User:MrMurph101/Dealing with criticism

Nothing or no one is perfect. We can find flaws in anything if we put our mind to it. In many wikipedia articles there is a section devoted to criticisms of the subject and may even spin off an entire article if the subject is highly notable and draws plenty of controversies. The content of these criticisms may may lead to edit wars, personal attacks, arbitrations, pages locked from editing, etc. over how this content should be presented. A type of criticism that is uncontested in one article may draw resistance if a similar type of criticism is put in another article leading to inconsistency of how criticism content presented throughout wikipedia. Inculding criticisms can be perceived as an attack on the subject but not including them may hinder a fully informative article on a particular subject. The goal of this essay is to find a consistent way of presenting criticism in articles in a fair way and developing criteria for how something critical should be included. As always, core policies should be honored and in the case living people, WP:BLP should be addressed.

General arguments involving criticisms
There are usually similar arguments pro or con about including criticisms. Those who want to include any criticism are usually, but not always, someone who does not like the subject for a particular reason. This can be magnified when the subject is controversial to begin with. They may be activists who need to make sure any critical matter that can be used within the scope of existing policies be included and may consider the deletion of this information to be "whitewashing" or "sanitizing" the article to keep out any criticism they feel is notable.

On the other side there are those who consider the inclusion of criticism as "attacks" and that wikipedia is not the place to disparage a particular subject. There may be activists with this position also who may be sympathetic with the subject and do not consider the criticism worthy of inclusion or may object to the source of the criticism due to personal feelings about the source.

Unfortunately, some editors may take opposite positions based on what subject they are talking about due to personal feelings. Some editors may have a consistent stance about including criticisms but may not be motivated to deal with other articles leading to an example of systemic bias in wikipedia. This is why there should be some sort of guidelines involving how to include criticisms.

Some ideas for guidelines for including criticisms
Here are some ideas for criteria in whether a criticism can be included. These are based on arguments that have been discussed at some point:
 * 1) The criticism comes from a notable and relevant source and has been reported by a third -party non-editorializing source. (See Independent sources)
 * 2) Ad hominems should be avoided. A specific reason should be given as to what the subject is being criticized for.  Attributing someone to claiming that someone or something is stupid is not necessary.
 * 3) A criticism should not be reverted because you do not like the source unless it clearly violates policy. Bring up your misgivings on the talk page instead and discuss it.
 * 4) If someone reverts your edits when you add a criticism, instead of reverting back his or her edits, try rephrasing the content. If the other editor reverts again, discuss it on the talk page.
 * 5) If the subject is mostly notable for being controversial and therefore eliciting strong opinions, it would be better to have a "Responses" section which can include both positive and negative reactions to the subject. This would be better than having a section devoted to only to criticims which could make readers think the article has a negative tone. WP:CRITICISM also suggests that it is better to incorporate criticisms to relevant parts of an article instead of having a stand-alone section which some consider poor writing.
 * 6) If there is a recent development that reports something of a critical or controversial nature toward the subject, agree to an embargo until the story settles down and the facts can be portrayed more accurately and neutrally.

These arguments may not be new but it is a good idea to have the guidelines for editors to refer to and, hopefully, to reduce inconsistencies and long debates when dealing with criticism.