Wikipedia:Criticism

This essay is about material that emphasizes negative criticism. For criticism of Wikipedia see Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Criticisms.

Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia, but when incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material should be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism. When the negative material concerns living persons, special care must be taken, as prescribed by the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

Adhere to policy

Neutrality and verifiability

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

• Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources
• Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it
• Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance
• When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice
• Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section

Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies"

There may be times when critical material should be presented in a dedicated "Criticism" or "Response" section within an article, but entire articles dedicated to Criticism are discouraged. Articles dedicated to negative material may be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited. Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product).

When the sources indicate that a section should be devoted to third-party opinions on a topic, avoid using the term "criticism" in the section title. Although the word "criticism" can sometimes encompass both positive and negative assessments, often carries a negative connotation. Alternative words, such as "evaluation," "review," "critique," or "assessment" have a similar meaning as "criticism", but without the negative implications. The word "reception" is a neutral term that is often used in section titles in articles about books and films. The term "criticism" may be appropriate if it is commonly used by the sources which discuss the topic. Likewise, sections or articles dedicated to "controversies" should be avoided.

When an article gets too large

The best approach to including negative criticisms is to integrate it into the primary article on the topic. Sometimes that may cause the article to get too large, in which case the article should be split, using the guidance on splitting the article can be found in the WP splitting guideline. The preferred way to split an article is as a content fork into sub-articles, using a "main" template to link to the new sub-articles. Subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific points-of-view – instead sub-articles should focus on topical themes. A sub-article of a literary topic may be devoted to critical reception, provided that both positive and negative reception is incorporated into the sub-article in a balanced manner.

Subject matter

Living persons

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation, therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information. See Biographies of living persons for details.

Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics which inherently represent a point of view, the ideal approach of integrating negative criticism within the primary article may not be the best approach. For example, topics such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism) are topics that are inherently about a particular viewpoint. Integrating negative criticism into those articles can sometimes result in confusion: readers may not be able to discern the difference between what adherents believe versus what critics assert. For these reasons, such articles often include dedicated "Criticism" sections or "Criticism of .." subarticles.

Organizations and corporations

Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If the sources treat these topics independently, that may result in sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism. For example, the sources that discuss the 2008 Summer Olympics often describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic. But the main article is very long and therefore it is not practical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article. Thus, the summary style guideline was used to create a sub-article Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the main article contains a small summary overview of the controversies.

Approaches to presenting criticism

The approaches to incorporating negative criticism in to the encyclopedia are as follows, listed from most desirable to least desirable:

Approach	Description	Examples
Integrated	The ideal approach is to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section.	Abortion, Slavery, PETA, George Soros, Bill O'Reilly
"Reception" section	With this approach, the article contains a section dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic. The section should not use a negative title like "Criticism" or "Controversies" but instead should use a more neutral term such as "Reception", "Assessment", "Reviews", "Influence", or "Response". This approach is often found in articles on books or other works of art.	Catcher in the Rye, In Search of Lost Time (book), 2001 (film)
"Criticism" section	In this approach, the article contains a section which focuses only on negative criticisms. This approach is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics. Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints.	World bank, Existentialism, Planned Parenthood, Materialism, Exxon, Oracle, Eugenics, Creationism
"Reception" article	This approach employs a separate article that includes both positive and negative viewpoints. This approach is often taken when the primary article on a literary topic grows too large and is subject to a content fork.	Reception of WikiLeaks, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Shakespeare's reputation, Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche, Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case,
"Criticism of ..." article	This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint. Some organizations and corporations also have controversy or criticism sub-articles, but in those situations, the sources must support such a dedicated sub-article. In all cases, the article must be written neutrally and must not be a POV fork.	Philosophy/Politics/Religion - Criticisms of Marxism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of religion, Criticism of multiculturalism, Criticism of the War on Terror, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Libertarianism Organizations - Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the United Nations, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of Coca-Cola, Criticism of Microsoft, 2008 Olympics controversies, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

Integrated throughout the article

The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic.

"Reception" or "Response" section

Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic. Conceivably, per Wikipedia:SUMMARY, eventually all major topics would one day have reception articles. Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions"; "Studies and reception history"; etc. "Critical reception" may be preferred in some cases so as to imply the need for cited information.

"Criticism" section

A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition. While it may make it easier for a reader who is interested in criticisms to find these claims and statements, it is not always the best route to take. Separate sections containing negative evaluations may become a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. There is currently no consensus on what is best. In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article. They also must not imply that the criticism section is in any way less important or less truthful than the rest of the article.

Many criticism sections started as separate from the main body of articles by editors with a strong point of view on the subject or who are concerned that the article does not present a balanced view of the subject but do not have the time or resources to integrate the criticism effectively. Sections created for these reasons may be temporary and may eventually be integrated into the main article in appropriate places. The "separate" section might be tagged {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} to indicate that it is expected to be temporary.

Sometimes a criticism section is used because of a single notable critic or group of critics on the topic, and these sections are often better titled as such (e.g. "Views of foo, bar, and baz") than as "criticism" sections. These sections often include sources which are only used as a source for the criticism, and combining them into a group simplifies referencing.

Criticism sections should not be used to describe attributes that are likely to be criticized unless and until a meaningful individual has criticized the subject for that attribute. All criticism in the dedicated section should be attributed to a specific critic. Attributes which are likely to draw criticism may be documented elsewhere in the article if relevant.

Separate articles devoted to criticism

Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky". Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes created for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it (see above for details).

Reception history articles

One acceptable form of article, sometimes appropriate for literary, historical, or artistic topics, is a "reception history" article, which documents the chronological history of criticism, both positive and negative. "Reception history" articles should cover the historical progression of the criticism, as well as documenting the criticisms themselves. The "main" article should have a summary style type of section summarizing the "reception history", and properly linking to the subsidiary article (for the Tacitean studies example this is the "Studies and reception history" section in the Tacitus article). This can only be done if a split of the main article is unavoidable due to article size, and if splitting off the reception history is seen as the most appropriate way to perform that split (so: subject to consensus of Wikipedians, preferably discussed on the "main" article's talk page prior to the split). Also the proceedings should be compatible with other applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:content forking. Similar logic can be applied in other circumstances as long as the content remains neutral, cannot reasonably be merged due to size concerns, editorial consensus agrees that it is appropriate, and the final article is consistent with other applicable policies.

Controversy articles and sections

Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Whaling controversy, Global warming controversy, 2008 Olympics controversies and Scientology controversies.

See also

• Wikipedia:Be neutral in form
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure
• Wikipedia:Pro and con lists
• Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1 – Alternative draft proposal

External links

• intitle:"criticism of" site:en.wikipedia.org – Google search for "Criticism of ..." within Wikiipedia