Wikipedia:Criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For criticism of Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Criticisms.
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
Wikipedia must strive for a neutral point of view and verifiability in general and in regards to criticism of article's topics.
Warning: per Wikipedia:Verifiability an article should only contain sourced statements. Explicitly calling such statements "criticism" in the text of the article without any serious reason to do so can result in a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
This guideline gives recommendations on how to format criticisms, which can be:
- In separate sections in articles about the criticised topic, if such proceeding is justified;
- Integrated throughout an article, if such proceeding is justified;
- In other articles than the article about the topic, if such proceeding is justified.
"Justified" in this context primarily refers to keeping a Neutral Point of View in balance, and is further detailed below.
Contents
|
[edit] Rationale: integrating extreme views regarding the presentation of criticism in Wikipedia
This proportion and emphasis guideline attempts to find the middle way between these two extreme stances:
- One extreme: "All articles should always contain criticism about its topic. When Fred criticizes hats, that criticism belongs in the "hat" article."
- The opposite extreme: "No article should ever contain criticism about its topic. When Fred criticizes hats, that criticism belongs in the "Fred" article -- or, if notable enough, in a "Criticism of hats" article."
[edit] Neutral point of view
As with all Wikipedia articles, criticisms articles must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included.
"Criticism of ...." articles would seem to inherently advocate the topic's negative point of view. However, there is no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles in general are always POV forks. While it is possible for criticism to be an NPOV evaluation or judgment of something, it more often degrades into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic. "Critique" is a somewhat elevated term for criticism and "review" is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study.[1] Naming an article "Critique of ..." or "Review of ..." rather than "Criticism of ...." may make it easier for the article to achieve NPOV. As is the convention with summary-style articles, criticism should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Once spun off, "Criticism of ..." articles should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
[edit] Formatting criticism
There are two main forms of criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The most obvious is the criticism in a section, often titled "Criticism", found in some articles (for example Igor Stravinsky#Criticism). A second format is the inclusion of criticism into the article's other sections or introduction.
Another format of criticism is including the criticism of a topic in the articles about the critics of that topic, or in articles describing books or other media criticising the topic.
[edit] Kinds of article subjects
The appropriate way to structure criticism may depend on the style of the article. In articles on people, places, things, etc., it can be very useful to integrate criticism into the article. In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with criticism of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook.
[edit] Criticisms of a topic in its article
[edit] Criticism in a "Criticism" section
- See {{criticism-section}}
In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:
And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.
Criticism sections should not violate "Article structures that can imply a point of view":
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.
Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. (Even this might be made better by naming the section after the entity doing the criticism, however.)
Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the meanwhile the "separate" section might be tagged {{POV-section}}, {{criticism-section}}, or similar).
It is important to note the difference between criticism and aspects of a topic that are or are likely to be criticized. For example, statements such as "Bob does such and such." do not belong in a criticism section. Instead, it should read "Bob has been criticized for doing such and such.", provided that Bob actually has been criticized for doing "such and such."
[edit] Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section
Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.
Some recommendations:
- If the reception (history) of a topic is composed of as well positive and negative criticism, and other significant events that usually aren't qualified as "criticism" (e.g. about a book, notes about when major translations appeared,...), it is often better to have a "Reception (history)" section than a "Criticism" section, and to integrate the "criticism" topics in that Reception (history) section;
- "Reception (history)" sections might be a bit more susceptible to accumulation of Trivia, which is a disadvantage compared to straight "Criticism" sections.
Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions"; "Studies and reception history"; etc.
[edit] Criticism integrated throughout the article
Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created. Alternatively, this section could be retitled "Early reception".
[edit] Criticisms about a topic in other articles
Criticism of a topic in an article about a critic of that topic should relate to the critic and his/her work (or notability) even if it is found in a section titled "Criticism of <topic>". In other words, don't add criticisms by other critics of the topic in the article about the critic. Of course, criticism regarding the critic can be inserted in the critic's article, per the above.
Publications (e.g. The Open Society and its Enemies) often criticise other topics. Wikipedia articles about such publications may include descriptions of criticism of these other topics (in the quoted example, most notably criticisms of Plato and Marxism). This is natural proceeding in Wikipedia.
The articles on the criticised topics can (and preferably do) contain links to the "criticising" Wikipedia article; also, if the criticism is considered important or notable, the article on the criticised topic would preferably give a summary of the major criticisms (e.g. formatted in summary style).
[edit] Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history)
Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky".
Overview:
- Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.
- Don't make articles entirely devoted to trivia regarding a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article: this follows from discussions e.g. at wikipedia talk:trivia: putting trivia in a separate article is generally not seen as a good way to tackle trivia issues.
- Making separate "reception history" articles (e.g. Tacitean studies) is tricky business, with a lot of ifs and buts – make sure to follow recommendations if pursuing this option:
- "Reception history" should be about more than exclusively positive/negative criticism and trivia (see above), and cover the whole domain of reception history;
- The "main" article should have a summary style type of section summarizing the "reception history", and properly linking to the subsidiary article (for the Tacitean studies example this is the "Studies and reception history" section in the Tacitus article);
- This can only be done if a split of the main article is unavoidable due to article size, and if splitting off the reception history is seen as the most appropriate way to perform that split (so: subject to consensus of Wikipedians, preferably discussed on the "main" article's talk page prior to the split);
- Also the proceedings should be compatible with other applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:content forking.
[edit] Examples
[edit] Articles with criticism sections
[edit] Articles with reception sections
[edit] Subsidiary "Reception (history)" articles
[edit] See also
- For articles on living people, see also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
- As of 6 May 2006 there has been a EN-l mailing list thread about "criticism", starting here: Criticism sections on bios of living people - discussions however not limited to "living persons" alone. Some ideas:
- Being careful about verifiability founded on reliable sources:
> 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
> What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
> determining this?
Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough. (reply by Jimbo Wales) - Is there a need for new "criticism" guidelines?
> 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
> kind of criticism in their biographies?
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy. (reply by Jimbo Wales)> The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is partly a cultural
> issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and
> cultural issues on articles dealing with living people.
Indeed. (reply by Jimbo Wales)
- Being careful about verifiability founded on reliable sources:
[edit] Issues and current debates
[edit] Alternative draft proposal
An alternative draft version for this proposal is at Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1
[edit] Issues regarding this essay
- Does a neutral description count as promotion?
- Should criticism be required of articles?
- How does one criticize simple topics?
- How does one deal with one criticism from multiple or countless sources?
- Is there a different standard of notability for criticism?
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Criticism.
