Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2005-02-25

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

What's that? Cannot we even assure NPOV in the article about Wikipedia itself? Partially merge and redirect to the Wikipedia article and death to all POV forks, BTW.

Note: There was a previous VfD 2004-Dec-23 but the discussion drifted away to question whether and which criticism of Wikipedia should be allowed, with statements like "Keep. It is POV not to have articles that are critical of Wikipedia". Ahem, the Wikipedia article itself should contain the critical POV. Also some contributors remarked, that Criticism of Wikipedia is much too pro-Wikipedia. Anyway, it's easier and suggested by policy, to put all aspects in Wikipedia an enhance that one article.

Pjacobi 22:02, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

• I think this VfD is ill-considered on several counts. For starters, I believe it is completely incorrect to call it a "POV fork" in the first place. If someone said "Hmmm, the article on Wikipedia is getting pretty large, why don't we make Sister projects of Wikipedia or Software and hardware of Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia its own article?" no one would call it a fork; why then is [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] a "POV fork"? As Pjacobi says, it is suggested by policy that all aspects of a subject go into that subject's article, but it is not only suggested by policy that aspects of a subject get spun out if the subject's article gets too large, it's a suggestion that's automatically made by the editing software every time the size of the article approaches 32K! It is definitely not the case that policy is unambiguously calling for a merge and redirect. I am voting for a keep unless some more convincing case than 'this is a POV fork (disputed) and "all POV forks must be killed"' is made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason why there can't be a reasonable analysis of criticisms of something important. Besides, this article is very good.-LtNOWIS 03:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems useful. Should be summarized and linked as a "main article" from within "Wikipedia". In the unlikely event that others decide this doesn't belong in main space, then it belongs in Wikipedia space. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • That appears to be the current situation. Kappa 08:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Pjacobi seems to be on a chase of the dubious "POV fork". The vFd on this article is another of his victims, a royal PIA, and a waste of time. --Zappaz 06:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I thought this forksub-page was specifically created to allow the main article to have a pro-wikipedia POV. Kappa 08:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While I'm not opposed to this article per se, isn't there something remarkably similar on here already? (arguments against WP, or something). If so, merge. And anyway shouldn't this be in the wikipedia namespace? Radiant! 09:42, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are other articles like [Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great]] and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. I think the difference is that this page is supposed to be NPOV and not original research. Kappa 10:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is already too heavy, and doesn't need extra baggage. Very healthy for wikipedia to criticise itself. --SqueakBox 17:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep user PJacobi has misguided ideas about POV forks. If you vote to keep this one then also please vote to keep Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat The subject is more obscure but it has been listen on VfD for exactly the same reasons. Andries 18:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Looks too much like replies to common objections to me. Move to wikipedia namespace, and possible merge back into Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. cesarb 23:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs improvement perhaps, but the questions over content raised seem to be ones that can be fixed by editing the article. The different points of view can be discussed and should be attributed. (The Wikipedia namespace articles don't have to have such an attribution as they are from the voice of the Wikipedia organization itself.) If someone with these concerns wants to do a major rewrite, I'd encourage it. The topic has at least been newsworthy enough to be mentioned. "Article needs improvement", "Article is biased or has lots of POV", and "Dispute over article content" are all listed as Problems that don't require deletion. The reasons given so far seem to fall under those cases IMO. --Sketchee 02:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but To what extent an article should speak about and quote current WP editors (in their capacity as WP editors) is a question that, I think, not nearly enough weight has been alloted to. The problem is the inter-Wikipedia nature of notability. We are likely looking at a host of problems here which should be noted in this seemingly concluded (to keep) VfD. El_C 02:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there's an NPOV problem, fix it. Eric119 04:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, this is obvious navalgazing. This article properly belongs on meta. Move it there. →Raul654 07:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Not that I approve of terms like "navalgazing", but Raul is right. That said, meta (unfortunately) receives practically no use, and I don't think this article should be deleted... so... move or keep. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 220.255.11.4 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=220.255.11.4] is a vandalising troll with a history and should not be listened to. I have removed his offensive comments as more vandalism. --SqueakBox 19:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; there's a respectable precedent of Article X coexisting with a parallel Criticisms of X. Moving to meta is also acceptable, and the subject is already well-covered in the Wiki namespace, but I think keeping this version in the main namespace is OK. Antandrus 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Aren't we allowed to state our own case? Or should we expect critics to infer our defence from reading between the lines of our articles? -- llywrch 03:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up Seems to pretty much fit in with my experience of Wikipedia. If anything it is too pro-Wiki to be truly NPOV, although it's close enough for government work. --Stephenboothuk 12:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.