Wikipedia talk:Criticism sections

Comments

Comments copied here from article (hidden text):

Esto es el crappo: "While sometimes appropriate, this structure is not optimal, as relegating all criticisms to one section usually results in an unbalanced presentation. Notable points:

• "Sometimes?" Jimbo said "in many cases," not "sometimes."
• "this structure is not optimal?" That's a POV, trying to give WP:WEIGHT to the negative opinion, which Jimbo does not support.
• "usually results in" Does it? Again POV.
• "an unbalanced presentation" Teh irony. Someone who claims to be against undue weight presents a concept that biases what even the BDFL said, which was neutral and conditional on content.

I added: "Saith Jimbo:

"In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary.""

-Stevertigo 07:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, that Jimbo quote is stated again just a few lines below, so I think it's unecessary with another one there.Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Too indiscriminate!

I dislike the dislike of Criticism sections. While for biographies, criticism sections should preferrably be avoided (except if the person in question have started up controversies by him/herself), for some technical matters criticisms are vital and very important, and it is better to collect them into criticisms-counterargument sections rather than making the article nagging and generally critical in itself. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems a few things have changed about "Criticism sections" and the current state of:

Criticism are sometimes good, sometimes bad

is better than Criticisms are symptoms of bad editing, but wouldn't it be better yet if we have some heuristics on when to have criticisms, and when to intersperse critical standpoints in the text. For example, if we have a computer science article describing a development method, it would (IMHO) be unwise to intersperse criticisms in the explanation of the method, since that would obscure the explanation, rather it would be good formating to leave the criticisms of the method for a later discourse of the intended effects of applying the method, possibly:

Consequences of method

(First para of intended advantages of method)

(Second para of perceived disadvantages of method)

On the other hand, a separate Criticism section (in future to be enhanced by adventist counterarguments) in Day-year principle is IMHO preferrable in this case, since the criticisms generally regard the usage of the theological/historiological method as such,

...just a thought... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be exceptions...

For certain topics, criticism maybe be notable enough to even warrant its own article however people may not wish to separate the topic in that manner. In which case, a section devoted to criticism should definitly be made. Additionally, in these cases people may specifically be researching the criticism on the subject in which case it becomes unwieldy to search an entire article for tidbits and an individualized section best serves the research.

The example I'm going to use is the [Mother Teresa] article. Currently it does not have a criticism section and the discussion page cites this very project page (Wikipedia:Criticism sections) as it's reasoning and justification. Thus, it incorporates the criticism throughout the article. However, this is an extreme case. I mean criticism about Michael Bay because all his movies have explosions is a side-note, criticism about a world famous humanitarian, who has won the novel peace prize, and is a potential saint is a research topic (that has a lot of citable sources and information it could warrant its own article, however it wouldn't serve the subject matter to split it into two articles). It is extremely unwieldy to extract the information from the article as is, actually hindering research purposes.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering article length

I find criticism sections really helpful, and I hate it when I see this template. The problem is most WP articles are very long and most people are looking for quick information on a topic. This doesn't have to be a person or an organization, it could also be a philosophical approach. I agree that "Criticism" is sometimes a lazy header and often better headings can be found. But the claim that a criticism section means the rest of the article is not NPOV is far-fetched and usually wrong. Therefore I made two changes.

I made two changes:

(1) I changed the "When present..." to "For some articles..." The previous version contradicts the differentiated approach presented by the Wales quote and immediately asserts that ALL criticism sections are to be "considered a temporary solution."

(2) I added the following consideration at the end of the intro paragraph: "For very long articles, [a criticism] section can be useful for users who are searching quickly for relevant information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.122.97 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose the general idea to avoid criticism sections and think they are reasonable way to find compromise when opinions on the subject disagree. Avoiding such sections may lead to removing of all criticism. Forcing opposing people to ram heads also increases friction and may lead to the loss of contributors. There is usually a spectrum of opinions about any important subject of the society, and requirement to represent, say, "majority 60 %" and ban the rest does not look for me as a good proposal. For instance, if the bigger country occupies a smaller country, Wikipedia may "objectively" deny the right of minority to say anything on its pages just because another side has the bigger number of potential editors. Or, less dramatically, the opinion that the Earth is round was also initially supported only by minority. It is not always possible to combine radically opposite opinions (that both may both be notable) in a simple text Audriusa (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

Consolidate 3 similar articles into the largest, most complete one

There were 3 similar essays on the topic of "Criticism" sections/articles. I've consolidated them all into one, namely Wikipedia:Criticism. Feel free to revert if you think it is not a good idea. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)