Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Diamond-caution.svg
Note: This is the Talk page for the Wikipedia article on external criticisms of Wikipedia. Users interested in discussing their own problems with the project should go to the Village Pump where there are specific sections for dealing with various issues.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
  • Flesh lead out a bit - an extremely long article should have a large lead.
  • Add more images
Diamond-caution.svg
For critical examination of Wikipedia by Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005 (40 science articles) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-31/Guardian rates articles (7 articles of general interest).

Article on Wikipedia in the Harvard Educational Review[edit]

This article may be related to this page:

Fall 2009 Issue of the Harvard Educational Review

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

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

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

"he/she thinks Wikipedia has free expression views"[edit]

I noticed this confusing phrase in the article's lead section. What idea is it intended to convey? Jarble (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone changed the sentence, and I since removed it. --Chealer (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has completely wrong lede[edit]

The lede must be 100% rewritten.

  • There is no standard intro sentence. Currently it is an intro sentence for the "Wikipedia" article.
  • The rest is a chaotic collection of individual quotations. Instead, it must be a summary of the major areas of criticism, taken, eg. from the TOC. Individual opinions must be moved into the corresponding sections.

Unfortunately I cannot undertake the job myself (and of course, this major rewrite of the lede requires consensus, or at least the hand of an experienced old-timer.) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Several parts of this article (including the lede section) were extensively modified by User:Bigbaby23 in 2014 and 2015. Should the lead section be restored to its original state? Jarble (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know which lede version you call "original" (surely not this one :-) . No, It must be written from scratch. Wikipedians can summarize numerous RS when writing regular and controversial articles. Surely they (we) can summarize this page just as well. The only hurdle is to resist temptation to add something catchy in the lede which is not in the main body yet and "do the right thing". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the lede was in a very bad shape. I did not rewrite it 100%, but I fully revised it and fixed many problems. The first paragraph was more delicate - I revised it too, but further improvement there is very likely achievable. --Chealer (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wrote the first paragraph with the sole goal to show how the intro is supposed to look like. Of course, further improvement is always possible (as well as screwing things up again :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This was partly undone by User:Moxy, who restored a broken sentence without providing a sensical explanation for doing so. --Chealer (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Was the edit summary that undue was not part of policy that caused a revert ...statements like this will lead most to believe the editor in-question is not familiar with our basic policies. That said is it more clear to you now?? -- Moxy (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The edit summary said there was no "Undue Weight policy", not that "undue was not part of policy". That said, yes, the new version is no longer misleading in that fragment following User:Starship.paint's edit. --Chealer (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MIT Handbook in Lede[edit]

The Academic Integrity at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: 'Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: ..."
I fail to see how it is criticism: it is a repetition of what Wikipedia says itself about its normal operation. Wikipedia never claimed it is an ultimate Academic Source (unlike some of its rip-offs, such as a super-duper "most definite" "World Heritage Encyclopedia"). At best, it is a criticism of lazy ctrl-C-ctrl-V students. While this factoid may find place in the section "Accuracy", IMO this lengthy quotation does not belong to lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

New section on the treatment of extremely controversial subjects and topics by Wikipedia?[edit]

I think there should be a new section on how subjects and topics that are extremely controversial are treated by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talkcontribs)

Have any reliable sources you can suggest? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure where to find these reliable sources. Frogger48 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to "Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia"[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians, should this article include a link to Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia, as inserted in this reverted edit[1]? Per WP:BRD, lets discuss. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Section on COI editing is very sparse; a single sentence consisting of one quote from Business Insider. Addition of the link provides easy access to readers looking for additional information on this topic. Article already contains a number of Main Article: or See also: links for other sections. It is also suggested that this COI section be expanded to include a summary of the information at Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's clearly relevant, and useful information that readers may wish to pursue further. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As there appears to be no disagreement to adding the link, I am now doing so, as a Template:Main, to match the majority of other links on the page. The invitation for editors to articulate reasons for or against the addition here remains, of course, open. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So I don't know if this has already been covered, but is there anything about Wikipedia only being able to use interpretations?[edit]

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html

He says that Wikipedia only does "Verifiability, not Truth"

147.215.1.189 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The current policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. There's also an essay about "verifiability, not truth". Mindmatrix 13:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you have in mind by saying "only being able to use interpretations". As it stands, it is a false statement. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In the linked Slate article, the statement "Without any reliable sources saying otherwise, Wikipedia had no choice but to say that the case was finished, " - is also false. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously out of date[edit]

This article, despite presumably being one of those more often read on Wikipedia, is seriously out of date - almost all of the quotations and publications are from 5 to 10 years ago. (Which is not to say they aren't still relevant, but what's happened since then?) Ben Finn (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Racial bias on Wikipedia[edit]

Per arguments made in AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racial_Discrimination_On_Wikipedia Padenton|   18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Pinging all editors from AfD. @NawlinWiki, CrazyAces489, ABCDEFAD, Joseph2302, Bosstopher, EvergreenFir, and Winner 42: @Davey2010, Lukeno94, Niteshift36, NinjaRobotPirate, Dai Pritchard, and Vanjagenije: Padenton|   18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer separate - This article is already close to being WP:TOOLONG (Prose size (text only): 43 kB (6763 words)) and the Racial bias on Wikipedia article seems solid/sourced enough to stand on its own. Criticism on Wikipedia is quite ... disjointed? or perhaps trying to cover too much at once and so there's a lot of topics covered briefly and I worry that adding a substantial section like this would exacerbate that. That said, I'm not terribly opposed to a merge either. PS - Thanks for the ping Padenton!EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article not only details criticism of racial bias of wikipedia, but attempts to discern its origins and describes ways in which people are combating it. It is not just a simple subset of the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Also as already mentioned in the AfD the Criticism of Wikipedia article is ridiculously long as it already is, and cramming more stuff into it is not a good idea.Bosstopher (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per my arguments in the AfD. 43 kB isn't really that excessive; it's still shorter than, say Criticism of Microsoft (48-49kB) or Criticism of Apple Inc. (85kB, something I would say is too long). Compared to Criticism of Facebook, which is grossly oversized at nearly 170kB, it's relatively tiny. Quite frankly, given the sweeping nature of some of the prose in the Racial bias article, it needs a lot more sources to be valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose Prefer sseparate as per EvergreenFir. If sourcing is the issue many sources are already in existence in previous versions of the article.

"Wikipedia editing disputes: The crowdsourced encyclopedia has become a rancorous, sexist mess.". Slate Magazine. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia". WIRED. Jump up ^ "Why is Wikipedia so sexist?". New York Post. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Bustle". bustle.com. Jump up ^ Deanna Zandt (26 April 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You". Forbes. ^ Jump up to: a b http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=0 ^ Jump up to: a b "Sexism". The Other Sociologist - Analysis of Difference... By Dr Zuleyka Zevallos. Jump up ^ Amanda Filipacchi (30 April 2013). "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'". The Atlantic. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?". Co.Exist. ^ Jump up to: a b c examiner.com/article/leading-wikipedian-explains-why-blacks-don-t-volunteer Jump up ^ "PEOPLE v. BAUDER". Findlaw. Jump up ^ "Wikipedia's edit wars and the eight religious pages people can't stop editing". ncronline.org. ^ Jump up to: a b "Wikipedia editing disputes: The crowdsourced encyclopedia has become a rancorous, sexist mess.". Slate Magazine. ^ Jump up to: a b "The 'Five Horsemen' Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims - ThinkProgress". ThinkProgress. Jump up ^ "Editors to Make Black History Wikipedia Entries More Inclusive - Essence.com". Essence.com. Jump up ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/us/at-howard-a-historically-black-university-filling-in-wikipedias-gaps-in-color.html?_r=0 Jump up ^ "Growing Army Of Women Take On Wikipedia - Business Insider". Business Insider. 15 February 2014. Jump up ^ https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/23/telling-untold-stories-african-americans-stem ^ Jump up to: a b "Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia". philly-archives. Jump up ^ "Can ‘Black Wikipedia’ Take Off Like ‘Black Twitter’?". COLORLINES. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of those were removed for a reason. e.g. ThinkProgress and even far worse, Examiner.com. ― Padenton|   22:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This article isn't too long. It makes complete sense to put it here, along with the other common criticisms, than to put a paragraph and a hatnote here that goes to another location. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments at the AFD - "Admittingly Criticism of Wikipedia is long but personally I don't think we need articles on every detail here so why not shove it there instead". –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Racial bias on Wikipedia is a topic that merits its own page that goes into details...that would be purged in this article. -- Moxy (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)