Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2004-12-03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vote closed. No consensus to delete.

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

I think this is an admirable attempt at an objective description of the criticisms of Wikipedia, but it does appear to be somewhat pro-Wikipedia. Anyway, I think it's good content (even if it's largely cloned from Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great) and as such, that it should be at least partially merged into Wikipedia. - Vague | Rant 09:39, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - Sufficient content to warrant own page and relevant content that overall adds value to Wikipedia. jwilson9999 01:03, 2004 Dec 27 (GMT)
  • Merge and Delete. --fvw* 09:47, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Maybe move some of it to Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. utcursch 11:44, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Another vote for Merge and Delete Robert Pendray 12:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasonable subject; the Wikipedia article could go on forever. Everyking 12:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep because of following reasons
    • If all its content is merged in Wikipedia article (and future expanasions) we will have no other choice.
  • No other choice than what? --fvw*
  • This topic already exists as a section of the article Wikipedia. Adding more content to that section of Wikipedia will eventually result in requirement of a separate page.
  • Are there that many criticisms specific to Wikipedia as opposed to Wikis or websites? The I've yet to see evidence of that. --fvw*
  • If we don't try to find criticism how can we improve wikipedia?
  • If it's goal is to improve wikipedia structurally it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. --fvw*
  • non pro-Wikipedia is not a reason sited in 'wikipedia policy on deletion'.
  • Chocolate is delicious isn't a reason for deletion either. Luckily, that nor the reason you suggest were proposed as reason for deleting. --fvw*
  • I think I read it on banner, may be I was a little upset by the deletion decision so I read incorrect. Any how at least it is a clear advice to the voters that pro-Wikipedian is not an issue here, they should chose it on merit same as any other article.
    • Then how can we claim wikipedia is NPOV it will be serious blow to our philosophy.
  • The suggestion is to merge into the main article. How is that not NPOV? --fvw*
  • So you agree that deleting will be NPOV! ok merging is not NPOV but deleting might be. So voters should see this argument.
  • I agree that removing the viewpoint entirely would be non-NPOV. If criticism of wikipedia is fairly represented in the main page, I don't consider removing this page non-NPOV. --fvw*
  • Could you clarify what you mean? You appear to be missing a verb and possibly some other words. --fvw* 14:13, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • People will criticize that wikipedia crushes voices of criticism. (sorry English not native language. I was criticized in other places too, due to this)
  • People will criticise us no matter what we do, we should do what is correct not what people are least likely to criticise us for. --fvw* 15:59, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Please if you insist to delete answer above points in 'good faith'.
Zain 13:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Keep noteworthy controversy that has been covered by the media. Only very controversial subjects such as Scientology, Sathya Sai Baba, and Prem Rawat should have their own criticism article. Wikipedia does not fall into that class of controversy of those subjects. Andries 17:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Criticism of software engineering can be seen as an example.
  • Delete - navel-gazing page that's redundant with existing pages. See also

Wikipedia:Replies to common objections -- Cyrius|✎ 17:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge to Wikipedia or keep. The links are quite useful, and the rest of the information also belongs in the article namespace. --L33tminion | (talk) 18:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, this is an obviously noteworthy controversy which has been cited in the press and television news repeatedly. There is a significant number of links which support this already listed in the article and I would like to see the actual article have a chance for growth as well. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Largely redundant with Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Merge what little isn't already covered there and redirect. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs a lot of work, it's too pro wikipedia at the moment. The title doesn't reflect the contents because the page is critisims and their replies, so we'd need to think of something better - opinions of wikipedia perhaps? But there is enough material to warrent a seperate article from wikipedia Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep your fingers crossed that the "cabal" don't read it and come after you! Dr Zen 23:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this, and extremely so. —RaD Man (talk) 00:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Content is useful but not appropriate for the article namespace. Stick it all in a new Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia as a temporary holding area, to give one or more editors a chance to distribute the contents among Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is Not So Great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, then turn Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia into a redirect. It's useful to have a page that's completely open to critical comments, but the "Criticisms" secton in the main Wikipedia article should remain only a summary. JamesMLane 00:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Addendum: I see we also have Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. The detailed criticisms belong in the Wikipedia namespace, not the article namespace, but it would be great if someone brought some sensible organization to these various critical and supportive pages. JamesMLane 01:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. After reading the article, it came to mind that an elegant response would be to keep the article and vote to delete the rest of Wikipedia. But no.
    • Dear voter if you try to give 'convincing to all' reasons. It will be more of a help in stoping this page from deletion. Zain 04:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely the rest of wikipedia could just be Redirected to the article in question... Kappa
      • Good, but we might as well redirect this article to itself at the same time. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but wikify and NPOV it. From reading the article in question, it seems to be an attempt at a proper wikipedia article rather than a call to action, therefore it can be kept in the main article space. Now what needs to be done with it is make it more readable and better structured, but that goes for a lot of articles...

--Martin Wisse 06:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep (change of earlier vote), having had more time to think about it. Agree with above arguements. Dan100 10:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: To those voting keep, you do realize this is a carbon copy of Wikipedia:Replies to common objections minus content? Observe:
CoW says: Wikipedia benefits greatly from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been most editors repeated experience on Wikipedia.
WP:RtCO says: We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia.
Vague | Rant 11:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
The current content on the page has nothing to do with whether we should keep or delete it though. The page needs work, it need to be written in a much more encylopedic way but that's neither here nor there. This vote is about deleting the article not improving it.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm afraid. The deletion policy covers this quite well, under the section "Problems that don't require deletion" - specifically "Article needs improvement", "Article needs a lot of improvement" and "Article is biased or has lots of POV". This nomination is bogus - David Gerard 11:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wikipedia:Criticisms and delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not buying the nuanced reasons that some of the editors above are using to justify hiding this article from our readers on an internal subpage. And the Wikipedia article will become too lengthy if this article is merged in. This article needs editing, not deletion. — DV 15:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is a mess, but that's no reason to delete it. This seems to me yet another attempt to censor articles through the VfD process. I vote to delete this VfD page. Surly Bob 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not an attempt to censor it. Those who want the article deleted want it's content merged into the wikipedia article so there is no question of censorship. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Or we think it's already covered better on existing pages. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to either Wikipedia or one of the many, many other critical WP: namespace pages (Wikipedia:Criticisms is a pretty obvious target). -Sean Curtin 01:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep' Yuckfoo 03:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what we have Replies to Common Objections for. Neutralitytalk 03:07, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wrong. This is an article, whereas Wikipedia:Replies to common objections is a project page (where NPOV doesn't even apply). Please think of the mirrors and forks. This could be merged with Wikipedia in the worst case, but the topic is notable enough to have an article on its own. Fredrik | talk 17:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I can just see this turning into a forum more appropriate on the meta pages. 172 07:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Fred Bauder 16:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Another obvious keep. Guanaco 17:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 20:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems encyclopedic enough to me. Please note that merge and delete is an unacceptable vote according to our current deletion policy. Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The deletion policy says that, if the problem with an article is "Article duplicates information in some other article", then the solution is "Merge and redirect." (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category) Here I would merge, although it may be that not much merging is necessary if the article content is largely lifted from existing articles anyway; the reason I said "merge and delete" instead of "merge and redirect" is that I thought a redirect from the main article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace might cause problems for mirrors that copy the former but not the latter. If that's too much complication, please consider my vote as a simple Delete. JamesMLane 01:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to Wikipedia, move to meta space, just don't keep. anthony 警告 19:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 21:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, somewhere, but not in article namespace, please. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Metawiki or to the Wikipedia namespace. Lev 23:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Wikipedia. --Zappaz 21:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is definitely an encyclopedia worthy article. It should focus on the criticism of Wikipedia rather than the very POV idea of improving Wikipedia. (Some opposition is that the idea itself is flawed, so using it to encourage continuing within the scope of a Wiki would be POV.) The article should just be presenting the criticisms and counter criticisms letting the reader decide which stance they agree with. As for whether it's a prominent enough topic to have it's own criticism page, we have pages for topics that are much more obscure than this --Sketchee 23:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that pages in the Wikipedia namespace would be perfectly acceptable in having the agenda of improving Wikipedia (and probably should show some interest in that goal). That's the difference I'm trying to convey between an article and a "Wikipedia:____" article.--Sketchee 01:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs improvement, not deletion. The topic is well within Wikipedia's scope of coverage. -- Visviva 16:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, salva veritate. If this were not kept, we would have a biased view about ourselves, and it is a general no-no to violate NPOV policy. --Ryan! | Talk 17:51, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it is POV not to have articles that are critical of Wikipedia. I'm interested in creating a neutral encyclopedia, not pushing a Wikipedia propaganda site which Wikipedia would become if it would abandon its NPOV with respect to itself. --ShaunMacPherson 21:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep surly it is a simple NPOV issue. Me lkjhgfdsa 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)