to deciding which articles are reliable sources, depending on whether they happen to include the facts and arguments you think are relevant, rather than the ones the reporters themselves did. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with "IDONTLIKEIT" and everything to do with reliable sourcing. Your agitation for content for which you were a primary source indicates a significant objectivity issue, I suggest you leave this subject alone. "According to User:Cla68 and user:Dtobias, blah blah blah" is not really the kind of thing we're looking for as an independent source, especially when (once again) the other side is not covered. If this is a genuinely significant issue then (a) we would not be talking about such a very tiny number of reports, we'd have something unambiguously usable, and (b) we'd have some kind of independent overview articles which discussed the whole thing rather than simply reporting one side of the story. Whether or not blocking that proxy IP (and yes it was a proxy) was a valid act, has nothing whatsoever to do with the ban of Bagley and his attempted abuse of Wikipedia to promote an agenda, a point which seems to eb entirely lost on the tiny number of press sources covering the incident. So few sources, in fact, that one is drawn to speculate on whether these are journalists who have been actively looking for a stick with which to beat us, and this may e why they have so readily and uncritically accepted one side of the story. We may, however, have enough material for a list of people banned from Wikipedia but who lack sufficient self-criticism to understand why. Or maybe list of companies who have never made a profit and would rather blame the markets, the CIA and Wikipedia than themselves. Both lists would have at least one entry... Guy (Help!) 16:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, expect to be quoted, along with Guy. Cla68 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify, is that a threat to take this off-wiki again? Guy (Help!) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, quoted by me in other project forums. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• What an unconvincing argument. Or rather, series of arguments, because the goalposts keep shifting. As long as it was just Bagley and Byrne, there were no sources. Once the Register got involved, there was a source but it wasn't reliable (although the Register is treated as reliable for opinion and commentary on plenty of other issues...) Now a "real" newspaper, with a circulation of 150,000, gets involved, and there's a reliable source but it's not really reliable because, well... actually I don't know why. Because an editor "indicates a significant objectivity issue." Because there aren't enough reports? Because the reports aren't, in your opinion, hostile enough to the overstock spammers?
• This is a page about criticism of Wikipedia. Nutty or not, well-founded or not, the overstock.com criticism has been documented on a very popular Internet tabloid and a mid-circulation Chicago newspaper. Verifiability, not truth, remember? Launching sweeping and vaguely paranoid attacks on the sources ("one is drawn to speculate on whether these are journalists who have been actively looking for a stick with which to beat us") doesn't make them unreliable. <eleland/talkedits> 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• One can note that the Associated Press has now run an article (on the separate "Wikimedia foundation hires a felon" issue) that has been published in the New York Times among many other places; that article quotes The Register and Charles Ainsworth as sources. In fact, the Register article that broke the story was by Cade Metz, the same reporter who's an "unreliable source" here. So I guess AP and the NY Times and dozens of other papers are now unreliable sources too by association? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It pays to actually read the articles, which makes it clear that fact-checking was done by the NYT and AP. And this does not change the fact that the bulk of the other article in the regtister was gossip planted by anti-Wikipedia trolls. I really object, Dtobias, to you constant facilitation of anti-Wikipedia trolling. What is the point? It has nothing to do with free speech, censorship, or writing an encyclopedia. It is a huge waste of time. I really wish you would reconsider your actions. They are tendentious and disruptive, even though I have no doubt you think you are being useful. Please think about this.--Cberlet (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, those sentiments are exactly what I think about your side, which I think is being highly destructive to the cause of a free encyclopedia through your obsessive pursuit of a "war on trolls" similar to Bush's "war on terror". *Dan T.* (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is, however, one cricual difference: George W. Bush has declared "war on terror". None of us, as far as I can tell, has ever used any phrase even close to "war on trolls". If there was a war on trolls, you would have been banned long ago. There is no such war, your use of the phrase is just another of your straw men. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I disagree with Dan about a lot, but there's no point arguing semantics here. You're ignoring his actual point in favor of attacking the words he used to make it. Surely you can be a better active listener than that? It doesn't matter a whit whether someone calls it a "war on trolls". If people are acting in a manner congruent to such misguided enterprises as the "war on terror", then that's the concern that Dan is raising, which we may wish to address.

As for the item in question here, I would suggest that we bring more eyes to the situation. It's very clear that you, Guy, don't consider the sources being offered to be reliable, while Dan does. Let's open a content RFC and see what the community thinks. Surely that would be more productive than going another 12 rounds over who suspects whom of bad faith? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Chip on this. The fact that we don't welcome trolls with open arms does not mean there is some kind of war on trolls. Or, if you want to believe there is a war, do you honestly believe we should not be blocking the sockpuppets of user:JB196, user:WordBomb, user:MyWikiBiz, user:Jon Awbrey and the other trolls against whom this supposedly problematic war is being waged? I think you've correctly identified the existence of a war, but not the side that's declared it. Nobody would be happier than me if these banned abusers decided to call it a day and leave Wikipedia alone. I'd go so far as to move Jon Awbrey's socks to another place - a fictitious "Peirce vandal" page or something - if it would help, and I offered to do that but he told me to get lost. So yes, there is a small group of people who have declared war, but they are not Wikipedia editors, and I don't think it helps us much to ignore the fact that the agenda here is being set by people whose mission is to undermine Wikipedia, including at least two who have active threats of legal action aimed at losing 501(c) status. In both cases this action is purely retaliatory, for being prevented from behaviour which was identified by pretty much everybody who saw it as abusing the project. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I honestly believe that we should not block sockpuppets of the people you mention? Hell no, Guy, and if you imagine that I could believe that, then you've never understood a thing I've said. On this very page, you've put some of the most ridiculous words in my mouth, and I find it hard to believe that you even read my comments. You accuse me of saying there are "two options" which are both absurd, when I've never made such a claim. I suggest a different, more effective strategy for dealing with trolls (I note that your strategy doesn't work so well), and you accuse me of supporting trolls. Meanwhile, you're one of the biggest troll-feeders around here. I'd be happy to discuss strategy with you, either publicly or privately, but it would help if you'd stop making up bullshit about my position.

As for the issue at hand - Open a content RFC already. The solution is not to keep arguing about who's a troll; the solution is to bring more eyes to the question of reliability of sources. When a consensus of established Wikipedians exercising sound editorial judgment says, "the source is unreliable, no matter who supports it", then we win. When you say, "the source is unreliable, and Dan has an agenda," then you've just fed the trolls, and set us up for 12 more rounds of back-and-forth, he-said-she-said, unproductive crap. Make a choice.

Winning a content dispute is easy, but you don't do it by calling the other party names, or by talking about the other party's motivations. You do it by bringing more eyes to the situation, and staying on task. If you so much as mention the other party's motivations, then you enter a world of shit, and trolls dance in delight. How can you not know this, Guy? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

<-------Institutions of any sort have an obligation to defend themselves from attempts to damage or destroy them. Wikipedia is no exception. Only fools welcome attacks that undermine the basic premise of an institution. Anarcho-libertarianism is a fascinating concept, but there is a difference between "anybody has a right to do anything" and a democratic institution. Most anarchists and libertarians understand this. "Peace at any price" did not fare well. There is an obvious and overt campaign to damage or destroy Wikipedia. We can pretend this is not true, or we can deal with it cautiously and carefully. Facilitation of these attacks hurts Wikipedia. I am an active listener. I hear Anti-Wiki trolls laughing at our gullibility. Facilitating them harms Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh, jeez, doesn't that sound a little over-the-top? I seriously doubt that there's "an obvious and overt campaign to damage or destroy Wikipedia". C'mon, both sides here have some valid points, but let's try not to take a left into paranoid-conspiracy land. The way you portray it, there might as well be some shadowy organization meeting in smoke-filled rooms, cackling maniacally at their plans to destroy Wikipedia and rule the world! And I disagree with your last statement. "Acknowledging" is not the same as "Facilitating", and it does not harm Wikipedia. There's not much that can harm wikipedia at all. It's not some small, fragile thing. It's a huge-ass online encyclopedia. Criticism of it has nothing to do with the everyday editing that goes on here. Shnakepup (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• He seems to be defending the very same "war on trolls" that JzG denies exists. Anyway, I think leading Wikipedians / Wikimedians are doing a fine job of undermining Wikipedia/Wikimedia all by themselves, and one hopes that these fine institutions are indeed strong enough to withstand it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question, Guy: What would make this source verifiable? I mean, I see all your arguments that this story is biased and one-sided and all...does it have to be fair and balanced before it's okay to source? Is it possible for any source to be verifiable/useful/notable/etc if it's critical of Wikipedia? Shnakepup (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Coverage of the dispute - both sides of it - in a credible source such as the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess that would depend on what is credible...but thanks for answering. Don't want no trouble round these hear parts. Just been following the debate (if that's what it can be called) and wanted to toss in my two cents. Merry Christmas, btw. Shnakepup (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's strange, because I just read an article in both the Washington Post and in Forbes that covered "both sides" of Carolyn Doran (she was described as "personable, stylish and funny", as well as a felon), but it appears that an article Carolyn Doran is not being allowed creation. I guess the Washington Post and Forbes have quite a ways to go, to get to the JzG / New York Times threshold of credibility. I have this vision of goal posts moving all over a football field. I may have to scale back my watching of the NFL. --Lord on Canary (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not especially relevant to this discussion, since the topic at issue is Cla68 and Dan Tobias' pieces in The Register. If Carolyn Doran has an article, commentary on that belongs there. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not "my" or Cla68's pieces... they're by Cade Metz. Cla and I are merely among the sources quoted in those articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Riiiight, and that's why he names the two of you as his main sources. Oh, and Judd Bagley, too. Great company you're keeping there, I hope you have a long spoon. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight

I wonder what your opinion is about the following story:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html

Apparently, Wikipedia has surrendered without argument the info about some registered Wikipedia user(s) in response to a subpoena from the Video Professor. Other websites being sued have successfuly fought back on the free speech and the first amendments grounds, and even Comcast is demonstrating some backbone on the privacy protection grounds. But apparently not Wikipedia. Should this info perhaps be added (maybe even as a separate section) to the WP Criticism page? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• See, this is one of the things I find perplexing. We have a privacy policy, and the privacy policy says we should not reveal private information unless required to. Above, we have a lot of noise and fury generated because a long-standing user released private information and Jimbo stopped him, here we have a case where we *were* required to release the information so had no choice, and are being criticised for not holding out (at substantial cost). I have been watching the Video Professor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for a long time, and it has been the target of a lot of POV editing, much of it no doubt well intentioned, but resulting in numerous complaints. The advice to editors has been much the same all along: find good, credible, independent sources for your criticisms and we will include them. No blogs, no forums. Please, anybody who is interested in this dispute, help Wikipedia to improve the article by suggesting verifiable, neutrally stated, authoritative critique of the company. Because as far as I can tell the major source of complaint thus far has been people who did not understand the continuity sales model - a lesson many of us learn at one time in our lives. Does anyone here know how reliable consumeraffairs.com is as a source? Guy (Help!) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean "were required to release the information" and "had no choice"? It was a subpoena from a private party, not a court order, so there was plenty of choice. The other websites in question contested the subpoenas in the VP lawsuit and were successfull. If you read the consumeraffairs article carefully, you will see that the subpoenas against RipoffReport.com and Infomercialscams.com have been dropped because the companies in question fought back. Why didn't Wikipedia do the same? To say that there was a substantial cost involved is not a sufficient excuse. What happens if other companies start going after WP posters who posted negative informatition about them (say perfectly correct and verifyiable)? Will WP also play possum in face of such subpoenas? Won't this substantially affect the objectivity of the information provided by Wikipedia? I should think that other WP users will think twice or trice before adding any negative information on big companies, even if it is perfectly balanced according to the WP standards, fully sourced and verifyable. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are not happy with consumeraffairs.com as a source, here is a more direct source at the website of Public Citizen, a nonprofit public advocacy group that was involved in the lawsuit on behalf of the websites and the individuals being sued: http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=432 The page has pdf files of some of the court filings for the case, including a Dec 12, 2007 motion by Video Professor to withdraw the subpoenas against RipoffReport.com and Infomercialscams.com: http://www.citizen.org/documents/videoprofwithdrawal.pdf This motion also talks about the Wikipedia case and Wikipedia's actions. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A subpoena as part of a court proceeding would have been passed to our general counsel, Mike Godwin. I don't imagine he'd have handed anything over unless he thought it was necessary. I have no opinion on consumeraffairs.com as a source, which is why I asked if anyone else here does. My experience of the VP article is that most of the criticisms were not "perfectly correct and verifiable", the sourcing of such criticisms has generally been very poor. I don't think the world at large is much interested. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting line of argument: "trust us becuase we are the good guys and therefore we will do the right thing". Kind of reminds me of the arguments of the Bush administration in favor of secrecy and against congressional and judicial oversight. I did not claim that all the criticisms in the VP article history were "perfectly correct and verifyable". Certainly there was enough poor sourcing there, especially given the fact that the subject of the article is not that prominent. And it is probably true that, as you say, the world at large is much interested in the VP story at the moment. However, I was talking about the larger implications of the Wikipedia's actions in this case for future articles on other subjects. In my opinion, there will definitely be a chilling affect, especially if the news about the VP lawsuit story gets around. As a matter of policy, I, as a WP user, would like to see stronger protections of privacy and identities of WP users. Also, we should not just be talking about the validity of a particular Wikipedia criticism (which is what most of the discussion has been about thus far), but about suitability of mentioning this in the main Criticism of Wikipedia page. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of silly, because you really have no reasonable expectation of privacy when editing Wikipedia. Someone with sufficient computer skills can figure out who you are, unless you have taken special precautions. And Wikipedia does not have the resources to fight a lot of legal battles, obviously. It has no way to produce income, at least yet. So you are not really anonymous. There is no encryption or use of TOR sites automatically or other proxies. You really are editing Wikipedia naked. If you think that getting a login name protects you from more than just the simplest kind of inquiries, you are pretty naive, as far as I am concerned. So if you want to engage in libel or posting plans for nuclear weapons or other illegal activity, then you should think twice.--Filll (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That said, having read the first article, I think this definitely should be included in the Video Professor article.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it will take some time for Wikipedia to decide on what its policies and positions should be on these issues. I think that this sort of thing might very well eventually have a big chilling effect on certain kinds of editing on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo says "The story is not well reported. It is false to say that we did not put up a fight. And we were successful in pushing the company to seek identifying data not from us but from the cable broadband provider, which is protected under the Cable Act from complying with a mere subpoena."[7] WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. Here is a copy of my response to Wales' post at his talk page. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious. I have read the VP court motion where the Wikipedia issue is being discussed: http://www.citizen.org/documents/videoprofwithdrawal.pdf Here is what it says: "1. VPI issued subpoenas in early September 2007 to infomercialscams.com, ripoffreport.com, and Wikipedia for identifying information regarding the persons having posted anonymous defamatory remarks about VPI on these Web sites. 2. VPI is withdrawing its subpoenas to infomercialscams.com and ripoffreport.com. 3. Wikipedia failed to respond to its subpoena served out of the Middle District of Florida. In this case, VPI moved the Florida. Court on September 26, 2007 for an order requiring Wikipedia to show cause why it should not be held in contempt . A hearing on the show cause was scheduled for December 20, 2007. 4. On November 29, 2007, Wikipedia produced the subpoenaed information and, thereafter, the show cause hearing was vacated. 5. The information produced by Wikipedia consisted of IP addresses requiring additional subpoenas to be issued to the Internet service providers (ISP) of the owners of these IP addresses to provide the names and physical addresses of the these owners." It does say "Wikipedia produced the subpoenaed information", and there is no mention of any opposing action by Wikipedia. As I understand, in most cases Wikipedia does not have the actual names of the registered WP users, but only their IP addresses. That is what you had and that is what you surrendered. Moreover, the above document makes clear that Wikipedia surrendered the IP addresses of multiple users and not just a single poster. Frankly, I find this action astonishing! If this news spreads around, what kind of an effect do you think it will have on future posters who contemplate including some negative material, even if it is properly sources, about some big company, organization or country? And what about those companies/organizations themselves? How long would it take them to figure out that they can prevent posting of negative information about themselves in Wikipedia by itimidating its users? I would have expected more of a backbone from the supposed beacon of free dissemination of knowledge and information. The other websites in the lawsuit did not have the protection of the Cable Act either, but they chose to fight back and succeeded. Also, the post at Public Citizen, http://www.citizen.org/documents/videoprofsamplenotice.pdf, indicates that informercialscams.com actually notified its users whose identifying information was being sought by the VP subpoena. I don't suppose you did the same, did you? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum, but a discussion page designed to improve this article. if you have issues with the actions by the Wikimedia Foundation, you can write to them. You are wasting your time here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the arguments above are about whether or not to include "privacy concerns" in the main article (Criticism of Wikipedia). Specifically, whether or not Wikipedia's actions in the subpoena should genuinely worry people/editors about their edits, and if so, whether or not it should be placed in the main article as a genuine criticism.Shnakepup (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If these issues were reported in secondary, published sources, we can describe what these sources say about the subject. If not, we would be violating WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Could someone correct the name Encyclopedia Dramatica to Encyclopædia Dramatica. Proper spelling is with the æ. Thanks Maxdamage (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Better idea: remove it. It's not a "parody encyclopaedia", and it has no value or merit as a source or as a namecheck in this article. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wasn't ED mentioned in the NYTimes article about User:Gracenotes? Cla68 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, the main page of ED spells it "Encyclopedia". People and institutions (and websites) get to decide how their names are spelled. Leave it alone. Risker (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is not how their main page spells it; the question is how did our source - The New York Times - spell it. Guy - claiming that "it's not a parody encyclopedia" doesn't do much for your credibility, because that's precisely what it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Uncyclopedia is a parody encyclopaedia, and funny. ED is just a bunch of juvenile nonsense, not a parody of anything. Parody in my book implies something more than just calling yourself "encyclopedia blah". Parody is an art form, toilet humour is an art form too, but a different one. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, there's no need to present your subjective opinion as fact. I don't find Uncyclopedia remotely funny, but I still acknowledge that it is a parody, even though it's pure dreck to me. Encyclopedia Dramatica is also a parody, for people who prefer their humor in a different vein. I find parts of it (not generally the parts about Wikipedians) to be hilariously funny, and very effective as parody. I'm aware of parts of it that are quite different from "juvenile nonsense", and that are indisputably parodies of very specific targets (including your Uncyclopedia). You don't find ED to be effective as parody, and you find Uncyclopedia funny. Tastes differ.

  More to the point, our subjective opinions about whether or not certain websites are funny are utterly irrelevant. They constitute original research, and have no place here. Wikipedia is for reflecting what sources say, not what we think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, Guy, your declaring them to be "juvenile nonsense" here brings them more attention than if you were to refrain from commenting about your personal thoughts on the site. If you wish to discourage traffic there, stop vilifying them aloud. That makes people curious. If you wish to remove mention of it from the article, make source-based arguments that won't be mistaken for IDONTLIKEIT, which is precisely how you come across now. Every time you mention that you think it's a bad site, your argument gets weaker, and ED gets stronger.

  The argument not to call them a "parody" goes like this: "The NYT calls ED a 'snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite', not a parody encyclopedia." That is a source-based argument, and makes no reference to our personal tastes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Give this man a medal. Viridae^Talk 10:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus: I don't actually care much about ED as a site, my opinion of them is largely based on removing mass spamming a long time ago before they were blacklisted, it's a problem that no longer needs fixing obviously. I don't think anybody in their right mind would take a word ED says seriously, but I did see the article they put up on Phaedirel, and it was grossly offensive - and not in the way smutty humour is offensive to the Mary Whitehouse brigade, I mean offensive as in nobody in the 21st century has any excuse for publicly describing another human in such a base and callous way. They also published (inaccurately) my work telephone number. That does rather argue for use of the ten foot pole in respect of that site. And please, don't give me the "oxygen of publicity" argument. I am not prepared to accept that the only alternatives are to allow puerile nonsense to stand or somehow to be part of giving it higher prominence. I'm fully aware that WR fans will use any opposition to any attack site as a hook on which to hang their Holy Crusade to allow them to be considered legitimate criticism, but I'm afraid I don't buy that; ED is worthless in every sense of the word. It's worthless as a source of criticism, and as a parody it is actually only a parody of Uncyclopedia, reversing Uncyclopedia's policy and setting out instead to be "stupid and just not funny". But here, all that matters is that they are not actually a parody encyclopaedia, they are a very amateurish and juvenile site with a small amount of anti-Wikipedia nonsense and a large amount of advertising. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance of ED's purpose and content is not anything on which to base our decisions. Your opinion that ED "sets out" to be "stupid and just not funny" (dead wrong - they aim for funny, and in the eyes of many, they achieve it), and your opinion that it is "worthless in every sense of the word", are irrelevant, and those opinions are certainly not obvious, nor shared by all reasonable readers. Personally, I don't care whether or not we mention ED in this article - they got one mention in an NYT article, which we can take or leave. I've never added them to this article, and if you delete the mention, I won't reinsert it. I will, however, never accept IDONTLIKEIT as an argument. If you wish to argue that ED is not a parody encyclopedia, then do so by using sources (hint: no source has ever referred to them as a "parody encyclopedia").

Every time you make a non-source-based argument, you weaken Wikipedia; please stop. As for the "oxygen of publicity argument", I don't claim that the only alternatives are to let it stand or else publicize it. I claim that the correct approach is to stick to source-based arguments, never to talk about "offensiveness", and thus avoid both kinds of publicity - positive and negative.

It is vitally important that we learn the proper way to deal with trolls - by being too boring for them to have any fun at our expense. You're not being boring in this thread. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is referring to them as a parody encyclopedia "taking them seriously"? And I believe ED actually predates Uncyclopedia in existence (at least, it has an earlier creation date in the domain WHOIS records, though one can't be sure if either site may have pre-existed under different URLs). *Dan T.* (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By placing them on a par with Uncyclopedia, which is a parody encyclopedia, with parodies of Wikipedia's rules and content policies, and wcich is hilariously funny as a result. Looking above, there was consensus for not including ED, so it;s not clear to me why it was ever in there. The occasional namecheck is not sufficient notability for most websites, especially ones that include egregious privacy violations and are laden with ads. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what makes you so sure that ED hasn't got parodies of Wikipedia's rules and content policies? They certainly do have parodies of many elements of Wikipedia practice and culture, which I'll happily point out to you if you contact me by email (I won't link to them here). Once again, your opinion that Uncyclopedia is funny is just that - an opinion - and therefore irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned it's not funny at all, and my opinion is also irrelevant. Get it?

I don't see a consensus for not naming an example of humorous criticism that was cited by the New York Times; please point it out. I fully agree that the occasional namecheck is not sufficient notability, and that's why we haven't got an article on them. (I helped argue to get that article deleted and keep it that way - remember?) A trivial namecheck in NYT, however, can buy a similarly trivial namecheck here, depending on our sound editorial judgment. That means: not based on how much we like or dislike the site. Make encyclopedic arguments, not emotional ones.

Next, I don't know what you think you know about privacy violations, but ED has got strictly enforced policies about not publishing people's real names, etc., unless that information is already publicly available. They delete private info from page histories. No version in the history of your article there contains any telephone number, accurate or otherwise (I just checked). Maybe it's on some other page; I don't know. Please feel free to email me any relevant links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions regarding the hilariousness, tastelessness, number of ads, and other things about various websites are not relevant criteria to their inclusion or exclusion. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll just call up a tabloid journalist and then they'll be in a reliable source and should be included. That's how it works, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOR does say that "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person". *Dan T.* (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fuckit, we just got trolled. Look at the contribs for Maxdamage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  It would have failed as a troll if you hadn't so passionately risen to the occasion. The only response necessary (which I gave above) was, "no, NYT spells it without the extra 'e'. Thanks anyway." In choosing to editorialize, you fed trolls. Congratulations. Don't give them that kind of reaction, and you can't be trolled. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• What, by commenting in passing that it seems to have no merit? Thanks a bunch. You know, I'm getting just a little bit tired of this idea that the only two alternatives are to leave crap be or have it escalated by people like Dan. Why is there no third option? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I've never claimed, and do not believe that those are the only two options. I've consistently supported a third option, which is to remove crap in a professional, de-escalatory manner. Comments in passing as to your personal opinion of the website are destructive, because they feed the idea that we make decisions here based on personal opinions. I suggest that you remove crap for source-based reasons, and leave your personal feelings out of it.

Our job, as experienced Wikipedians, is to set an example of what kind of arguments should be made here. I request that you keep this in mind, and stick to encyclopedic arguments.

Again: I have never claimed that there are "two alternatives", as you present. I continue to claim that calling anything "garbage" or "worthless" or anything to that effect is a bad idea, because it encourages IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments from others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you explain what you mean by "escalated by people like Dan"? Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a meme he's trying to push lately, in which everything wrong with the culture here is the fault of people like me, never people like himself; his opinions on what is "crap" are perfectly objective and obviously true, and anybody questioning them is merely trolling to stir up drama. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, this isn't helpful either. If you wish to show that you're acting in good faith, then go race Guy to open the content RFC, and bring more eyes to the situation. Comments like this one don't do you much credit, you know. Don't sling mud back; rise above it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of due process

{{editprotected}}

Another criticism of wikipedia is the lack of due process. When a user is accused of being a sock pocket because he happens at one point to have an ip that a vandal had. The user has almost no ability to fight this. The Isiah (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Source? Also, which websites do have "due process", and where does it imply that Wikipedia has or should have such? As far as I'm aware, your enforceable rights on Wikipedia are limited to the right to leave and the right to fork. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Need I remind you that this article is about criticisms of Wikipedia... there is no necessity or relevance to proving or disproving that a particular criticism is actually correct or valid or reasonable, so it is a waste of space to debate such things on this talk page. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, we know that you think criticism sourced to individual Wikipedians is fair game for inclusion here, but I think that is a minority view. Hence the request for a source. As has been pointed out elsewhere recently, a "criticism of" article is not a free pass for WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR violations. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Guy is correct that we're not interested in listing any criticism that any random Wikipedian may have, and he's right to insist on a source. Dan is correct that it is irrelevant whether a given criticism is valid or reasonable. Guy, it would probably help keep the discussion focused if you omitted your opinion on whether a criticism is valid or reasonable. The question is: "Source?". Everything after that is distraction. Who cares whether other websites have due process? This page is not for responding to criticisms, sourced or otherwise. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Let's all stay focused. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This one does look like patent nonsense to me so before going any further with it I suggest Isiah or others bring some reliable sources to back up his or her claim, then we can discuss it but why we should have an editprotected template without even offering sources is beyond me but also opposed by me. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok number 1 I really didn't expect this much rage to be generated. Its just a problem I have noticed and I just wondered if it should be put into the article. number 2 I have seen similar debates online for example:

• http://ask.metafilter.com/17456/Wikipedia-Yes-or-No debate on due process
• http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/03/tom_evslin_on_w.html
• http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001517

number 3 Just because wiki doesnt apply that you have a right to due process doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. As for as I can tell this article is about what is "perceived" as wrong by some people not what is actually "right" or "justified". Please no flames. The Isiah (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the discussion focused. This talk page is not for discussing whether or not Wikipedia should have something like "due process". This page is for discussing which criticisms of Wikipedia can be sourced, and which ones are notable, with no reference to which criticisms are valid or invalid. Thank you for providing those links - now what do people think of those sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue has broader implications for the article's structure. Currently it is divided into "Criticism of the concept" and "Criticism of the contributors". There really isn't a good place to put "Criticism of the process" which would be about criticism of the various policies and guidelines of wikipedia and wikimedia and how those policies are created and executed. It would include misunderstandings (people think it is strictly rule based as they do not get IAR - we are results based), disagreements (people think "free" means something other than copy-left plus no-cost) and negative consequences of the specific processes rather than from the concept or contributors (people claim our current policies produce a worse encyclopedia and more social harm than their idea of what our policies should be). WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Before talking about how to structure "criticism of the process" into the article, are we sure that such criticisms can be verified as actual criticisms coming from reliable sources? There's a difference between notable criticisms of Wikipedia and common misunderstandings of Wikipedia's rules, as observed by Wikipedians. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The "verification" of criticism is as trivial as the verification of the existence of a blog. A quote from WR or wikipedia talk pages verifies the existence of the criticism. The issue is level of notability. So let's use precise terminology so we don't argue in circles to no good end. Criticism of how we treat BLPs resulted in the creation of that policy, so that is certainly notable. More examples can certainly be given. Further, just cuz we fixed something, does not mean it should not be in the article. This is an encyclopedia article and not a to-do list. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was imprecise. Of course it would have to be notable criticism to make the article, which is why I said "verifiable in reliable sources", but you're right, the correct word is "notable". I'll repeat the question, with better words - have we got evidence of notable criticisms of process, e.g., misunderstanding IAR or misunderstanding "free"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of notable criticism about our conflict of interest policy; and our notability policy; and there was that recent semi-notable piece that reflected on the tension between COI and anonymity policy. There is a lot out there. For example I looked to find one clear cut example of policy criticism and I found "To some critics, protection policies make a mockery of the "anyone can edit" notion.[8] WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdentng) Ok, cool. So, would three broad categories (Criticism of concept, criticism of process, and criticism of contributors) cover all of the notable criticisms that we know about? Are there other categories of criticism that we haven't yet listed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah that seems like it would do it nicely. The Isiah (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so why is the article protected? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced OR?

{{editprotected}} The statement:

If obscure articles tend to be of a lesser quality (not simply in their scope, but also in their factuality, rigor, encyclopedic style, etc.,) then as more minor articles emerge, the average quality of the encyclopedia's articles lessens (especially measured by article-count, unweighted by hits). Moreover, the collective resources of the encyclopedia may be diluted into maintaining less notable articles faster than they are increased by encompassing wider interests.

seems to be unsourced OR and should be removed. Dhaluza (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is the Deletionist's Tautology. "Minor article" = "obscure article of a lesser quality" therefor fewer minor articles equals greater average quality; therefor Wikipedia should consist solely of non-minor articles and would be perfect if all non-perfect articles were deleted; and since there are no perfect articles, the perfect wikipedia is the nonexistent wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares whether or not it's a valid criticism? All we're interested in is whether it's a sourced criticism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The criteria is not is it sourced. The criteria is is it capable of being sourced to a reliable published source. Not being sourced is one piece of evidence. Being invalid is a second piece of evidence. Together they make it valid to delete. We should not delete things we believe can eventually be adequately sourced just because they are currently unsourced. Hence the value of evaluating validity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess. I could see how invalid criticisms could yet be sourced, if they're talked about enough to be notable. As for whether it can be sourced, any material that has been challenged as to verifiability may be removed until a source is provided. Otherwise we would keep anything that someone claims they think they can source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't remove things that likely belong in an article, just because we can remove anything that is not sourced. For example,we don't gut the many articles that were written before this was a requirement on the English Wikipedia (and it's not even enforced on the German Wikipedia, for example). But something that is an obviously controversial POV statement like this should be removed. Dhaluza (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely - any material that has been challenged. Why would we challenge something that can likely be sourced? If it can likely be sourced, then someone will come up with one and replace it. As long as we're all acting in good faith, which we are, it works out fine.

The point is that we focus on whether something can be sourced, not on whether or not it's an intelligent criticism. It's validity as a criticism of Wikipedia has little bearing on whether or not it can be sourced. "Is sourced" versus "can be sourced" is an uninteresting distinction, because there's no deadline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this article unprotected

It's been protected for weeks now, and we really ought to resolve the issue and move on. The protection seems to be over the article "Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia" in The Register. Some say it's a reliable source and that it should be included; others say it isn't a reliable source, and should be removed. So what are we going to do? I think the solution is to file a content RfC and get more community input, so I'll just set one up now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The idea of Criticism of Wikipedia being protected, while a number of Wikipedia admins themselves have apparently continued editing the page doesn't seem fair. Zenwhat (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion about the Register has ended.... and almost all the votes are that the Register is a Reliable Source for the purposes of this article. What's left to discuss? Wellspring (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be all set on that point. The article is no longer protected, anyway. It is still semi-protected. Shall we lift that, too? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, didn't notice the change. Thanks, and yeah I think semi-protection on a page this controversial is just fine. Wellspring (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is The Register a reliable source for this article?

I've read what I think may be the whole discussion, the sources in question, a lot of background material, and... I wish it were clearer. My conclusion, however, is that yes, the Register article, while not exactly radiating journalistic credibility, is a sufficiently reliable source that it can and should be used for this article; moreover, I believe it should also be used as a source for any articles that cover the underlying substance of the criticism (as opposed to this one, which is about the criticism itself).

It bothers me not a whit that citing the Register article will make some editors unhappy, as it will in effect give some additional credence to the criticisms of some people who are apparently, um, not terribly well liked, shall we say. If we can't even permit linking to this article it on a page dedicated to detailing criticisms of Wikipedia, apparently we're just not going to let it go anywhere. That doesn't work for me, so I'd be inclined to err toward inclusion on this page, but in this case I don't think the lean is necessary The source is credible. atakdoug (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see The Register to be a reliable source for anything. It is fun reading (sometimes) but it is closer than not to a printed tabloid.... I mean Google kicks Wikipedia in the googlies: Move over, Jimbo - we're in the content biz now lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding the two Register articles was widely reported and while I've heard a lot of badmouthing of the Register afterwards, I've heard no attempt to directly refute their allegations. The two key allegations are that Jimbo Wales improperly used his role as "benevolent dictator" to manipulate an article's content and suppress his opponents, and that many long-time admins use a secret mailing list to coordinate talk-page debates. The second allegation has a lesser allegation about improper use of the ban hammer to suppress viewpoints that members on this secret mailing list don't agree with.

Wikipedia's open nature is central to its purpose as a project. Just this morning, Jimbo is quoted in Ars Technica saying that he sees Wikia Search as "a political statement about transparency and openness." So accusations of hypocrisy are highly notable. I don't know that I'm persuaded by the Register article, but I'm stunned that there isn't even a mention of it.

The easiest answer would have been if the story was reported elsewhere-- unfortunately like many technical subjects this didn't make the mainstream media (at least I haven't found anything). I'd say that the Register fulfills the reliable source criteria. It has editorial oversight, a fact-checking policy, is not an extremist publication, and is widely cited by other reliable sources. The Noticeboard debate was pretty spirited [9], but the latest there was this: the Register is a Reliable Source and can be cited except in the case of baseless accusations about Wikipedia that we know are untrue.

I think that if we're going to post criticisms at all, that this issue should at least get a mention. NPOV is hard because most Wikipedia contributors have the same point of view on these allegations. It makes it extra hard to keep your editorial objectivity.

Wellspring (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the Reg is not a reliable source for this article. We should not even be asking this: it says, in effect, that Cla68 criticizes Wikipedia due to his (incorrect, but that's an aside) interpretation of an incident. Why would that be significant? Guy (Help!) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Should not even be asking this"? What does that mean? Isn't asking whether or not putative sources are reliable precisely what we should be doing, most of the time? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Outside party says: Yes, of course, absolutely. With the caveat that factual information from the Register alone is not really reliable, but the opinions about Wikipedia and the claims about facts are entirely appropriate. An article about criticism of Wikipedia that doesn't discuss some of the highest-profile criticisms, apparently because a vocal minority of editors is personally affronted by them, is a bad idea. <eleland/talkedits> 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any such "highest-profile criticisms" that is published in a reliable source, can be added to this article. The Register, is not such a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if anyone ever said The Register wasn't a reliable source before the late great unpleasantness.--G-Dett (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This [10] shows that the Register is currently cited 1,962 times in Wikipedia. I may be wrong, but I've only noticed Guy and Jossi object to the Register being cited here and in related articles like the Gary Weiss bio. By the way, the Register article doesn't only quote me, it also contains allegations that an entire suburb in Utah was blocked by David Gerard, who falsely claimed that the neighborhood ISP was an open proxy. These allegations were independently confirmed by a Utah newspaper as discussed earlier on this page. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I have my answer. The Register has been described as an unreliable source before all this hoopla, by "Cave Bovum" aka WordBomb aka Judd Bagley, who removed a Register cite from Patrick M. Byrne, saying ["I'm sorry, The Register is not a reliable source." He was immediately reverted by none other than Mantanmoreland, who first restored the Register material without comment[11], and then another time with the admonition to "stop the POV pushing."[12] Mantanmoreland is an influential editor; perhaps he could be persuaded to weigh in again on the Register's behalf?--G-Dett (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It all seems to depend entirely on whose ox is being gored in any particular instance. People are quite willing to switch sides depending on which happens to suit their agenda at the present time. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really trying to grasp why people are fighting so hard to suppress this. True or false, the reports have been made, the source conforms to the guidelines particularly for an article of this nature, and the criticism is highly notable. The Register as an unreliable source is brand-new as I've heard, but either way their story belongs in an article of this nature. I understand that to core wikipedians, this feels like an injustice, but it's turning into a real test of our objectivity, openness and transparency.

Is there a compromise which would make people more comfortable with including this? For example, can we find valid citations which counter the Register and Daily Herald stories? Wellspring (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, reliability of a source depends on what you're sourcing it for. As far as I know, the only sites which are really truly categorically banned are extremist fringe sources, and self-published sources which are not by recognized experts. Obviously the Reg is not an extremist source, and I haven't seen any real reason why Orlowski would be considered fringe (we are talking Orlowski, right?) Yes, it's a classic tabloid, sensationalist news-u-tainment with no clear separation between fact and opinion. That's why it's not a reliable source for straight factual claims^*, like "Wikipedia admins blocked an entire neighbourhood in Utah." But it's entirely reliable for the purpose of opinion and commentary on Wikipedia, which is kind of, you know, the subject of this article. <eleland/talkedits> 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*except maybe stuff like processor specs

<outdent>One question. Has wikipedia officially responded to this criticism as in a press release? Guy notes the article in question is incorrect so why not do this? We could then cite this article and cite the press release rebutting the argument made. This could be considered OR to source the press release but this release could get reported somewhere and that could be cited. If criticisms like this are reported, they should be acknowledged and if they are erroneous wikipedia should address them and we can see all sides of the story instead of trying to sweep everything under the rug. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no there's no official response. I suggested something similar above, where we present both sides of the story. So far no response from Guy on it. With the article protected, there isn't much users can do; it's in the hands of the admins now. Wellspring (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, The Register is a WP:reliable source. Because it meets all the criteria for a WP:reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• So... shall we try unprotection? It appears that we've generated a bit more dialogue, and some Wikipedians are saying that the Register is a reliable source, and there hasn't been any response from those who think otherwise. How about we unprotect the page, and see what happens? Any objections? If there aren't any in a few hours, I'll lift the protection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• One reason there is no comment from me is that there is 0% chance of persuading Dan and Charles that the Reg's reprinting of their peerless wisdom is anything other than the most perceptive and pertinent criticism Wikipedia has ever seen. It remains a tabloid source, and it remains a source saying, in effect, that a Wikipedian has criticised Wikipedia. As a source it sucks, as a story it lacks accuracy and even a basic attempt at neutral portrayal, the coverage of the strory is negligible (hence the Reg being an issue; if a better source had covered it we would not be here), and that story will always be a steaming pile of ordure, on which Judd Bagley piled more ordure to further serve his "forget the -3.68 five year average EPS, Wikipedia is to blame for Overstock's share price tanking" crap. It was, is and always will be abject nonsense inserted to pursue an agenda, and no amount of debate will persuade those pursuing The Truth™, in the Authorised Version By Cla68, that it is of anything other than paramount importance. The importance of this criticism in the world context is between zero and fuck all, and that, too, will never change. So the debate was and is sterile. And incidentally I know that much of what Cla68 says via the Reg is false because I was on the mailing list form the outset and I told him it was false and he was rebuffed from the mailing list which is why, I think, he took it to the Reg in order to weasel it in here. Cnyical, shameful, and in the end of no actual lasting relevance or significance. The mailing list still exists. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, what on Earth makes you think you would have to convince Dan and Charles of anything? Since when do they make the decisions around here? The people you have to convince are the community, and Dan and Charles are a negligibly small part of that. It's an RfC, where people are invited from far and wide to talk about the reliability of this source, and you're staying out of the discussion.... because you despair of convincing Dan of something? That makes no sense. Dan doesn't own the article. You say the importance of this criticism is "zero and fuck all," and you very well may be right, but you're not doing much to convince the community of that. Why? Are you trying to undermine your own argument, by making your case look as biased as possible? Are you thinking strategically here, or are you reacting? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me or Dan, this is about the Register. Remember, most of the Register's reporting on the Durova, Bagley, and Doran incidents has been confirmed in other sources. Also, the Register is noted for its reporting and commentary on a wide range of technology issues. That's one reason that it is cited almost 2,000 times in Wikipedia already and is a valid source for criticism of Wikipedia. That's probably why the consensus here is to accept the Register as a valid source for this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for personal battles, take it to the Cage match section of WikBack. Here, you're supposed to comment on the content, not the contributor, and to give better reasons for rejecting a source than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• No. The Register may be a reliable source on certain computer issues, but on anything related to Wikipedia it is hopelessly biased and functions as little more than a blog. I would suggest also that Cla68 recuse himself from discussion of the Reg, as he was quoted extensively in both articles and is hopelessly conflicted. It is, at best, bad taste for a person quoted in an article to lobby for inclusion of the article in Wikipedia--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not made a determination on The Register since I'm just starting to read this WFC. I am concerned with the above comment however. It is cherry picking. And might I remind everyone, we are all biased? As I'm certain most of the wikipedians are pro-wiki biased. NYCDA (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. The Regiester's report is biased against Wikipedia. We can list pro Wiki articles as counter but should not exclude them because of bias. Many newspaper are biased. Be they conservative/liberal left/right etc. Having a point of view does not make them invalid. NYCDA (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias is not the sole issue, though it certainly is a factor because the bias is so blatant and egregious. The issue is reliability and accuracy, and that is where the Register is problematic on issues relating to Wikipedia. That was exemplified by the recent coverage. --Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But this is the Criticism of Wikipedia page; sources used here are merely sources to the fact that certain criticisms exist, not that they are necessarily true, valid, or held by unbiased observers (a critic is biased pretty much by definition). The notability of the Register articles is attested to by their appearances in Slashdot, Digg, and various blogs immediately after publication. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When I said that the Register was "may be a reliable source on certain computer issues" I was being overly generous. Here [13] is what passes for journalism at the Register. This is a blog that calls itself a publication. Slashdot and Digg "reccies" from fans don't add to its reliability as a source. Neither is its "notability" an issue. Many blogs, including the Register, are notable, but that does not make them reliable as sources. The National Enquirer is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia.--Onlyjusthisonetime (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Although it may be true the Register's gotten its facts wrong, Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Provided that criticism of the factual accuracy of the register articles is itself mentioned, it should be in the article. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. The Register meets the criteria and the subject is notable. I might add, a bit late, that the criticisms of Wikipedia go way beyond Cla68's quotes in the article to include several factual statements regarding wikipedia (i.e. the existence of the mailing list, and in the other article, the protected state of the articles and the direct database edit. I could care less about Overstock and their claims. What I care about are our principles. If someone can find a reliable source that disputes or refutes the Register article, I'd be thrilled to vote to include it. This is a test of our objectivity, and we have to listen to our heads, not our hearts. Wellspring (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes The Register is a reliable source in this context. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes The Register is a reliable source, otherwise you are creating a situation where US sources are okay and UK similar ones aren't but we need to be extremely careful using it re wikipedia, and never use it to defy our NPOV policies, WP:V should never be used to insert falsehoods. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes and seems to be one of the few WP:RS's that cover the community in any depth. Do they make it out to be like a soap opera full of petty squabbling and drama? Yes. Is that on the mark or just to be dismissed as tabloid sensationalism? Eh, coin flip. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Something seems lacking, unless I'm missing it

Is there really no entry on this page about the delete-happy nature of many editors, and the criticism which the notability system often receives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.72.86 (talk • contribs)

• I will delete the article if that will help? Guy (Help!) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - non-notable vanispamicruftvertisement. Userfy to non-notable blog and nuke from orbit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

Well, I can't say I've seen an article criticizing itself ;) Must be why its protected. SudoKing (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Invention

We should possibly have a section about Wikipedians inventing terms and concepts, or splicing them and nuancing them to make as many useless articles as possible. This happens especially in the Humanities and Social Sciences. This irks me, 'cause they get reproduced in places like Answers.com. Examples: Commonwealth realm, federal monarchy, federal republic, List of Canadian monarchs, etc. Topics that are not found in the finest paper encyclopedias! And almighty edit wars erupt over these articles! Btw, it's so refreshing to find a Wikipedia page that is so self-critical and so not up itself!--Gazzster (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any documentation of this particular criticism. If so, then there might be a place for it in the article, otherwise it would be original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators link

In the third paragraph in the section Criticism of Wikipedia#Exposure to vandals, there is a link to Wikipedia:Administrators. According to WP:WAWI, we should make this an external link IF at all, but I don't think we should even have the link. Thoughts? -- Renesis (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia bureaucracy

What we have here is a deliberate attempt to create a wikipedia bureaucracy.
(example: all these unbelievable rules, (endless pages of them),
that no one knows who's making them)
Of course wikipedia is not a free cyclopedia as it claims.
It has owners.
And I don't thing that these things are happening under the owner's nose.

Therefore I think that the blame is on them.


(and please Mr Ass Hole Administrator,
don't delete these comments,
or my account, I beg of you ;)
It won't make you less of an Ass Hole.
Thank you!)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikos papadopoulos (talk • contribs) 19:59, January 17, 2008

1. Calling people "Ass hole" doesn't help solve problems, however personally satisfying it may be.
2. It's false that "no one knows who's making the rules." It's actually quite well-documented.
3. The rules don't make Wikipedia into a bureaucracy, per WP:IAR. Wikipedia is not a system of formal rules, and from what I've seen, those who treat it as such come to grief. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Defensiveness in second sub-section

{{editprotected}}

In the second sub-section after the summary titled "Usefulness as a reference", the first sentence sounds a bit defensive. A) It starts off with the implied tone that it's usefulness is under question, but preempts this questioning with an admission. I propose that, "Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research," should be edited to read: "Many call into question the usefulness of Wikipedia as a reference, in fact Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source of serious research." Or something along those lines, with proper links and citations, of course. (E.g. Citations of such criticisms and a pointer to the page on Wikipedia which makes the acknowledgment.) —Memotype::T 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This sort of change needs to be made after the current dispute is solved and the protection lifted. Editprotected requests should be limited to immediate requests for uncontentious changes, such as adding interwiki links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit, please.

"Jimmy Wales admits that wide variations in quality between different articles and topics is not insignificant"

Double negatives are generally considered bad grammar.

So, can somebody make "not insignificant" simply "significant"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit, because it's unrelated to the dispute for which the page is protected, and it seems entirely reasonable. If this edit is controversial, please revert me, or ask me to revert myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

I'm surprised there's no section on criticism of Wikipedia based upon criticism of the GFDL. 82.36.26.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

oops

I added a link to Wikipedia Review, which, per the talk page, and the oddly protected redirect to its now defunct page, demonstrate that this might be bad. I only added it because it is somewhat well known that Wikipedia Review is responsible for the Essjay controversy. I don't think that that is really disputed by anyone. Anyway, if thats not allowed, then feel free to delete it. I note that their role in the John Seigenthaler Sr. controversy has also been purged. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Err....actually that isn't so, it was DB (the man who had speedy named after him) and not WR. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean Daniel Brandt who posted it on Wikipedia Review on the link? Dyinghappy (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it was deleted. It looks like there are some things you are not allowed to do here. Dyinghappy (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It being deleted doesn't show that; it shows that someone disagreed with your edit. In particular, the person deleting the reference said "blogs aren't reliable sources". If you'd like to reply to that assertion, I think that would be entirely appropriate. Do you think that blogs should be used as reliable sources? In this case? Why or why not? What we absolutely are allowed to do here is discuss. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

External links, redux

I count 38 external links. That's a lot of external links. Odds are, readers aren't going to find the links that are truly useful within the hodge-podge of obscure articles there. Any objection to clearing out many of the links that aren't used as references, particularly those that are relatively insignificant (for example, the boingboing link about Phil Sandifer, which has little to do with 'Criticism of Wikipedia', the articles from a relatively obscure Communist bi-weekly newspaper, the TheTranscript.com article that brings up a blank page for me, etc.) Some are clearly worth keeping -- Seigenthaler, The Onion, etc. -- they might be better as references only, but I wouldn't quibble over them for now.

I'd archive them on this talk page, for future use in references, but as far as I'm concerned, very few of those links are useful outside specific references on specific issues. Any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

COI

To the editor claiming The Register is not a reliable source, on what grounds. it clearly is. On the other hand it isn't acceptable to mention this Maharashi case and so that has not been re-added, but mentioning COI and using The Register is fine. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the RfC a little further up this talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with reliability of Wikipedia

I've thrown some ideas around at talk:reliability of Wikipedia#Article name. I think broadening that article is a good idea, and I've even suggested we might merge it with this under a title like evaluation of Wikipedia. I think it's counterproductive to have articles on closely related subjects, and we certainly don't want to look like we are blowing our own trumpet by having lots of articles about Wikipedia. Having said that, it's just an idea and I realize this is a long article as it is. Also, such an article wouldn't necessitate that this be merged into it; it might just be summarized there with this article going into more detail of criticisms. Richard001 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Perspectives of Wikipedia? MrMurph101 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could go even broader and include evaluation of the editing process as well as the result - i.e. the quality and comprehensiveness of articles. That then starts to overlap with the authorship, administration and policies of Wikipedia. Hmm, it's a tricky thing trying to divide an article up. Personally I thought they should have also kept the Wikipedia community article but expanded it to include the general running of Wikipedia - it's editors, administration and processes/policies; i.e. the things I mentioned above.

Just to keep things clear, let me outline this below:

• Perspectives
  • Evaluation of articles
    • Article quality
      • Reliability/accuracy
    • Comprehensiveness
  • Evaluation of the internal workings that generate articles

For all of these aspects there would be both praise and criticism. We have articles on criticism and on reliability, though the reliability article also discusses comprehensiveness (which is why I think it should be renamed 'quality and comprehensiveness', 'evaluation', or something like that... Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An example

Perhaps some examples should be listed? Look at this article, it has been messed up for more than half a year and it is about something much more important than a Lightsaber. [14]

This coincides with more than two of the criticisms. I am sure there are other examples that would help explain the criticisms of wikipedia. Contralya (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to criticism in the criticism article?

I've noticed that some of the sections detailing specific criticisms contain rebuttals to that criticism. While not all of these defenses of Wikipedia are unsourced and just represent the view of an editor, most are. But I'm not sure that matters, seeing as this page is "Criticism of Wikipedia", not "Criticism and Defense of Wikipedia". In my opinion, if editors want to respond to these criticisms, they should make a new page. People come to Criticism of Wikipedia to see criticisms, not to see "The Whole Story" - as told by Wikipedians. I would say move them to a new page (link from sections if you want to plug your ideas, I guess) or toss them out. Support of Wikipedia does not belong on a page titled "Criticism of Wikipedia". Hope to hear your thoughts on the matter. 67.167.120.36 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary for the broader meaning of the term "criticism," and consider that several Wikipedia guideline pages call for an NPOV approach and a variety of views on a subject, as long as they can be properly sourced.--Cberlet (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that 98% of the time, the word criticism carries with it a negative connotation. If people perceived the word criticism as you would have them, it would carry the exact same meaning as "analysis". But they do not, and true as it may be that criticism does not mean analysis in an exclusively negative light, most people see the opposite of criticism as praise. I would just tell editors of this page to play it safe when addressing the criticisms which obviously concern them, it's not exactly a fair fight for the critics.Beepboop77 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Satire sentence removed

I see that with this edit, the sentence on satire in the "Humorous criticism" section of the article, which mentioned both Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been removed with the edit summary "Sentence does not really seem to make much sense". Given that the reference to Encyclopedia Dramatica (the only remaining reference in mainspace) survived for 5.5 months after this edit, and in light of the recent DRV of ED, could this be discussed here? Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit has now been reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [15] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

quality of writing on Wikipedia

I am a bit surprised and disappointed to see that one of the most common (and in my opinion, important) criticisms of Wikipedia is not even mentioned on this discussion page, namely that the writing is often of extremely poor quality. I notice that "waffling prose and antiquarianism" (an oddly Victorian turn of phrase which might invite the criticism of . . . well, waffling prose and antiquarianism) is included, but that isn't really the point. One advantage that traditional encyclopaedias have over Wikipedia is the relatively uniform and generally conscientious application of certain minimal standards in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. While many Wikipedia articles are very well written and literate, an alarmingly high number are not. Am I alone in thinking this? Am I wrong? If I am, I won't mention it again and you can delete this comment as irrelevant. Just a small thought by way of constructive criticism. Mardiste 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't support deleting comments because they're irrelevant or wrong, and I think consensus is with me on this. We need to have sources in order to add more criticism to the article. It must be published somewhere, as in a magazine or newspaper, because Wikipedia doesn't provide unverifiable content. A.Z. 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an applicable quote from, guess who, Andrew Orlowski on the general problem of poor writing in Wikipedia. I added it to the "waffling prose and antiquarianism" section as a generalization of what Rosenzweig said about WP's history articles. By the way, I personally think the overall quality of WP writing is much better than Rosenzweig and Orlowski concede. Casey Abell 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that while the main articles are normally, but not always, well written, the Discussion forum contains very many contributions that show a lamentable lack of education on the part of the authors. This manifests itself, inter alia, in poor grammar, spelling and punctuation. I have also found that "uncomfortable" comments on my part have been deleted, sometimes with accusations of trolling, whilst semi-literate, racist and sectarian entries have been allowed to remain. I'm hoping to join Citizendium, which seems to be a more scholarly forum. Millbanks 09:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with about the quality of the forum entries. I've found myself mis-spelling words and omitting minor ones altogether. The main articles get refined and move towards perfection while the discussion sections are left alone almost completely so as to maintain an accurate history of the discussion, and to help know who said what? I'll grant you there are more scholarly places to be, but what works? Citizendium has an Alexa rank of 95,323 while WP is around 9th. I am still predicting that the two will merge some day. Nanabozho 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that Wikipedia's writing quality is so poorly thought of. I usually find that it's very well edited, organized, and coherent. Could somebody point out an article that's poorly written for my reference? Quantumelfmage (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Current scandal

Is there a particular reason why story is not referenced in the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

404 - Page Not Found? WODUP 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link worked OK on the day I pasted it. "Wiki boss 'edited for donation'" BBC News online (www.bbc.co.uk) Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 10:27 GMT. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have seen this earlier. The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7291382.stm. WODUP 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Any answers yet? Thanks.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned and linked to here Jimmy Wales#Wikimedia_Foundation, probably the most appropriate place for it as it more relates to Jimmy Wales than wikipedia as a whole. Though you could be bold and add in a bit here. GameKeeper (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Encyclopedia Dramatica an "anti-wikipedia fansite"?

It isn't, and just because some guy from New York Times called it that does not make it so. It's a website that catalogs and satirizes internet culture and drama, and Wikipedia is certainly targetted often in that regard, but there's so much more to the site. Shouldn't this line be rephrased? Perhaps it should just say... Satire also exists in the form of parody encyclopedias such as Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Thoughts? Caleb462 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Actually the NYT calls it a "Wikipedia anti-fansite" which might or might not be subtly different from what we've got. I think calling it a satirical or parody wiki is probably a safe description that's true to the source and to reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When I added it, I chose that wording just to conform to the source as much as possible. Given the amount of ED-phobia around here I was trying to give the least possible grounds for a hater trying to remove it. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but like GTBacchus said, I think the rephrasing is both true to the source and true to reality. I don't think anyone could make a solid argument for removing it. 67.33.214.249 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. The article for the site was deleted [16], [17] and later salted. It's an attack site, and it does not deserve attention. Greswik (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion it does not deserve mention in this article. It is referenced per WP:RS and WP:V policies.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to what policy we can't mention ED in the article. This is a case of I don't like it.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Our not having an article on them has nothing to do with "I don't like it". I happen to like ED, and I'm against it having an article here, because there is no coverage in multiple independent sources on which to base such an article. It fails WP:WEB, pure and simple. Just as "I don't like it" is invalid, so is "you don't like it and that's why you're against it". None of this has anything to do with what anyone likes, nor with where anyone edits, nor with what anyone's motivations are. It has purely to do with the fact that our mission is to build a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, based on reliable sources.

All of that said, it's false that "according to policy we can't mention ED in this article." The mention in this article was cited to the New York Times. It's not anything on which to base an entire article, but mentioning it in this article could make sense. The question would be whether we're doing original research by including what the NYT called a "Wikipedia anti-fansite" under "Humorous criticism". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When I tried disussing this on your talk-page, you just reverted it away- just like you have reverted anyone ever trying to talk to you, except for the welcome-message. When it comes to why I removed it: I certainly gave other reasons than " I don't like it". I gave the reason it has been deleted after a massive debate,( despite what seemed like massive sock-puppetry and COI-editing from it's followers), as a non-notable and as an attack-site. As long as that decision stands, I don't have to explain why is it a non-notable attack-site. And this is very far above "I don't like it". Greswik (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now JzG has joined the edit war over this; first he reverted me with a completely false assertion that I was a member of ED, and then he reverted again with "Revert deliberate WP:POINT addition. Note that the site violates privacy by log harvesting etc." This is a total non-sequitir; how does this relate in any way to the fact that it's a parody encyclopedia that has been mentioned in a NY Times article on Wikipedia? I'm not going to revert any more (I try to stick to 2RR myself), but I find the reasoning behind reverting me to be totally bogus. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ever has seen this ED, you may have noticed it seems to be used by people to piss on girls they have been with and who has left them- this was at least the impression I got. That kind of things. It is a disgusting attack-site. It is not a parody in any good sense, allthough a troll-mirror also is a parody in one meaning of the word.Greswik (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article Criticism of Wikipedia. If you'd like to talk about your feelings about unrelated websites, there's a whole Internet out there. Thanks for understanding. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I thought some of the wiki related articles were rather funny. It seesm rather immature or insecure not to have an article on ED. Greglocock (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's neither immature nor insecure; it's policy-based. If they were the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, we would have an article on them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some males on the Internet who seem to think that taking out their dicks and whacking them on their keyboard proves that they are real men. I call it TMS...Testosterone Madness Syndrome. It is sad in a vestigal sense, but not really funny. --Cberlet (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this comment contribute to the discussion? If you're just stepping in to be vulgar, please leave. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It contributes to the discussion because aggressive bullies, shameless gossips, and crackpot conspiracy theorists are impeding the ability of 99% of Wikipedia editors, across the political spectrum, to edit entries. I have been able to edit articles with editors diametrically opposed to my political views. II have even edited pages along with neonazis, and we worked to creat a better entry. But it is an utter waste of time to deal with rumor-mongerers and self-impressed critics who spew nothing but venom. Feel free to find another website that values whining cranks and thugs. --Cberlet (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not arguing for "valuing cranks and thugs". I'm arguing against making moral arguments over encyclopedic issues. It's irrelevant, it muddies the waters, and it undermines our credibility when we claim to be committed to neutrality above all. You can't show that name-calling is wrong by calling name-callers names; you do it by setting an example of refraining from name calling. Don't stoop to; rise above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "it is an utter waste of time to deal with rumor-mongerers, etc". That's why I'm arguing against stirring up shit by making it look as if we're dealing with it somehow personally. That's a bad idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. So we take a dispasisonate view: does ED contain authoritative, respectable, well-reasoned critique? Answer: not hardly. It contains sophomoric trolling. If we had an article on sophomoric trolling it might be a source, but as a source for crioticism of Wikipedia it abjectly fails WP:RS, and that's how it should be judged. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And Uncyclopedia does? Im personally in favor of having a page for ED because its just as funny and note worthy as the aforementioned satire and it actually goes a bit farther most times (where actually Uncyclopedia is rather tame), some may find it offensive but usually people digg things that take it to the next level, make it funnier...id est the Brasseye 2001 pædophile special, that was crazy but the only people that complained were repressed middle class types, old people and politicians that even admited they hadnt eveen seen it but heard about and ergo were totally against it. ED is just as noteworthy as Uncyclopedia, imo, it maybe isnt as popular...not being part of the wiki foundation and all... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the implementation, or criticism of policies

What about criticism not of the concept, nor of the contributors, but simply of the implementation, which the policies are descriptive of? Feel free to rename that new section. 129.174.91.115 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberal bias section

This section has several problems. First of all, it is entitled "liberal bias" when there is no evidence presented to show that allegations of liberal bias is more common than claims of bias towards other ideologies such as libertarianism. Secondly, the sources are a bit poor, with much of the section taken up by results of a survey relying on self-identification. I'm not quite sure how to fix this section ATM, so i'm raising it here rather than diving striaght in. Lurker (said · done) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fair point, although the extreme conservatives are probably more outspoken in calling bias. My own view is that this is a natural consequence of our ties to the free software movement coupled with the fact that Wikipedia has a global reach, and the centre of US politics is to the right of that of most Western democracies. A self-selected survey is a poor source. Are there secondary sources to support this criticism? Conservapedia's list of alleged bias is hilarious, but of absolutely no provable worth. No articles on prominent conservatives? {{sofixit}}. Nobody cares. And it's hardly a surprise that the ID movement would consider Wikipedia biased - they think that the Anglican communion is a dangerously liberal organisatioon, and consider that any POV other than biblical inerrancy is in and of itself biased. Actually I've been told by some conservative evangelicals that to quote any version of the Bible other than the King James is tantamount to heresy. I don't see how that reflects on us rather than them, though. I wonder if there is a better source for this section than conservative Wikipedians, which appears to be all it has right now? Guy (Help!) 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I have met many fundamentalist Christians who think Catholics are satanic atheists or devil worshippers and should be jailed, deported or executed. And Jews...jews..., or homosexuals... well in those cases their sentiments are much much worse. As for other faiths, well, they are so seething with anger about them they can hardly even acknowledge they exist. And these people are positive that if Wikipedia does not support their personal views and agendas, it is has a horrible liberal bias. Anyone who says the holocaust is real is a terrible horrible liberal. Anyone who says the end of slavery was a good thing is an evil liberal. And on and on and on... So what does one do?--Filll (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One avoids accusations of bias by citing everything to reliable sources. As for what we do in this article, we make note of criticisms that have received attention in sources. What else is there to do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the thing to do is exactly that. The Conservapedia comments look like original research - some editor has noted that Conservapedia criticises Wikipedia. Where's the secondary source? It's a great test. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• "New York attorney Andrew Schlafly — son of the conservative anti-feminist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly — was an early Wikipedia enthusiast, but he says that long ago he began to notice a pronounced liberal bias among the site’s editors. So last fall Schlafly launched his own open-source reference site, Conservapedia. It mimics the self-correcting methods of the bigger site while achieving, in Schlafly’s view, “what Wikipedia says they are trying to do but actually don’t do.”" nytimes
• "Conservapedia, that propagandist endeavor designed to undermine Wikipedia's allegedly liberal bias?" [18]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WAS, that has the makings of a much better paragraph than we currently have on it. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what people are upset about. Conservapedia exists, as do hundreds of other wikis. If people do not like Wikipedia principles and the articles they lead to, then they will go to these other wikis. Let the market decide.--Filll (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's upset? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, but there's the rub. I know I want Wikipedia to be the opposite of that wiki that shall not be named, but not on a partisan scale. The reason I detest that "c"pedia is because it is all about preaching to the choir and only allowing the views that it endorses. I don't believe this 'liberal bias' #@$% in the simplistic way critics use it, but I definitely don't want to let "the market decide" especially since we don't have to- as wikipedia is free, we can try to avoid that. Epthorn (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be unproblematic to state that conservative evangelical Christians consider Wikipedia to have a liberal bias, and cite third-party discussion of Schlafly et. al. as a source, I think. It's clearly wrong to assert or imply that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, just because some particularly illiberal people say so. In many cases both sides accuse our content of being biased towards the other, which is a good sign :-) Guy (Help!) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to let "the market decide" especially since we don't have to. I am afraid you are not understanding. And we have no choice but to let the market decide. If people prefer some other wiki written according to other principles, then it will become more popular. And we cannot stop it.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disgree. Tricks, such as pro-WP employees at google, and socks at CP, can help ensure that WP stays on top for reasons other than market. Now, if google is displaced, that is another story. Ra2007 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. So you claim that the high ranking of many WP articles in Google searches is due to the employees of google biasing the results of the searches? And you claim you personally know the secret techniques Google uses to rank its search results? Wow. And you are bearing some sort of grudge over a Certainty Principle article that was AfDed 18 months ago? A quick search with google does not show much notable about the CP. When you make these sorts of claims, there is a tendency to relegate you into the category of assorted cranks. I cannot take any of this kind of nonsense seriously; and maybe you do not either, and you are just joking. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Systems employees responsible for specifying ranking algorithms certainly are involved; whether or not they realize it is a fair question, I suppose. I think some of them do. Certainly, WP games google with portals and the like. Ra2007 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims about google are irrelevant unless you have a reliable source that reports these claims. 69.37.94.152 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' for the line 'The study was criticized as "very basic" and not "representative" due to its reliance on self-identifications by a small number of Wikipedia contributors' is from a open comment posted by a Wikipedia editor. If that doesn't violate at least WP:NOR, I would be shocked. Maybe a real source? Biccat (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the line for the reason discussed above. I'm not saying that such criticism is inappropriate, but the source is not a valid reference. Biccat (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and google

To respond to 69.37.94.152 above, here are some possible sources:"PageRank seems to favor Wikipedia pages, often putting them high or at the top of searches for several encyclopedic topics.", Would it surprise or dismay anyone if Google actually explicitly tweaked its algorithm to favor Wikipedia as a source of information? (By Greg L), As a result of Markov theory, it can be shown that the PageRank of a page is the probability of being at that page after lots of clicks. This happens to equal t − 1 where t is the expectation of the number of clicks (or random jumps) required to get from the page back to itself. The main disadvantage is that it favors older pages, because a new page, even a very good one, will not have many links unless it is part of an existing site (a site being a densely connected set of pages, such as Wikipedia). Ra2007 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, intentional or coincidence, wikilinking, portals, etc., favor wikipedia. I'll keep looking for sources to this simple observation. Ra2007 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

other links:

• "While everyone has noticed Wikipedia dominating Google’s search results, this is a little outrageous. After grabbing 600 random pages from Wikipedia (using their special:random link), I conducted searches in Google for each of the titles of the Wikipedia entries. Out of the 600, 580 were in the top 10."
• "Most material written today was in some way based on Google and Wikipedia - and if those did not reflect reality, a distortion was possible, the researchers said, recalling biased contributions frequently placed on Wikipedia."
• "Furthermore there is some indication of cooperation between Google and Wikipedia. Sample statistics showed that randomly selected Wiki entries consistently ranked higher on Google than on other search engines, the Graz team said." December 5, 2007 (TheAge.com.au)

Signing....Ra2007 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovely bit of conspiracy theory, but fails occam's razor. Wikipedia gets so many millions of hits per day and has so many inbound links that any ranking algorithm is going to put Wikipedia right near the top. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy or coincidence, failing occam's razor doesn't preclude the use of these sources, does it? Ra2007 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia/porn controversy

These sources were previously removed from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions [19] but could be useful in this article. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Schilling, Chelsea (2008-05-06). [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 "Is Wikipedia wicked porn? - Online encyclopedia proudly posts graphic sexual images kids can see"]. WorldNetDaily. www.wnd.com. Retrieved 2008-05-09. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Concerned Women for America (2008-05-07). "Wikipedia Peddles Porn to Kids". Christian Newswire. christiannewswire.com. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• "1976 Scorpions Album Cover Being Investigated by FBI for Child Porn". The Gauntlet. www.thegauntlet.com. 2008-05-08. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• Watson, Frank (2008-05-08). "FBI Hot For 'Wikipedophilia'". Search Engine Watch. Incisive Interactive Marketing LLC. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• "Slow On The Uptake: 32-Year-Old Scorpions Album Cover Inspires FBI Frenzy". Idolator. idolator.com. 2008-05-08. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• Thiessen, Brock (2008-05-08). "Exclaim News: FBI Investigating Controversial Scorpions Album Cover". Exclaim News. www.exclaim.ca. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• Aleo-Carreira, Cyndy (2008-05-08). "Wikimedia, Meet the U.S. Government". Profy.Com. www.profy.com. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• Schilling, Chelsea (2008-05-08). [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63770 "Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action: Editors discuss whether to remove image, discovered by WND, investigated by FBI"]. WorldNetDaily. worldnetdaily.com. Retrieved 2008-05-09. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Butts, Charlie (2008-05-09). "Wikipedia under fire for posting porn". OneNewsNow.com. www.onenewsnow.com. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
• "Opinion: Our View - Saturday - WIKIPORNIA: SITE HOSTS KID PORN - Wikipedia must remove 'Virgin Killer' photo". Colorado Springs Gazette. gazette.com. 2008-05-10. Retrieved 2008-05-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Usefulness as a reference

I edited the intro to read Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research. I certainly hope I read the reference correctly. Asav (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may acknowledge the fact it shouldn't be used for "serious" research. Yet Wikipedia has been compared equal to Encyclopedia Britannica. If serious research can use Britannica, why not Wikipedia? And if that, whats the whole point of criticizing Wikipedia if is basically the same as Encyclopedia Britannica? Just putting that out there. --SpartaGeek23 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It "has been compared" to Britannica only in a few unscientific "studies", whose flaws are easily shown. People have been fooled because one such appeared in Nature, the only case of a serious magazine making this absurd claim, yet it was basically an editorial and not peer-reviewed like the rest of the magazine. Other similar studies have only appeared in popular magazines like Stern (famous for its Hitler diaries), which don't have the necessary intellectual standing to begin with. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't my original point. I was merely wondering if I had read the reference right, not making any statement as to WP's usefulness or reliability. Still, to (partly) answer your question, the difference between WP and EB for (academic) research ought to be obvious: The EB contains signed articles by academically verifiable authors, i.e. you can judge an individual article by the standing its author has. You can do no such thing with any contribution to WP. Asav (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article too long: let's split it

The largest section of this article is "criticism of the wiki model" as a means of organizing information. This is an excellent and encyclopedic topic. I think it would be fine to give that its own article, summarize it here, and let the criticism of Wikipedia's implementation and culture expand accordingly. Shii (tock) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms in articles about critics

How much coverage of crticisms of Wikipedia is appropriate in articles about the critics? A "Racialist"/"White separatist" mostly-online magazine, American Renaissance (magazine), has critiqued its coverage in Wikipedia.[20] Is this notable and to what extent? Is it excessively self-referential? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A short mention should be OK in most cases. The long text at American_Renaissance (magazine) may be too much for such a short article. What is missing from that article are viewpoints other than the magazine itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, it shouldn't be mentioned, per WP:WAWI (ask if "Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article") and WP:UNDUE ("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 Wikipedia 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, John Seigenthaler, Sr. passes this test. Regards, HaeB (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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? Achromatic (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

no, elitism 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. Good friend100 (talk) 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 Wikipedia as well. Without turning to analysis at the end of the section, which would be original research, I'm not clear what the alternative might be. For the most part the facts should speak for themselves and readers can draw their own conclusions, but certainly there's plenty of room for a good old-fashioned copyedit. Debate 木 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy with the Authors and Readers of Webcomics

A frequently cited criticism of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia has become too hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: do we include everything or just some things? Do we strive to "provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica [are] 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)

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 'Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)
• I think this becoming an important issue as Wikipedia ages and solidifies. It is extremely common for an even slightly controversial edit by a new contributor to be immediately removed and slapped with the vandalism template, even when, as in a recent contribution of mine under a new username, there is justifying discussion entered in a relevant section on the talk page. Practically everything my college students do in the first weeks of their assignment to "participate" meets with this insulting fate. (I also agree with Shnakepup that posting somewhere else to be able to cite it as third-party publication to meet NPOV principles is unethical.)--Dupea (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Efeito Eric Von Daniken

(acho que errei o lugar da discussão , desculpem)

A wikipédia (com acento porque é) lusofana e suas dependencias, tomaram um rumo muito parecido com o efeito previsto nas teorias do escritor de ficção cientifica Eric Von Daniken, Eram os Deuses Astronautas? , no caso , o Walles seria mais ainda seria o criador do mundo dessas pessoas o que na verdade é ou esta sendo, só que eles pensam que a Wikipedia é algo que caiu do céu.

Mas o causador desse efeito, mais pronunciado no meio ambiente wipediano, se deve não aos editores e sim a um bando de pseudo-s/intelectuais que nada fazem a não ser abelhar. Esses divinos emissários, organizaram um esquema de vigilância tão apertado, que até Criador do céu deles o Jimmy Wales, caso um dia resolvesse editar em águas lusófonas, seria imediatamente expulso (chamado de vândalo, bloqueado e seu IP cassado ) sem clemência , um fato que não seria bem visto por tratar-se um sacrilégio contra o criador.

Nesse sentido, tudo indica que a Wikipédia chegou ao seu clímax da informação, o que vier agora será no sentido de compactar a informação o que fatalmente incorrerá na equiparação de um enciclopédia convencional e uma enciclopédia assim existem inúmeros no comercio. Portanto é preciso agora, é o Jimmy Wales mandar congelar todas as wikis, antes que o mal se alastre e tome conta até delo o criador ou seja torne-o um vendedor de Softs (exatamente igual ao da Enciclopédias britânicas) correndo o risco de ser preso como pirataria.

Portanto, seria interessante, financeiramente ao Jimmy Wales, que ele vendesse, imediatamente, todos os domínios para alguma organização internacional (algo como 2.000.000.000 de euros +_acho que vale) e depois (com alguns cruzados amassados), pagasse a policia local daqui, no sentido de ocupar esse bando de patrulheiros “que já sentem os imortais brasileiros" encaminhando- para higienização das privadas nos presídios e também para não ficarem a sua cola, atazanando os seus passos (procurando saber com que mulher assim assim anda saindo ou coisas parecidas).

Na esperança se ser compreendido, afinal a criação é dele, desde já agradeço atenção e aproveito para apresentar minhas cordiais saudações.

atenciosamente,

Wilson Simão.

Nota; Posso agenciar a venda, conheço alguns interessados.

Se permitirem? meu email é simaowilson@bol.com.br HO249 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Someone sent to OTRS this photo Image:Wikipedia doesn't have all the answers.jpg which he saw at a church in Western Australia. I thought it might fit in this article, but wasn't exactly sure the best place for it. Anyone else thinks this works? howcheng {chat} 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that adding this picture it's appropriate in the context of the article. The same criticism can be leveled (from the church perspective) against any scientific endeavor; they've only named Wikipedia due it's popularity. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has too many sections and some of them are overlapping

This makes it quite hard to follow. I will try to group related criticism together. Please join in this effort. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article itself is an argument for the issues raised under "quality concerns"! VasileGaburici (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the top-level structure

The concept/implementation dichotomy reminds me of the discussion whether communism could work in theory. You cannot really distinguish the "theory" of Wikipedia from its implementation. VasileGaburici (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This article abuses Wikispeak

It uses the Wikipedia definitions of "anonymity" and "vandal" instead of the English dictionary ones. This page should be written for a wide audience, not just for wikicrats.

• wiki-anonymous == unregistered user; anonymous == not using his/her real name.
• wiki-vandal == anyone trying to subvert the project, including subtle subversion; vandal == someone who willfully destroys or defaces

wiki-anonymous is narrower than anonymous. vandal is (far) narrower than wiki-vandal.

I will address both issues. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the problem. Non-Wikipedians can easily figure out the jargon "anonymity" and "vandal". "Verifiability" and "original research" differs more from the usual meaning. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not when the same section of paragraph uses one of the terms with both meanings, and provides no disambiguation or explanation. Some straw man arguments played exactly on this ambiguity! VasileGaburici (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: My comment was with respect to "anonymous" and "vandal". I did not find "verifiability" and "original research" to be confusing as they are used in this article, but if you do, I'm certainly not opposed to a more precise explanation of the terminology. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Other measures for reducing the length of this article

• Removing redundant coverage of some stories
  • I've removed what The Register had to say about the Nature study because it was simply repeating Britannica's position, albeit with more aplomb. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "use of dubious sources" section because it had no citations of Wikipedia using dubious sources (although I'm sure such articles exist). The section actually contained more of "lack of authority" criticism. It had a quote which said Wikipedia prefers to cite on-line material. But most academic stuff is on-line today, so on-line hardly equals "dubious". VasileGaburici (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "internet memes" paragraph since it was only backed up by a blog. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed David Gerard's opinion on WP:N since it was expressed on his blog. If he's Wikipedia spokesperson (as his user page seems to indicate), I'm sure someone can find an official press release to link to. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Moving stories to other pages
  • I've moved the Dartmouth paper coverage to Reliability of Wikipedia because (i) the paper was nowhere near as prominent as the Nature study, and (ii) the criticism of the Dartmouth paper itself was present in this article, but missing on Reliability of Wikipedia, which is supposed to an expanded version of the "accuracy" section, so we had a WP:CFORK. VasileGaburici (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)