Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 14 January 2016

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Criticism articles + Praise articles = Reception articles

The project has three core content policies one of which is NPOV, the policy which is briefly explained as such: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Looking into criticism type articles, one will find that those articles are not written from a neutral point of view because not all significant views are presented "fairly, proportionately and without bias." Yes, there are some notable views from notable figures, but they are not the whole story. To fix this problem I propose to act based on Wikipedia:Criticism and avoid having separate articles on criticisms besides having no stand alone article on 'praise'. Instead, we may create articles entitled ' Reception of X '. This way, we can gather all the viewpoints and there's a chance to have a 'balanced' and 'neutral' article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This had come long ago, but keep in mind the term "criticism" is not necessarily meaning negative criticism but of any type. Criticism can be positive. Also, we can't force a false balance. If X is only negatively criticized by RS, we cant force positive criticism into the article, though we can include counterpoints to existing criticism. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASEM: I think, criticism is mainly done to express the negative points. So, I would say 'positive judgement' instead of ' positive criticism'. Personally, I've never seen a positive criticism but have encountered constructive ones! Some rare cases are only negatively/positively criticized, assuming the existence of 'positive criticism'. Per WP:NPOV we have to balance the articles using the RS which is another way of saying: "...though we can include counterpoints to existing criticism." Having the above definitions, the articles containing both positive and negative points would better not be called 'criticism of X or Y'. Mhhossein (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as some points of reference, previous discussions are here: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To follow on , I do want to point out these discussions were mainly about the titling, not content. What I do want to be clear is that because of NPOV/UNDUE, if all of the secondary commentary/criticism is of a negative type, and there does not exist a usable RS to give a positive stance, we can't change that the tone of such an article is going to be negative. So just changing "Criticism of X" to "Reception of X" is not suddenly going to change the balance that didn't exist before. And "reception" is not always the best wording here. I do agree that if the RSes have more balance of positive and negative reactions, maybe "Criticism" isn't the best word but it is appropriate if the reactions are mostly negative. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASEM: Thanks for your guidance, I swam through the sea of those discussions and found some valuable points berried there. AS I said before, the cases are mostly covered negatively and positively by sources so a proper scheme should be devised. I'd like to ping those editors participating that discussion and are active now;@Shanes, Fences and windows, Tryptofish, Casliber, SDY, Pmanderson, Blueboar, and Bus stop: The thread you made here is long enough I'd like you to put the opinions in a nut shell. Finally, what should we do with criticism articles? Mhhossein (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking me. My nutshell opinion is that the issue needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, page by page. I do not believe that all "Criticism of" pages are good, and I do not believe that they are all bad, or should all be discouraged. Sometimes, editors may reach a consensus that a particular page is unavoidably a WP:POV fork, and needs to be deleted or merged. Other times, such a page has genuine encyclopedic value, and may only need to be edited for compliance with NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back to see what other editors have been saying, and I agree with other editors that "Reception of" can be a good improvement. I continue to think, however, that this isn't a case of one-size-fits-all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. My view of "Criticism of..." articles and sections is that they are best titled "Reception of..." and should include positive as well as negative reception/critiques. If the topic of critiquing a subject is itself notable it should have an article, or if a "Reception of..." section gets too large it can be spun out and summarised in the main article. Fences&Windows 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree they should be titled ' Reception of X ' as 'Criticism..' while sometimes means both positive and negative but too often has negative connotation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think ' Reception of X ' looks better, as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to make any conclusions at a meta-level. In most cases, if we have an article about a thing it makes little sense to have a separate article about people's commentary, reception, or criticism of the thing. It's all the same subject. If it doesn't belong in the main article, it doesn't belong in a sub article. On the other hand, things like art, philosophical positions, and systems of government are all the subject of bodies of criticism (or critique, or detraction, or whatever). Popular websites are not usually the subject of a body of criticism, but there may be a locus of controversy sufficient to write an article not about people's opinions but about a group of controversies. It really depends on context, and on individual articles. We can't just sit back here on a meta page and tell people what's right for their particular subject area. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon: Thanks for your participation. Could you please bring examples from both groups? Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hae to agree with Wikidemon here that we can't readily adopt a one-size-fits-all. For example Criticism of the Catholic Church is really a proper name for that article, and you'll note that most of the areas where there is criticism, there is also counterpoint to that criticism making it a fairly neutral approach, given that we have several pages otherwise devoid of criticism or reception of the Church. To call it "Reception of the Catholic Church" is really a bad idea. Arguable, "Reception" should only apply to published works, while concepts and ideas like the Church or Criticism of capitolism really need to stay to "Criticism". --MASEM (t) 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASEM: There are concerns over both 'content' and the 'title'. Regarding the neutrality, I checked your example and I found some counter opinions beside the criticisms which was an effort to maintain the neutrality (although I still think it suffers from POV issues), while the problem with the title is still sitting there. As you know, "while "criticism" can mean opinions either way on a given topic, the word is nearly always taken in common terms to be negative facets and draw in undesirable OR, POV, and other issues that magnify the problem," and this is while the title has also to comply with neutrality. Mhhossein (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But in most of those cases "Criticism" still remains the best word in the English language to describe the content, recognizing that while it generally implies negative opinions, it is not necessearily limited to that. Further, let's consider that most of these Criticism of X articles are where the topic itself is already a large article or a number of articles. If we considered the collection of all these articles together, that is how we should evaluate if there's an NPOV aspect or not. If there are, say, 20 pages about the Catholic church and only one that is primarily negative criticism of it, that's a fair balance. That's why looking only to the bounds of the specific article is not always the best solution. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes back to the definition of "criticism", and using the one provided above, the context in which the term is used matters greatly to its interpreted meaning. Clearly, when the term is used in conjunction with art, literature, and film, then the definition that should apply is the second one listed: "the act of giving your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something or someone, especially books, films, etc." Perhaps one's life experiences with the term may result in a different interpretation from one person to the next, but the definition here is clear. It is not meant to only encapsulate negative judgment. I'm not convinced there is a dire need to change from "criticism" to "reception", and no doubt trying to discourage its use (e.g., at WP:MOS) will likely create confusion and possibly a lot of unnecessary work policing its use. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like articles that have a "Criticism" section where each paragraph says: "A person/organization said/did something, which draw controversy."

Those sections shouldn't be presented as "Criticism", but as opinions or actions of the respective person / organization: "A person/organization said/did something. B criticised A for some reason, whereas C agreed with A."

--NaBUru38 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2016: call for proposals extended

Dear Wikimedians,
the deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 09:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article about the propagation of ignorance

As our mission here is the gathering of knowledge, I thought this article might be of interest here - Kenyon, Georgina (2016-01-06). "The man who studies the spread of ignorance". www.bbc.com. It touches on various issues that (imho) should matter to the WP community. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing, interesting read.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Away until Thursday.

I will be away for a few days. Normally, I would ask that you have Wikipedia finished by the time I return, but I will be more modest this time, and merely ask that all the disambiguation links be fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M Magazine

I have turned M Magazine into a disambiguation page, however I am not sure whether the current title of M (magazine) is appropriate or what it should be renamed to. And perhaps the redlink M Magazine (U.S.) could have a better name too, as the former is a U.S. magazine too. I would appreciate advice on this. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could open a WP:Requested move discussion on M (magazine). A "U.S." disambiguator would only be needed if there are other "M Magazines" in other countries. Personally, I think the current title is fine, though you might get people to agree to M magazine (no parentheses) in a RM discussion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, your current "disambiguation page" – M Magazine – isn't needed, as the other 3 choices are redlinks (i.e. no articles): disambig. pages are only supposed to be created to aid in reader navigation which isn't an issue in this case. I think you might turn that back into a redirect... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: The article title seems to suggests it is called just M, in that case the current title is fine, but the lead says M Magazine. Also, I created the disambiguation page because many people were linking to that article when they really meant one of the other three magazines (I removed those links), and this may aid in people/bots finding those mistakes. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now I understand what you were saying here. In that case I might turn it back into a redirect, the other two were less common (maybe even just one article each, I don't remember). nyuszika7h (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now, sorry for the confusion. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit link for revisions

If one views an old revision, there is a functional "Edit" link at the top. If they edit the revision, it reverts all edits made after the time of that revision. I've done this unintentionally once, and I've seen it done once by another editor. In the latter case, it would have gone unnoticed had I not noticed the problem three days after the fact (by which time it was un-undoable and somewhat difficult to fix). Is there a legitimate need for this Edit link? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is a red warning about this at the top of the edit session. In the above-cited two cases, that wasn't enough to prevent the mistake. It seems unlikely that I and the other editor are the only two idiots editing Wikipedia, and we should be idiot-proof wherever possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to be able to view the wikicode, and sometimes it can legitimately be OK to restore an older version. Of course, this could be accomplished by cut-and-pasting the old wikicode from a "View source" of that revision with a link to the old version in the edit summary. Fences&Windows 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I want to restore an old revision (i.e., revert the most recent n edits), I view the diff of the last edit I want to keep and click the "restore this version" link on the right side. This is much harder to do by mistake (in my case, I simply forgot I was viewing an old revision). It is also much more apparent when you do, automatically beginning the edit summary with "‎Reverted to revision revnum by username". I believe this requires you to enable WP:Twinkle, but that's easy to do. If someone is so new that they have trouble enabling Twinkle, they probably lack sufficient competence to restore old revisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the "Edit older version" to "View older version source" could a a reasonable change. This page would have "Restore" and "Edit" buttons, which would allow changes. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Could anyone point me toward a tool that would give some statistics as to whether pages are found by readers directly or through a redirect page. I am looking to do some analysis as to whether we are using common names or not. W C M_email 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an ingenie, a libre patent

Bonjour,

I manage a project called LibreIdea since August 2014.

It s a wikipedia of ideas (we called them ingenies) and research questions with the goal to create a collaborative tool of progress.

Our main objective is to create cocis that will assist us to create ideas.

Vev (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 Could anyone point me toward a tool that would give some statistics as to whether pages are found by readers directly or through a redirect page.  I am looking to do some analysis as to whether we are using common names or not.  <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
+== an ingenie, a libre patent ==
+[[File:Libreidea.org drawing.svg|500px|thumbnail|right|libreidea drawing]]
+Bonjour,
+I manage a project called [[LibreIdea]] since [[August 2014]].
+It s a [[wikipedia]] of [[ideas]] (we called them ingenies) and [[research question]]s with the goal to create a [[collaborative]] [[tool]] of [[progress]].
+Our main objective is to create [[coci]]s that will assist us to create [[ideas]].
+* [http://www.libreidea.org/LibreIdea:Presentation LibreIdea:Presentation]
+* [http://www.libreidea.org/LibreIdea:Coci LibreIdea:Coci]
+* https://twitter.com/libre_idea
+[[User:Vev|Vev]] ([[User talk:Vev|talk]]) 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)