Wikipedia talk:Criticisms

message: I think this article should be merged with Criticism_of_Wikipedia as it covers mainly the same topic. We should deal with this very seriously because the credibility of Wikipedia is at stake here.
:Yes, and no. Criticism of Wikipedia is for the benefit of our readers, and we should indeed be very serious about it. Wikipedia:Criticisms is for our own benefit, and we can be as POV and inaccurate and inappropriate as we like here. So far, it seems to serve as a quote repository. I've tagged both articles as needing to be merged from each other; I'm essentially advocating that the content should be duplicated across the articles, where appropriate, and adapted. Criticism of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article, which should remain NPOV, factual and all that; Wikipedia:Criticisms can be whatever we want it to be. If any article goes, though, it should be this one. JRM 22:16, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
*Is there a way to make the link "Criticism of Wikipedia" in the "It has been suggested that Criticism of Wikipedia be merged..." section actually point to Criticism of Wikipedia? --Matthew0028 09:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like King's proposal that we merge the project page in the Wikipedia: namespace with the Talk page on the article in the main encyclopedia. Mamawrites 10:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge it 

message: As it was said above, this area is for the benefit of Wikipedians. The other article is a Wikipedia article designed to be for them and NPOV. I see little point in deleting that article to put the material in a nonwikipedia article here.
If we want to move this stuff there then perhaps, although I'd keep them seperated. --ShaunMacPherson 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with you! No merge! Keep! --Brazil4Linux 13:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! Rath 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not 

message: One page with general criticism is enough. 99% of our users are not familiar with Wiki's ins and outs, and even most of our registered users find it hard to understand why we need several pages on the same subject. I strongly suggest not only merging Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Criticism, but also Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simple argument for merge 

message: The merge/redirect is absolutely out of question simply because the two belong to different namespaces: article space and "wikipedia:" space. mikka (t) 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different namespaces

message: I. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I 

message: Really. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really 

message: Like. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like 

message: The. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 

message: Idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Of. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of 

message: Creating. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating 

message: A. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 

message: New. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: Section. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 

message: For. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: Each. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Each 

message: Comment, --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment, 

message: But. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  But 

message: Why. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: Stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop 

message: There?
I mean, putting an entire discussion in the same section is so boring and conventional. But why stop at giving each comment a new section? Why not each WORD? 
...or we could do it letter-by-letter instead of word-by-word... --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There? 

message: The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia_Boycott_Campaign for details. Please address any questions, suggestions, etc you may have at talk -Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. --JuanMuslim  1m 06:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Boycott Campaign 

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 the article 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: Found something interesting... should we link it from here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:List of known defamation incidents]] 

message: would anyone object if I alphabetized the headings? Richardjames444 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alphabetize? 

message: Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, the intelligent design creationism publicity machine says of Wikipedia:
:I know of numerous people who have tried to suggest changes to Wikipedia to lessen the current bias of the ID entries -- including staff of Discovery Institute. They were rebuffed. The moderators of Wikipedia's ID-pages have repeatedly rejected and censored changes that would provide some semblance of balance or objectivity to the discussion. Basic accuracy on dates and names have suffered, never mind the downright falsehoods about the science.
Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries
# Should this be put in?
# Where should this be put in? Paul A. Newman 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia [[Intelligent design]] articles are "biased", says ID activist... 

message: Does anyone keep this page up-to-date? Are there any new critics since 2007?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2aprilboy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up-to-date? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —Marcus Qwertyus  14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The phrase "Notice that much of the criticism is based on how they perceive the process of Wikipedia and not the actual quality." is not very encyclopedic. Something like "Criticisms on this page may be based on perceptions rather than on measurements of quality" would be better, but I think we should just delete it as self-serving soapboxing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Comment 

message: I have a testimonial I wrote in December 2012, after I was proven to be a sockpuppet and surprise permabanned (I was actually in the middle of a fairly big edit when it happened, which I of course lost). After my testimonial was written, my talk page, along with the testimonial, was replaced with a sockpuppet tag.
It is titled "Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!" and I would like to submit it to the community for consideration, because I was unable to submit it (or anything else for that matter) to the community at the time. Note that it has been vandalized/censored by other editors, but it is still in the logs.
I admit, it is a little crass. I should have at least prefaced the call to revert my edits with the possibility that my surprise permaban could be and would be overruled. But hey, we all make "simple mistakes". Int21h (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My testimonial 

message: Zitat aus der Zeitschrift die Welt:"Einige Benutzer von Wikipedia benutzen ihre Plattform zu politischen Zwecken. Das Widerspricht dem selbst gegebenen Anspruch der wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit".
Bisher musste ich den über mich verfassten Artikel dulden obwohl er nicht richtig recherschiert ist. Es wird alles auf der Artikel und Diskussionsseite gelöscht, was von mir geschrieben wurde. Als Zeitzeuge und Hauptakteur in der beliebten Doku: "Willkommen im Sozialismus" bisher 30 Ausstrahlungen im ZDF und auch als Mitwirkender in: "Von Speewaldgurken zu FKK, DDR privat" sowie Staatssekretär in der 10. Volkskammer der DDR wurde meine Filmkritik sofort gelöscht. ----------Hier wiederhole ich sie textlich exakt wie sie auf meiner Benutzerseite gelöscht wurde:
TV Kritik
Die NTV Verfilmung "Von Spreewaldgurken zum FKK, Die DDR privat" trägt nicht zur Aufklärung des damaligen DDR - Alltags bei. In allen Folgen ist sichtbar, das die Filmemacher, die DDR Wirklichkeit nicht selbst erlebt haben und das Ganze aus westlicher -und ihrer persönlichen Sicht darstellten. Die RTL Gruppe kam auch nicht beizeiten ihrer Aufsichtspflicht nach. Ich hatte selbst mitgewirkt, aber durch entspr. Schnitte wurde das in harmlose Feigenblätter gewandelt. Die Produzenten glaubten an ihren großen Wurf, weil sie viele DDR Promis oft ihre wenig negative Sicht erzählen ließen. Das war nicht die DDR Wirklichkeit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Das ZDF zeigt das man auch DDR Promis Filmen kann, ohne die DDR Wirklichkeit zu verzerren. Das beste Beispiel ist: die ZDF Verfilmung: "Kati und der schöne Schein". Hier wird gezeigt was Katis Verdienste sind und wie sie eingebettet war, in das Unterdrückungssystem DDR. Sie war so frei (reisefrei), dass sie jederzeit hätte gehen können. aber sie arbeitete kräftig am Überleben des Staates DDR mit. Auch alle anderen Verfilmungen des ZDF zeigen viel Insider- Wissen. Und durch Zwischenkommentare wird eine klare Linie nie verlassen. So war die DDR wirklich! Z. B. Mauerhase u. anderes. Entweder haben überwiegend Filmemacher aus dem Osten produziert oder ehemalige DDR Oppositionelle haben mit darüber geschaut, um ein Gleichgewicht zu wahren.--Manfred Dott (Diskussion) 21:50, 12. Jan. 2014 (CET) --Jakob Dott (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmkritik 

message: I honestly do not understand that sentence. It is the worst written sentence I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and I've seen some doozys. (That word is American slang for "powerful example", usually of a flaw or problem.) What is the antecedent of "whose"? If it's "critics", then ", especially in publications," is a textbook example of bad sentence structure. 
Criticisms not in publications not that important: I'm OK with that.
Critics...whose criticisms may NOT be contested? Are there any? If all criticisms may be "contested" (disputed?), then why say "whose criticisms may be contested"?
I'd fix it, but I don't know how. Maybe "This is a list of published criticisms of Wikipedia". 9 instead of 19 words. Or do I have it wrong? deisenbe (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad grammar 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Paulo Correa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Paulo Correa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paulo Correa" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]