Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 1

message: Article already exist like Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great So it will be third article doing the same thing.
Agreed.  The content of the three articles needs to be merged. - RobK
Criticism of Wikipedia is best, most specific page. The others should be redirects. In my opinion this is the best page on Wiki. 63.226.28.130 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Comparisons would be nice, and not just the "Wikipedia has more articles and more current topics" hype. How about comparisons of deep subjects -- the US Civil war, Einstein, The Crusades, Islam.
I too am a great Wikipedia fan.  Regarding the issue on whether or not the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' should be deleted, I would have to say absolutely not.  The thing that makes Wikipedia better than all its competition is that it's not biased, and deleting a page that objectively criticizes Wikipedia would be a biased decision.  I've been to other online encyclopedias and they're vulgar, unorganized, sloppy and worst of all biased.  Stay pure, Wikipedia. 
-Anonymous
===Response===
# Wikipedia:Criticisms mainly tries to answer criticism done by ‘rivals’.
# Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great mainly focuses on user questions.
# Criticism of Wikipedia Attempts to give criticism on wikipedia in Encyclopedic way and give responses.
Main  difference between (1,2) and (3) is that (1,2) are basically to answer criticisms raised. While (3) is  informing about  criticisms in an Encyclopedic Way. 
Zain 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Project pages (ie those that start with Wikipedia:) are not articles. Fredrik | talk 14:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it useless duplication of existing work? 

message: # Wikipedia:Criticisms mainly tries to answer criticism done by ‘rivals’.
# Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great mainly focuses on user questions.
# Criticism of Wikipedia Attempts to give criticism on wikipedia in Encyclopedic way and give responses.
Main  difference between (1,2) and (3) is that (1,2) are basically to answer criticisms raised. While (3) is  informing about  criticisms in an Encyclopedic Way. 
Zain 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Project pages (ie those that start with Wikipedia:) are not articles. Fredrik | talk 14:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: This article is not useless duplication of existing work. The Wikipedia namespace does not have quite the same standards as the main article namespace, and this is quite a respectable encyclopedia article. However, if you want it to go then please list it on WP:VFD. I personally will vote to keep if this is done, but don't let this stop you! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not useless. 

message: I have found a very comprehensive link on wikinfo.org a very long article. But looks like work of 'insiders'. not sure whether to put it or not. i am giving it here We should add it only after good discussion.
link is http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia
Zain 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comprehensive but very negative external link should I add it? specially when it is for deletion 

message: Now that the page is kept, how can we adjust the content?  Text taken from the wikipedia: pages should be cited as we would any reference.  The responses are that of "Wikipedia" not of the article.  It should be that "Wikipedia counters this argument by saying..."  This will just give facts as it is a fact that Wikipedia claims these things.  The critics should be named if possible. Sarah Lane, newspapers, etc might be good sources. I guess we have to look at it like we're not Wikipedia members ... this is in the same way that we attempt to counter any bias on an article page.  Just remember that Wikipedia: namespace articles are a POV source in this case and aren't interwiki articles.
The article shouldn't present these in the POV manner that is provided in the Wikipedia name space. When I can pull myself away from other pages, I may take a pass at doing just that.  If anyone else wants to get started on implementing the content suggestions given during the voting process, please do so in the meantime. :) Any other thoughts? --Sketchee 18:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. Only thing which kept me from changing a lot was 'Delete vote'. Now as the vote is over. We can treat it as any other Wikipedia Article.
:Zain 21:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving article content toward NPOV 

message: It is cited that the article on Hurrican Frances was five times that on Chinese art, and the article on Coronation Street twice as long as that on Tony Blair.  Yet now, the Chinese art article is twice as long and the Tony Blair article a fair amount longer.  Should this be mentioned?  →Iñgōlemo← talk 07:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
:What should be mentioned, as when all numbers are mentioned, is the date of collation. Stick the date behind any subject-to-change information you provide and the information gains objective context. Oktober 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  statistics 

message: This article seems to be biased -- the "responses" seem to support Wikipedia. -- Stevey7788 05:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I took out this paragraph "Proponents of Wikipedia point out, however, that when facts are in dispute (such as in controversial passages), writers are encouraged to cite sources extensively to support these facts or risk having them removed by other editors; citation of sources may be more reliable than the knowledge of a "specialist" or the presumed "authority" of a print encyclopedia." because it replies to a criticism about unnoticed errors, not controversial ones. Kappa 09:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph about citing sources 

message: This article doesn't include one of my biggest gripes about the Wikipedia, but I couldn't figure out where to put. Quite frankly, too many Wikipedia editors are lazy, so they write what they think they know is correct, rather than what they have verified as correct. It may take two minutes to write up what you think is right, but it can take sometimes take an hour or two to properly verify the information online (or an afternoon's visit to the local library if the information is not available online). BlankVerse ∅  12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Supposedly, the open nature of wikipedia is there to counteract this.  Some editors are lazy, while others are willing to pick up the slack.  Also, if someone writes an article that is half complete or done shottily then it will be deleted or flagged.  While this may be a legitimate personal concern, it is pov.  Perhaps find some stats? Vanessa kelly 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor laziness 

message: What is the relevance of this recently added link: Wikipedia and a possible Meta-Encyclopedia exposing gaps? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
: Nothing at all. Title is misleading. Likely an example to show Wikipedia weakness in action. Removed. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of recently added link 

message: #I think as an encyclopedic article it should still exist in Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep this article 

message: Does Daniel Brandt's apparent personal vendetta really belong linked in the external links? Weird that he is complaining about the invasion of his privacy by the existence of an article almost no one would read if he just let the matter rest; and here he is publicizing it. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you want to add me to your list of evil Wikipedia adminstrators, go right ahead. Judging by who is on it, it would be an honor. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Brandt 

message: And why I am removing the tag! Firstly, pages in the Wikipedia namespace do not have to be as vigorous as the articles must be in the main namespace. There must be references to the critics on this page. 
Next, the merge tag has been on the Criticism of Wikipedia page since August 6, 2005, and people have attempted to redirect even before the tag was added. 
What I am doing, instead, is submitting this to AfD. I will section the AfD into the following sections: keep as is, delete entirely, redirect, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge status 

message: This is really pointless!!
There is thousands of people editing articles, that is why it works. Thousands versus minutia. Sounds like the work of someone who has probobly been kicked out of Wikipedia. I hope they decide not to delete article, it would show the flaws of the people who dont have any social skills.  JedOs 11:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a pointless article.  I have found Wikipedia very useful, I don't want its credibility to go down.  By acknowledging the issues, editors can better resolve them over time.   I'm a relatively new editor, this page was the reason I started to edit.  Besides, Wikipedia strives to have information from every POV; removing or filtering the criticism out, would be exactly what Wikipedia is being critisized for! --QubitOtaku 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is just pointless! 

message: Wikipedia's contributors have no authority on the subjects they speak.  If they did, it isn't immediately clear who has what authority based on what experience.  This lack of authority creates a clear problem, one that wikipedia alone cannot escape.  Furthermore, if all this energy went into actual works and already existing works and projects, it would certainly have advanced each and every one of those projects further.  Instead, information is being duplicated.
Wikipedia should position itself to provide an online version of currently existing encyclopedias, a front end, a user interface, that well-established authority figures can use to update content as it is discovered and so forth.  Instead it tries to be the Linux of the encylopedia world.  It tries to copy what others have done and in doing so wastes our resources needlessly.  While access to an encyclopedia through a wiki interface is nice, the authoritative nature of the data is far more important.  
Accessing this information on wikipedia, one often asks themselves "How do I know if this is valid, accurate, or true?".  Or rather "how do I trust this website, from many other websites?".  Wikipedia cannot provide an answer to any of these questions.
: This is why the majority of articles include a section of external links to sites other than Wikipedia.  If you're doubtful of the information provided here, you can a) look it up somewhere else in an information source you trust, and b) correct the information here if it is inaccurate. --Modemac 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication and waste of energy 

message: Not much about quality issues on this page. - Xed 13:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: ...could use a little bit more attention:  it seems to conflate two mostly unrelated privacy issues.  Daniel Brandt agitates on both fronts, so mentioning him doesn't clear things up.
One issue is the desire for individuals, whom Wikipedia editors happen to consider notable, to not have biographical articles on Wikipedia.  (One could divide this into the case of those who wish no biography at all, under any circumstances; and those who wish to have editorial control of their biographies, or failing that, remove it completely).  It would be interesting to know traditional encyclopedias deal with this issue--if someone called up Britannica and demanded that the article on them be removed, how would they react?
In the US at least, people who want to be excluded from the Wikipedia probably have very little legal recourse, especially if the article in question follows WP:V.  This isn't true in other countries (including several English-speaking countries, like Australia), where privacy laws are stronger (and in many case, trump freedom of the press).
The other privacy issue which is relevant is what Wikipedia does, if anything, with access logs.  Nobody (save, perhaps, for a small number of administrators) can view what articles I read; but anyone can see what articles I've edited recently .  Hope there's nothing embarassing in that list.  The latter is probably necessary for Wikipedia's editorial function to work correctly.  
Wikipedia promises, in numerous places, to not make inappropriate use of its server logs; but several critics do not trust those assurances.  Given that many organizations (mainly corporations, and some charities) are more than happy to sell customer databases and such to anyone willing to buy them--I can certainly understand why outside parties might not trust us; just because Wikipedia is non-profit, isn't a guarantee of absolutely pure motives.
--EngineerScotty 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Privacy Concerns section 

message: I just added the following to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Main article at Criticism of Wikipedia
Criticism of Wikipedia has increased with its prominence. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of the articles. Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable, that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals.
Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues:
*Usefulness as a reference
*Anti-elitism as a weakness
*Systemic bias in coverage
*Systemic bias in perspective
*Difficulty of fact checking
*Use of dubious sources
*Exposure to vandals
*Privacy concerns
*Quality Concerns
*Flame wars
*Fanatics and special interests
*Censorship
===comments===
I just added the above to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just added the following 

message: I just added the above to the wikipedia article: Wikipedia WAS 4.250 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: moved from Wikipedia:Articles for creation
The content on this website is 100% participant created and is not checked for accuracy.  YMMV.  Have a nice day.  
If you're a teacher, teach them to be skeptical to what they read on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.217.99 (talk • contribs) .
:The internet, as a whole, is less biased than any other source of information. If we can keep the Cabal from controlling content, and allow all of those disparate opinions to act as filtering agents for the article, it will enable a single Wikipedia page to be as informative and balanced as researching all of the Google results on a subject. --Peter McConaughey 06:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia. Possible slogans for the boycott could be "Imagine a world without Wikipedia. That's our mission." Aspects of the boycott could include acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended, that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc, and that Wikipedia is based on false assumptions and ideals. Consequently, the boycott could seek to refuse to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so and to actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool. Participants could consist of Wikipedians as well as non-Wikipedians. Eventually, the boycott could consist primarily of non-Wikipedians. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia for details. --JuanMuslim  1m 12:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You got to love the irony of them refering to our article (this one) for reasons why Wikipedia is so rotten.  They tell everyone to not use as a reference, but do exactly that.  It speaks volumes for the integrity of Wikipedia that a Wikipedia article which criticizes Wikipedia is cited by a Wikipedia opponent as proof that Wikipedia is unsuitable as a reference.  Or is that the point, and the whole boycott (much like the class action lawsuit) a joke?  --EngineerScotty 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, feel free to not edit Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am absolutly positive Ta bu shi da yu is not refering to EngineerScotty. WAS 4.250 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So am I.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So am I. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Boycott Campaign 

message: This section was added by User:SEWilco, who appears to have a few axes to grind with the arbcom.  While I have little knowledge or comment over his dispute, or on his proposed "Bill of Rights"... I am certain that this proposal does not belong in the article namespace.  If articles cite the Wikipedia namespace (which is appropriate when writing about Wikipedia); they should only cite official policies or guidelines; not proposals (or essays written by individual editors).  Most discussions in the Wikipedia (or user namespaces), as well as arbcom actions, are not encyclopedic, after all.
OTOH, there are occasional allegations of abuse of power--Daniel Brandt frequently alleges such, and Andrew Orlowski has repeated them.  I have no idea if any abuses occurred, or if those who allege such are simply unable to admit fault--and thus interpret an adverse action as bias or malice towards them.  However, it is a frequent criticism of Wikipedia which has been noticed by the press--even if it's outright horseshit it probably is worth a mention here, cited appropriately. --EngineerScotty 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of editors have denounced abuses of power by Administrators and the Arbitration Committee and have claimed to "quit". There is no way to verify if they "quit" because they can always return, act different, and claim to be someone different. There is no Wikipedia process that validates persons as being who they say (or more usually, don't say) they are. This leads others to claim the Arbitration Committee has in fact no real power to abuse in the first place. WAS 4.250 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted the change, it appears.  I'm trying to think of language which will make this section encyclopedic and verifiable. --EngineerScotty 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If I read the bylaws correctly, you and I are already members (of the Volunteer Active) variety--or we are eligible to be, given that we edit Wikipedia with user accounts.  Is there something in the bylaws--or elsewhere--which suggests anonymity will be ended on Wikipedia? --EngineerScotty 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin abuse section 

message: Does the title of this article mean only "criticism" in the sense of "It has its critics" or in the sense of "literary criticism" or "film criticism"? The latter seems to me a much more encyclopedic topic and much less subject to inherent bias. Offhand, there is nothing in this article I'd remove, but I think it should contain much more about views, especially outside views, that have positive things to say about Wikipedia, and those positive views should not be present only as rebuttal. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to quote the last AfD on this one:
*IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The idea of giving this a new title ("evaluations of Wikipedia" or "critical evaluations of Wikipedia" or "critical assessment of Wikipedia" or whatever) that would make more sense in terms of NPOV is not new, but so far attempts to get it at a more appropriate place have gone nowhere. JRM · Talk 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be placed there, not here. You're not the first one to complain about the process, though I don't think there's ever been specific criticism we could source. JRM · Talk 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does criticism mean only negatives? 

message: Discussion has been copied and moved to the Village Pump. Please continue discussion there. --Revolución (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User anti-anon]] 

message: This article contains many link to articles in Wikipedia name space, they should at least be made into external links but may also indicate a problematic writing style. —Ruud 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: Hi, I added some criticisms of NPOV to the page and they were removed "for being POV" a minute later (I actually made my best to try writing them in the sort of "purified", "strangled" and "apologetic" style of prose this site really likes). Here it is. If you think these criticisms are too harsh and unjustified, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken.
Examples of criticisms:
Misleading redefinition of known concepts:
* NPOV claims to have nothing to do with objectivity. However, a closer look reveals it to suggest that an "objective" presentation of viewpoints is a possible and attainable goal.
* NPOV has been accused of consistently using doublespeak and euphemisms, for example: by "neutral point of view", it is actually meant "communally accepted perspective" or more severely, simply "common bias". By "minority viewpoint" it is actually meant "subjectively unjustified viewpoint importance" rather than actual quantitative inferiority within the general population.
Pretension of fairness:
* NPOV shows a pseudo-democratic conception of fairness towards viewpoints (undue weight), which is considered misleading and insulting for the known concept of "fairness" by some critics.
* NPOV professes to fairness towards viewpoints, but does not take fairness towards the article's subject into account, thus allowing articles to become strongly critical of the subject, if there are no prominent defenders of it. (however, this may be considered unethical in practice)
Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:
* NPOV actively exemplifies using vague and unscientific expressions like "some people", "most people", "many people" for the quantification of viewpoints. Critics see this as being generally unhealthy towards creating a supposedly accurate encyclopedia. (This actually conflicts with wikipedia's policy of verifiability). Another criticism is that these expressions consist of an  appeal to popularity, thus are a form of rhetorical bias toward popular viewpoints.
Unsuitability:
* Another criticism is that NPOV naively presumes all participants to be equal in power and persistence over the expression of their supported viewpoints, in order to attain its goal. Therefore it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that features credited seniority of editorship and hierarchical administrative structure.
--84.228.107.148 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite people who actually complain about these things? If not, then I think it would count as original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, see clarification of criticisms --84.228.107.148 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of NPOV 

message: I was thinking we should expand the scope of this article, and rename it "Commentary about Wikipedia". This would include criticism and other commentary about the project. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has its own article because its so long and such a ripe section, even without other forms of commentary.  The policy here is usually to split pages when they're this ripe for content.--Urthogie 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the scope of this article 

message: I reverted a change from criticize -> criticise; it's generally considered rude on Wikipedia to replace one correct spelling of a word with another correct spelling of the same word, without good reason.  (If the other editor had replaced a correct British spelling with a correct American one, I would have also reverted).  See the Wikipedia:Style_guide for more info on this issue.  --EngineerScotty 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, spelling wars. Ironically, this is one of the criticisms of Wikipedia: that useless edit wars cause good editors to leave. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be perfectly clear... I've made my one edit on the subject, and I'm done.  :) --EngineerScotty 07:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticize vs Criticise 

message: Might the copyright problems in Wikipedia be highlighted as a criticism?  I was just reading through the article and noticed that there's hardly a single mention of copyright.  Now, personally, I have no idea about copyright law, and I'm not sure that copyright violation is an angle that Wikipedia is externally criticised in.
But I remember, what a month or two ago?  That the German Wikipedia had to get rid of a shedload of stuff because it was just copied straight out of a print encyclopedia?  The fact that the stuff was there for so long was that it was in print and not available online.  Any thoughts?  Worthy of a paragraph? - Hahnchen 09:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Problems 

message: Vandalism is usually noticed right away but well written and scholarly sounding nonsense can have a long life on Wikipedia. The article on Larry King had whimsical references his flatulence removed January 26, 2006 that read:
Larry has quietly persevered for many years, with great dignity, both in his daily life and professional career, despite suffering, since childhood, with severe gastric infections otherwise known as IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) or Malabsorption Syndrome. Never the one to be embarrassed by life's peculiarities, Larry has often been said to have a bit of a flatulence habit while on air at CNN, which isn't curbed by having guests in the studio. A favorite moment of his, and an often repeated story, involved an interview conducted with former President Jimmy Carter who, after some length of time in studio, chided Larry & asked him to please stop, or he'd have to end the interview. Larry ever present in the moment adeptly steered the conversation to global warming and the effects of bovine emissions on the ozone.
The apocraphyl anecdote was online for over one month. The transcript from the show with Jimmy Carter has no such conversation. If nonesense is added in a scholary sounding way, no one notices. If it was written: "he farts all day", it would be removed quickly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bummer :( Pity we didn't notice this! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well written nonsense 

message: After catching banned user Lir spamming his own website 
 as well as another Uni.edu one he's probably associated with  I've added Lir's website to the spam blacklist (with the Commitee's blessing). Sine qua non to this is that it be removed from this article, as it will cause the spam blacklist to stop all attempts to edit it. Raul654 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kapitalism.net removed for spamming 

message: When the cabal agrees, that is called "consensus". When the cabal disagrees, that is called "no consensus".
:There Is No Cabal. *Dan T.* 13:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no consensus over The Wikipedia Review 

message: Sigh. This debate isn't helping anything, nor is it really about the article at all anymore. I understand where everyone is coming from, but I think we'll all be better off if we just drop it, please. Thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say what? Here's an insightful thread authored today by the person left in-charge, titled: Haters of non-Jewish people (sic.) fuck off. El_C 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sean, you're not helping. We are explaining to an editor why we don't think the link is appropriate in the hope of creating a consensus. If you have something to offer in that effort, please do so. Grace Note 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly believe that thread to have been primarly a joke (based in part on a related thread in the same forum), and it certainly isn't particularly objectionable. It's also off-topic, in the proper place for that. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First it's "Well, it's full of libel and personal attacks". So we do something about it. Then it's "Well, your forum is full of nazis and trolls". So we express that it is an open forum, and we won't ban members for having beliefs that are off-base, unless they are disruptive in some way. Selina points out a thread in which the user in question was disruptive, we remove the posts, and the user is banned. Now it's, "They made a user we blocked from wikipedia a mod temporarily! OMG EVILZ0RS!111". I do respect the privacy concern, particularly after the Grace Note incident (and I am still trying to locate all the threads she posted his personal details in), and she has been de-modded (I may re-instate her at a later point, but for now, we really don't need an extra mod. It was a spur-of-the-moment decision when I created a new subforum). Of course, now it will be back to "They're full of trolls!" until another excuse crops up. And SlimVirgin, may I suggest that you, like many of the members of the forum, also have an axe to grind? It appears to me as if you will look for any excuse to not link the forum. Again, it's not a big issue anyway - Wikipedia Review will survive and grow with or without the link - but it is an active, continually growing and developing forum, nearing 200 members (although maybe only half of those are or were ever active), that is quite vocal in criticism of Wikipedia, and quite informative to a user who wants to read about such criticisms. It is not a "trollboard", "full of nazis", "full of libel", and so on. It is an open discussion forum, to which many people have contributed - and yes, many of these users are seen as trolls in the eyes of Wikipedia, but many are not. There are some invalid criticisms, and there are some exceptionally useful ones. There are also personal attacks, and we are trying to keep those to a minimum. Also, as I have stated here (twice) and on WR - if there is any post that appears exceptionally objectionable, anyone is free to contact me, and I will look into it, and (possibly, depending on circumstances) take action. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who cares if someone deny the Holocaust?  Who cares if someone deny Nanking Massacre?  Who cares if someone deny the existance of WMD in Iraq?  They can deny it if they want to.  Robust Physique 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *That's my viewpoint as well, which certainly hasn't earned me any brownie points here. I suppose people fail to understand why I tolerate Nazi viewpoints, but for me, it's pretty clear. What do people accuse Nazis of? Intolerance, hatred, and censorship. But how do we treat them? With intolerance, hatred, and censorship. I find this disturbing, and feel that when we act in this way, we become like unto the enemy. And so I refuse to act in this way, rather feeling that being tolerant and open is a better solution. Provided that they are not launching attacks on race, who really cares? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argh

message: Critics include current and former Wikipedians, representatives of other encyclopedias, and subjects of articles.
They certainly include those described, but what has been left out? Which of those was John Seigenthaler Sr.? I thought he was a ... oh, yes ... critics include members of the news media.
Maybe "omissions" should be added as a notable criticism, along with "disproportionate weighting of subjects".
Also, others say Wikipedi is functioning well as an encyclopedia. The world's first encyclopedia that "functions". hmmm... What did Britanica and Encarta do? It's been so long, I forgot. Oh, yeh.... that's it.. They SERVED as an encyclopedia. Service... now that's a rare concept around here, where we are doing something "undoubtably good" (sic) as the godking said when he recently blanked a talk page. Funny, "wikipedia edit war" gets twice as many google hits (467) as "wikipedia serves" (231). Shurlock 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of criticisms of Wikipedi 

message: "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." And just plain worng! I am a proponent, but I would point out the latter issue! Rich   Farmbrough 22:03 25  February 2006 (UTC).
:Oh, just a little point the word "Criticism" can include positive criticism. Rich   Farmbrough 22:12 25  February 2006 (UTC). 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I have been looking for alternatives to Wikipedia.  More specifically, there was one called WikiInfo or InfoWiki that had a lot of open source content from Wikipedia but allowed POV without heavy editing found on Wikipedia.  I've tried all sorts of searches on Wikipedia and google with no success.  Does anyone have a link to this page? Vcarless
:You were so close. It is called Wikinfo, we have an article on it (though perhaps we shouldn't because it never really took off) at Wikinfo. Their main page is at http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?. HTH, Pcb21 Pete 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by "never took off". It's still running you know! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Wiki 

message: Why are we using the word "fanatics"? Calling people involved in criticms of Wikipedia, especially the Christian Post article and Conservapedia, fanatics, is pejorative, insulting, and amounts to little more to substituting childish namecalling for any response to the points made by these people. StaticElectric 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that fanatic is too strong a word and per Wikipedia policy is most likely a word to avoid.  I renamed the section with the new title "Strong point of view editing," not sure if this is the best title for that section so feel free to change it to something more appropriate.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanatics and Special Interests 

message: In Wikipedia Signpost interview dated 10 September 2007, WS asked question to wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 'As a follow up, does the Foundation have data backup/recovery plans in place should a disaster occur?'.
In reply to this question, Jimbo wales replied: 'Ask User:Brion VIBBER. I am not really qualified to answer detailed technology related questions' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-09-10/Jimbo_interview
According to Jimmy Wales, User talk:Brion VIBBER is competent to answer the question. But User talk:Brion VIBBER may not read this question on his talk page and can be contacted only by email. And emails are not reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Hence whether wikipedia foundation has data backup/recovery plans is unclear.
I just want to whether wikipedia has such plans in place. If yes, please answer it here with reliable source. If no, please allow me to post single line that, 'whether wikipedia has data backup/recovery plans in place if disaster occurs to wikipedia main server is unclear'.
I believe I am commenting on very important question by giving reference to interview with Jimbo Wales. 
I politely request wikipedia editors/administrators not to push me too far. Otherwise unfortunate situation may arise and wikipedia will have to block three IP addresses. And that is like blocking one billion peoples and cellphone users in almost all countries on earth. 
I politely request you to either answer my query or allow me to post single line.
:I've tried to explain on your talk page that original research, unsourced personal opinion, and unsupported speculation can't be included in Wikipedia articles. I am restoring sourced, accurate information about what Jimbo said in his Signpost interview and about WP's periodic database dumps, which are made publically available to help insure against catastrophic data loss. Please stop inserting your speculations and opinions into the article with no support or sources. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about wikipedia data backup/recovery plans if wikipedia main server crashes 

message: In my opinion this is a key criticism of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
Antony272b2 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of Articles 

message: I would like to see some of the dated external links (those that are news articles posted on a particular day) to be folded into the main text as inline references. I think that this should be done even if it requires that new assertions be made in the text. The process is simple: read the external article, read this article and find a home for the link. Again: if the external article makes an interesting and relevant claim not in the Wikipedia article does not, then add a new sentence to the article and add the link as an inline citation and remove from the external links section. Maybe we should have a template that suggests such.--Mightyms 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Could someone please delete sub-page Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of the concept. I mis-read the guidelines.
--Cat Lover 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I screwed up. 

message: Please take a look at the graph at the blog here. I think it is because of developing negative internal dynamics and the inability of the administrative staff to keep up with the growth of users. The project is far from complete. Should something like this be addressed in this article?--Filll 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The slowdown in growth is definitely a possibility for the article. You can find a balancing viewpoint here. All sorts of caveats, though, especially because the slowdown finding is based on a (large) sample of articles rather than complete stats on all articles. And it's only a supposed slowdown in the rate of growth, not a stoppage of all growth or an actual shrinking. The encyclopedia is still expanding at a brisk pace – there has definitely been no peak in the total size of Wikipedia. Also, outside media haven't picked up the story much, so maybe we should wait a little to see if it develops into anything major. Casey Abell 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting discussion on the talk page of the analysis. Several people are challenging the declining rate of growth argument, and there are some graphs which show that the rate of growth has actually increased recently. Again, all this looks like premature OR for the article right now. Casey Abell 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has Wikipedia peaked? 

message: Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an attack site. I see no harm in putting a link to the site there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.59.46 (talk • contribs) 
:There has been a broad consensus for quite some time that ED does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTE, nor of WP:EL.  If you wish to argue for its inclusion, you would be best advised to do so in terms of those guidelines. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humorous Critcism 

message: Four out of the five people who removed the link make comment that make me suspect the believe some policy REQUIRES the deletion--  they are clearly in error about this.   But GTBacchus clearly states that's NOT his concern, that he considers the matter to be something to be decided by consensus, and that he's not acting out of a blanket purge mentality-- and I believe him on all counts.
Furthermore-- as much as I would love a nice test case to prove to everyone BADSITES is dead once and for all, I think I have to actually agree with GT on this.  This article is about "Criticism of wikipedia", not "Critics of wikipedia".  Looking over the article, it seems like we have no shortage of good secondary sources, so we should be able to satisfy WP:V without resorting to a primary source.  WR, as a forum, isn't a very good EL, since it presents its content in threaded conversation instead of static prose.  If it were a different article and WR merited mention in the text, I think NPOV would say we'd have to link to it.  But honestly, given the current article, it looks just kinda tacked on at the end, just sort of hanging there.  If it were notable enough to have its own article, or it there are enough news stories to support an article about the "critics of wikipedia", that might make an article, but I'm skeptical that subject is sufficiently notable to have enough reliable secondary sources. 
But this is the beauty of living in a post-BADSITES world.  We get to actually decide these things based on what's best for the encyclopedia.  We get to talk about it, share our views, swap ideas, and form a consensus-- rather than having the answer dictated to us.
When the link was first removed from this page, I took it for a blind "vandalism-esque" deletion based on BADSITES-- I would have instantly reverted it, and fought to defend it.  But now that we're being encouraged to actually form consensus again, we wind up having a discussion.  And GTBacchus, invariably one of the most reasonable people in the room, has made an excellent point, eloquently explained it to me why this particular link isn't a very good one, and changed my mind anyway. 
So for those that doubted-- let it be seen.  The revolution was never about promoting our critics-- it was about improving our encyclopedia. :)  
--Alecmconroy 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we'll leave out the link. I think it's silly that we can't link to the top page of a forum which has often provided valuable and accurate criticism of Wikipedia - criticism which was hardly "claptrap", to use one of the nouns tossed around. Some people might not like the role that WR played in the Essjay incident, the Siegenthaler incident, the media attention to plagiarism on Wikipedia, etc. But that doesn't mean we should censor all mentions of the site. I'm in the minority here, so I'll bow to BADSITES. But I'll put on record that I don't like the censorship. Casey Abell 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   MOASPN 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact tag is kind of funny. I could provide the requested references to threads on WR that discussed Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia - but I'm not allowed to link to them! The BADSITES catch-22. Casey Abell 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could create a blog with discussions on Siegenthaler, Essjay and plagiarism on Wikipedia that state that the blog was the source that broke each of those. If there are reliable third-party sources commenting on this forum's activities, please present them. Forums, as self published sources, are not reliable. MOASPN 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, try Essjay controversy for WR's role in the Essjay mess. But you probably wouldn't consider that reliable, either. I shouldn't even point out the reference, because it will probably now get scoured from the encyclopedia, as many other mentions of WR are disappearing. I couldn't disagree more that BADSITES is "behind us." Renamed in an Orwellian fashion as MALICIOUSSITES (principle 15.1 of the ArbCom decision) the policy is being used to get rid of links to WR throughout Wikipedia. See JzG's contribution page if you don't believe me. But as I said, I've surrendered on the issue. This will be my final comment on the matter. Casey Abell 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   - source does not state anything about Wikipedia Review. I've flagged it for review. MOASPN 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia 'review' is still quite clearly a bad source of information. Brandt's well connected to the LaRouche crackpots, and the ArbCom decision is still highly relevant to that can of worms. 123.255.55.62 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It does little good for the discussion to characterize people on either side as "blindly" doing things or as "not focused on encyclopedic value". *Dan T.* 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think EL covers this one in the main space, we don't need to invoke BADSITES as it doesn't pass muster as an EL or a reliable source. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Novus Ordo Seclorum]]

message: Wikipedia article deletions are affecting our donations to the extent that it is notable news about Criticism of Wikipedia. If we created the article Wikipedia article deletions sourced with those news reports we could at least have a place that mentions and says something about stuff that does not otherwise warrant an article and redirects could be created pointing at that article. Might help with fundraising too. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. Anyone care to give it a shot? WAS 4.250 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia article deletions]] 

message: See this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begantable (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nifty graphic. All the info shown there can be gleaned from information available to any wikipedia user. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that Wikipedia is being used for spying 

message: I'm not going to revert any more on this. But I'll put on record my objection to attempts to eliminate even a mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica from this article. Like it or not, ED is now a very popular parody of Wikipedia, and efforts to hide this fact are, in my opinion, foolish and counterproductive. One thing's for sure, I never want to hear "Wikipedia is not censored" again.
And by the way, a backhand reference to ED remains in the article. Casey Abell (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a mention of ED cited to its mention in a New York Times Magazine article. If they thought it was important, it certainly merits four words in one paragraph at the end of the article. 75.175.3.211 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... if Encyclopedia Dramatica had received non-trivial converage in multiple independent sources, we'd have an article on them. It's not fascist; it's consistent with our policies. We don't keep articles on other websites that don't meet WP:WEB. Should ED be an exception just because... what? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information, with no regard paid to WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume good faith and take your response seriously:  ED is more popular then the Uncyclopedia and is very very much more popular than the many webcomics (for example) and other smaller websites featured in Wikipedia.  I understand that Alexa rank (for instance) is not the only measure of signifigance, but I think you would have a hard time convincing a reasonable and unbiased person that the hundreds of smaller websites, including the Uncyclopedia, warrant inclusion in Wikipedia while ED does not - especially as it is mentioned in this very article.  I don't care about the Encylopedia Dramatica at all (its a silly place like YTMND and 4chan - both of which have articles by the way), but I do care about the integrity of the Wikipedia, which seems to have turned into to be a somewhat silly place itself.Cyclopsface (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the bottom of the Uncyclopedia article. It has several instances of non-trivial coverage in independent sources. YTMND and 4chan are also both referenced to multiple independent sources. Are there such references for ED? If so, I haven't seen them, and I've paid pretty close attention to the debate for over a year now.  The simple fact is that ED doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. The fact that a lot of Wikipedians don't like ED may create the appearance that we deleted the article as a grudge, but we actually deleted it because the site is not notable, per our usual standards. The notability guidelines apply to all website articles, and I'm not defending any article that sits here in contravention of them. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, we can't even mention Encyclopedia Dramatica 

message: Maybe it is in the nature of the two systems but there appears to be a preference for open source software on Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles about open source software which should is questioned as far as its notability while commercial software is not found even though it is widely used in a particular profession. The commercial software is possibly deleted because it could be an advertisement.  98.195.185.125 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source Software Preferential Treatment 

message: I just stumpled across conservapedia and felt a little sick, they spout hatred, thank the lord (oh dont worry that`s not me being conserative) for intelligence here on wiki. Realist2 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Conservapedia is indeed frightening. What's their motto again? "All the information that we want you to read" ?Epthorn (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love Wikipedia 

message: "There are indications that academics' view of Wikipedia may have improved during the last few years. There has been an increase in the number of citations of Wikipedia in international scientific journals, though this may be at least partly the result of the greater prominence of the project."
I do not like the section that starts like this. "There are indications [...] may have improved"... this sounds very vague. I find two words in that sentence that are very vague and are leaning more to weasel words than referring to a source.
The section goes on presenting some statistics over some site ScienceDirect. Where is the source for this? This looks like original research.
This section just states some claims that might be correct, and doesn't ever refer to a source. It should be removed.
Besides that, I love Wikipedia and do not agree with most of what this article has to say... so don't you think I'm criticizing this section because I'm some Wikipedia-basher... PureRumble 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research? 

message: :Image:Wiki-deathstar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki-deathstar.png 

message: Since wikipdia review links here, I thought i should point out the following quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia
This is just something I think we are wise to remember every time the subject of these 2, by some referred to as WP:BADSITES, pop up. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the irony is staggering.  On the one hand they castigate us for failing to guard the privacy of people they like, and on the other they laugh at us for addressing privacy violations targeting people they hate.  Guy (Help!) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia review 

message: I actually wanted to post this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss , but couldn't.
I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously.  The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight.  The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors.  It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative.  You could have honest to god discussions there!  You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks).  The Wikipedia WORKED.
The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles.  Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia.  Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck.  Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them.  Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content.  Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject.  Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason.  It doesn't have to be controversial.  You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it.  The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors.  The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows.  "Hate site"?  Please.  I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it.  "Jihad"?  You must be joking.
Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting.  Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article.  Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony.  The Wikipedia DOESN'T work.  The Wikipedia is broken.
Justreg'dforthis (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. Wikipedia is broken. And the sooner the cyber-bullies, cyber-stalkers, agressive trolls, and gerneral jerks are banned, the sooner that people across the political spectrum who actually reached adulthood (no matter what their chronological age), the sooner we will fix it.  Feel free to go elsewhers to engage in Internet posting. We are building a different culture here.--Cberlet (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the worst bullies around here are the people who claim to be "building a different culture" by calling people "trolls" and threatening to ban them. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy includes sanctions for bullies.--Cberlet (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy? Have you dealt with bullies here? I mean, you're right in a way, but it can take, like, years. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cberlet, I understand the appeal of what you say, but that idea contains dangers you may not be aware of. Who will watch the watchmen? Remember that the person deciding who is or isn't a "cyber-bully, cyber-stalker, aggressive troll, or general jerk" also is human, and has flaws, and a limited point of view. If we're building a different culture (which I support wholeheartedly) then it will begin with the cessation of name-calling, not with our getting down into the mud in our effort to show people that mud-slinging in wrong. Don't we become our own enemy in the moment that we pronounce moral judgement on another person? Surely the way to build the new culture is to set an excellent example, and let others hang themselves on inevitable policy violations. Furthermore, the less we indulge in irrelevant accusations of bad faith, the more credibility our policy-based arguments have, because we're clearly staying on-task, and refusing to get personal for any reason. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It can, yes.  Querulousness is also notoriously difficult to deal with on Wikipedia.  But that's not really relevant here; what we are dealing wiht at present is an uncritical repetition of the most extreme anti-Jimbo perspective on the Duroiva case, combined with a presentation of the most vehemently pro-Bagley interpeetation of the Weiss dispute.  The self-evidently polemical tone means that neither piece can be taken as a reliable source here; what we would have to have is a reliable secondary source contextualising the thing. I've not yet seen one, perhaps because the Register pieces are so fatuous that nobody's deigned to comment. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making more "guilt by association" against critics does not contribute anything useful to a discussion of their ideas. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the ad-hominem.  So you think The Register piece is reliable?  Guy (Help!) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing your argument as "guilt by association" is not technically an ad hominem, because it's a criticism of your argument, not of you. As for querulousness being notoriously difficult to deal with, I think it's easier than you think. There's ways to deal with it that make it more or less difficult. As for the "Register pieces", I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a place to discuss the article about criticisms of Wikipedia, not a place for essays about what you think of the critics. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but not a place for you to advocate inclusion of articles where you state your own criticisms of Wikipedia and which repeeat it as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is broken. 

message: Due to excessive edit warring this page has been protected for 5 days. Someone should reinstate semi-protection when the full protection expires. Please discuss as opposed to slow revert warring. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I protected this page at exactly the same time. I think it better to keep this page locked until agreement is reached - I suggest everyone comes to a compromise here and then requests unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you are having difficulty reaching agreement you may find Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanism of help. WjBscribe 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Can an admin please reverse this? It's not NPOV, it's a content dispute. I don't care about sides, but I thought this wasn't allowed? Lawrence Cohen 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the change, I just was thinking it would be best to do it by the book since so many people are fighting over this mess. Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And remove the link, per WP:RS and WP:EL, we should not link to biased and polemical sources which state falsehood and uninformed opinon as fact and represent only one side of a story, especially where it's a single editor taking an on-wikipedia dispute to an external source in order to try to gain an advantage in that dispute; there is no independent coverage cited, and we can't put the other side of the story - most importantly, the true nature and constitutions of the list about which Cla68 so egregiously lied, becaise there is no source for that at all.  A dispute which has absolutely no reliable sources whatsoever (which this one does not, at this stage) does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Oh, incidentally, two wrongs don't make a right.  Viridae's pointed reversion of actually a pretty uncontroversial edit is almost as despicable as undeleting an article created by a banned user at that banned users request, the request being posted in an attack thread on Wikipedia Review. No doubt Viridae's WR friends will be duly proud. I would tell you what I really think of Cla68's piece of shit Register story, but I'd probably get blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the pot calling the kettle "biased and polemical".  You're engaging in original research and violating NPOV in your dismissal of the article based on your personal beliefs, and bringing in irrelevant prior disputes.  Incidentally, I support the change to "alleged" (which is similar to a change I made myself before the protection, but you reverted), but not the complete removal. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's an accurate description of the source.  Of course you agree with the source because you are one of the sources for the Register pieces yourself, but that does not mean it is wrong to call it biased and inaccurate, which it is.  It's utterly useless as a source because it presents a highly selective view of only one side of the dispute, based on the assumption that every single known member of the list is lying about it and the only people telling the truth are the ones who were not recipients of the original email. If I was trying to insert a source that put only my side then your comment might have some merit, but I'm not, so it doesn't. What I'm actually asking for is a source which is analytical and reliable, rather than simply stating as fact one or two editors' version of events, especially since I know for a fact that said version is wrong in several important respects, as was pointed out by every single member of the list that posted to the long thread on wikien-l, including Jimbo Wales. I fail to see how that is an acceptable source. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted both of your edits because they were edits made to a protected page without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Gain consensus for them, then instate them or use . Do NOT use your admin tools to continue to edit when other can't. Other than that I have no opinion on the matter, having not looked closely enough at the page/wording. If you have a problem with my other actions, my talk page is quite easy to find, as is dispute resolution. However before you start to attack me, think about this: I do not edit on anyones behalf, and will only make an edit/perform an action if i personally think it is the right thing to do. That someone at WR would like my edits, does not make them any less valid. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you reverted them because you dislike me - and the feeling is mutual right now.  I've read your comments on WR, remember.  Don't worry, though, I won't be dragging your sorry ass to ArbCom yet, although do please tell the WR people that hiding the thread where Kohs asked you to undelete his article and you acceded has not helped because Jimbo and some arbs have already seen it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I reverted because you shouldnt be editing a protected article. Simple. I would have done it had anyone else performed that edit. Hiding threads? I did no hiding, I post to WR in full knowledge that you and other read it. Paul August recently said "We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, it was a well-written puff piece for a client of a banned user written by a banned user using a sockpuppet account while banned, WP:CSD#G5.  And you undeleted it by request of the banned user in a thread attacking a Wikipedia administrator on Wikipedia Review.  If it were any more recent I think your sysop bit would be history.  Also please show me the clause in the page proteciton policy which allows for reverting protected edits if you disagree with them; the edit from "reported" to "alleged" was in response to a request which I thought was valid in context and whihc semes ot have some support here - after all, the Register did not so much report the event as allow Cla68 a platform to restate some things which, actually, he'd been told were false, but preferred to continue believing the worst instead of assuming good faith of notorious POV-pushing trolls like User:Jimbo Wales. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop editing the protected article 

message: For what it's worth, I think it was a good edit.  The Register articles does indeed allege material, as the neutrality and accuracy of their reporting is in question.  Saying that the article discusses the use of a private mailing list for the purpose they describe is begging the question.  Since JzG's edit has been reverted (to the original protected version of this article) is there any opposition to putting up an {editprotected} request to make a consensus change to the more neutral wording (discussed → alleged)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the change, I just was thinking it would be best to do it by the book since so many people are fighting over this mess. Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And remove the link, per WP:RS and WP:EL, we should not link to biased and polemical sources which state falsehood and uninformed opinon as fact and represent only one side of a story, especially where it's a single editor taking an on-wikipedia dispute to an external source in order to try to gain an advantage in that dispute; there is no independent coverage cited, and we can't put the other side of the story - most importantly, the true nature and constitutions of the list about which Cla68 so egregiously lied, becaise there is no source for that at all.  A dispute which has absolutely no reliable sources whatsoever (which this one does not, at this stage) does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Oh, incidentally, two wrongs don't make a right.  Viridae's pointed reversion of actually a pretty uncontroversial edit is almost as despicable as undeleting an article created by a banned user at that banned users request, the request being posted in an attack thread on Wikipedia Review. No doubt Viridae's WR friends will be duly proud. I would tell you what I really think of Cla68's piece of shit Register story, but I'd probably get blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the pot calling the kettle "biased and polemical".  You're engaging in original research and violating NPOV in your dismissal of the article based on your personal beliefs, and bringing in irrelevant prior disputes.  Incidentally, I support the change to "alleged" (which is similar to a change I made myself before the protection, but you reverted), but not the complete removal. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's an accurate description of the source.  Of course you agree with the source because you are one of the sources for the Register pieces yourself, but that does not mean it is wrong to call it biased and inaccurate, which it is.  It's utterly useless as a source because it presents a highly selective view of only one side of the dispute, based on the assumption that every single known member of the list is lying about it and the only people telling the truth are the ones who were not recipients of the original email. If I was trying to insert a source that put only my side then your comment might have some merit, but I'm not, so it doesn't. What I'm actually asking for is a source which is analytical and reliable, rather than simply stating as fact one or two editors' version of events, especially since I know for a fact that said version is wrong in several important respects, as was pointed out by every single member of the list that posted to the long thread on wikien-l, including Jimbo Wales. I fail to see how that is an acceptable source. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted both of your edits because they were edits made to a protected page without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Gain consensus for them, then instate them or use . Do NOT use your admin tools to continue to edit when other can't. Other than that I have no opinion on the matter, having not looked closely enough at the page/wording. If you have a problem with my other actions, my talk page is quite easy to find, as is dispute resolution. However before you start to attack me, think about this: I do not edit on anyones behalf, and will only make an edit/perform an action if i personally think it is the right thing to do. That someone at WR would like my edits, does not make them any less valid. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you reverted them because you dislike me - and the feeling is mutual right now.  I've read your comments on WR, remember.  Don't worry, though, I won't be dragging your sorry ass to ArbCom yet, although do please tell the WR people that hiding the thread where Kohs asked you to undelete his article and you acceded has not helped because Jimbo and some arbs have already seen it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I reverted because you shouldnt be editing a protected article. Simple. I would have done it had anyone else performed that edit. Hiding threads? I did no hiding, I post to WR in full knowledge that you and other read it. Paul August recently said "We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, it was a well-written puff piece for a client of a banned user written by a banned user using a sockpuppet account while banned, WP:CSD#G5.  And you undeleted it by request of the banned user in a thread attacking a Wikipedia administrator on Wikipedia Review.  If it were any more recent I think your sysop bit would be history.  Also please show me the clause in the page proteciton policy which allows for reverting protected edits if you disagree with them; the edit from "reported" to "alleged" was in response to a request which I thought was valid in context and whihc semes ot have some support here - after all, the Register did not so much report the event as allow Cla68 a platform to restate some things which, actually, he'd been told were false, but preferred to continue believing the worst instead of assuming good faith of notorious POV-pushing trolls like User:Jimbo Wales. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit - minor wording change 

message: I don't think this kind of bias is discussed anywhere on this page, but it's something that's troubling me. 
I recently added an NPOV tag to the "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" page.  The problem here is that a well-educated group of people who care a lot about having a page reflect the beliefs of their religion are able to cite a great deal of apologetics in favor of their point of view while burying research that might contradict their beliefs.  I'm sure these are honest and sincere folks who believe what they are saying, but even though I'm no archaeologist (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it) I'm equally sure that mainstream archeology finds a lot of what they are defending laughable (e.g. Native Americans descending from Jewish tribes, horses, wheat, sheep, and iron in Pre-Columbian America).  I also suspect that it will be a lot harder to get mainstream archaeologists (who could cite reputable sources to contradict the weak and erroneous text cited) to spend their time keeping an eye on the page than it will be to get church members to dig up all kinds of backup for their holy book.  Every piece of evidence that contradicts scripture ,therefore, gets disputed by a lot of references to (often church-funded) research that casts doubt on the archaeological evidence.
I have no axe to grind against the LDS church.  In fact I have a feeling that this is not exclusive to Mormon religious beliefs.  Perhaps someone else could point out similar problems elsewhere (articles on male circumcision overwhelmed by pro-circumcision evidence posted by Jewish people? Articles on contraception being overwhelmed by information posted by Catholic and fundamentalist believers? I haven't looked at either of those articles).  Probably there others I haven't even though about.
The problem here seems to be that of a fairly large minority with fervently-held  beliefs being able to "outpost" a smaller group of experts who can cite the justification for the viewpoint best supported by the evidence.  In particular this is likely to happen when one viewpoint is held by scientists, for whom all knowledge is tentative and subject to contradicting evidence and the other viewpoint is held by religious believers, who feel they are starting from the truth and must discover evidence that supports it and find fault with evidence that contradicts it.  It will be particularly bad if the religious group has the numbers, time, and resources to counter every argument from evidence. 
This problem may not be exclusive to religious believers I'll even bet there are biases like this in articles about sectarian branches of Marxism -- please don't make me read them, though.
If I'm right, how should Wikipedia handle this?  The Neutral Point of View page suggests that "partisan screeds" can eventually be "...cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially" but I doubt this can happen in the circumstances I've described
If I was the Emperor of Wikipedia I would suggest a variation on the NPOV tag that says something like "The neutrality of this article is compromised by an imbalance of evidence supporting religious beliefs that contradict widely-accepted or scientific evidence"
Sorry to be so wordy.  Comments from more experienced Wikipedians?
*I think this has probably been brought up somewhere before. I'm pretty sure I've seen this criticism elsewhere...although, maybe it won't hurt to make a specific section on "Ideological biases" or something like that? Shnakepup (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a tricky one; LDS people are notoriously zealous in ensuring their view is reflected.  Have you tried an article RfC or peer review? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious and Similar Bias?