Wikipedia talk:Criticisms

LIBERAL
On this page and on What's not so great about Wikipedia, you can't find the world "liberal" either on the pages themselves or on the corresponding talk pages. Given that everybody knows Wikipedia has a liberal bias (the conservatives know it and hate it; the liberals know it and laugh up their collective sleeve), why hasn't somebody mentioned that anywhere? Answer: That same liberal bias that pervades the whole of Wikipedia is at work to eradicate that criticism from these pages. Downright Draconian.

I'm not entirely sure of the point of this... it's somewhat weird to be complaining at what someone wrote about us a year ago, and will anyone who read Jasco's "pan" also read this? Better would be a letter to the publisher, I suspect. Martin

I agree that the audience for this is not primarily people who read the original article; this is not a substitute for letters to the publisher. Rather, it seemed like a good idea to keep track of things critics say (and presumably there will be more of them in the future as Wikipedia attracts attention), in order to compare them to how things really turn out. It also keeps us honest: we don't just quote people who agree with us, we listen and we respond. (This can be more convincing to skeptics than a collection of worshipful quotations.) Honestly, also, it is entertaining to keep track of published criticisms that turn out to be wildly wrong (e.g. that we'll never break 50,000 articles, or that Jimbo will cash in on Wikipedia for dot-com zillions). -- Steven s

merge it
I think this article should be merged with Criticism_of_Wikipedia as it covers mainly the same topic. We should deal with this very seriously because the credibility of Wikipedia is at stake here.
 * Yes, and no. Criticism of Wikipedia is for the benefit of our readers, and we should indeed be very serious about it. Criticisms is for our own benefit, and we can be as POV and inaccurate and inappropriate as we like here. So far, it seems to serve as a quote repository. I've tagged both articles as needing to be merged from each other; I'm essentially advocating that the content should be duplicated across the articles, where appropriate, and adapted. Criticism of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article, which should remain NPOV, factual and all that; Criticisms can be whatever we want it to be. If any article goes, though, it should be this one. JRM 22:16, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to make the link "Criticism of Wikipedia" in the "It has been suggested that Criticism of Wikipedia be merged..." section actually point to Criticism of Wikipedia? --Matthew0028 09:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to the current proposal to merge the article into the Wikipedia-space project page. This would effectively remove the article from the Wikipedia, placing it in a page that is part of the community's own process. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely merge. I got confused by the smaller article when demonstrating wikipedia to a friend. Was looking for the larger one (topics are identical) Adidas 11:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

They should not be merged. One is an article, the other is a project page. Fredrik | talk 21:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep. These should not be merged. Pages starting with "Wikipedia:" exist for the sake of Wikipedia editors, not for casual readers of an encyclopedia. The only reason one might delete "criticism of Wikipedia" is if the article was too minor to be of any note, and I don't consider Wikipedia to be that trivial. The pages could use some revision (I heavily edited "Criticism of Wikipedia" myself a few months ago because of redundancies and poor organization), but neither should be deleted. -Silence 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, these two pages should not be merged. If anything, the reverse should happen, with Wikipedia:Criticisms be merged with the talk page of Critcism of Wikipedia. The Criticism of Wikipedia article provides an easily accessed article that provides some legitimate evidence against this website, but more importantly, shows casual readers that Wikipedia is credible and tries to present the most neutral point of view for everything. Readers who are unable to find a page about the Criticism of Wikipedia within the normal article realm will have the impression of a tyrannical wiki, undermining credibility and popularity. King 08:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I like King's proposal that we merge the project page in the Wikipedia: namespace with the Talk page on the article in the main encyclopedia. Mamawrites 10:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Do merge. They involve critics on Wikipedia. Criticism of Wikipedia should remain, with the content from Criticism added to it. Doidimais Brasil 06:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't merge, as per JRM above. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I Say Let's Merge Them!
They basically talk about the same thing. Unless they want to downscale the apparent critscism, these should have been merged long ago. Merge, redirect, and be done with it.

Let's not
As it was said above, this area is for the benefit of Wikipedians. The other article is a Wikipedia article designed to be for them and NPOV. I see little point in deleting that article to put the material in a nonwikipedia article here.

If we want to move this stuff there then perhaps, although I'd keep them seperated. --ShaunMacPherson 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with you! No merge! Keep! --Brazil4Linux 13:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Me too! Rath 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A simple argument for merge
One page with general criticism is enough. 99% of our users are not familiar with Wiki's ins and outs, and even most of our registered users find it hard to understand why we need several pages on the same subject. I strongly suggest not only merging Criticism of Wikipedia and Criticism, but also Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Why Wikipedia is not so great as it is. It is not an article, nor is it attributed, and some of the points are more valid than others. It is a list of points of potential self-criticism showing that Wikipedia recognises potential failings whether or not they have been pointed out by others. I don't care about the other article(s). --Henrygb 16:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Different namespaces
The merge/redirect is absolutely out of question simply because the two belong to different namespaces: article space and "wikipedia:" space. mikka (t) 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I
I. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Really
Really. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Like
Like. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The
The. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Idea
Idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Of
Of. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating
Creating. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A
A. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

New
New. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Section
Section. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For
For. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Each
Each. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment,
Comment, --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

But
But. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why
Why. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop
Stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There?
There?

I mean, putting an entire discussion in the same section is so boring and conventional. But why stop at giving each comment a new section? Why not each WORD?

...or we could do it letter-by-letter instead of word-by-word... --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign
The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia_Boycott_Campaign for details. Please address any questions, suggestions, etc you may have at talk -Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. --JuanMuslim 1m 06:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge status
And why I am removing the tag! Firstly, pages in the Wikipedia namespace do not have to be as vigorous as the articles must be in the main namespace. There must be references to the critics on this page.

Next, the merge tag has been on the Criticism of Wikipedia page since August 6, 2005, and people have attempted to redirect even before the tag was added.

What I am doing, instead, is submitting the article to AfD. I will section the AfD into the following sections: keep as is, delete entirely, redirect, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

List of known defamation incidents
Found something interesting... should we link it from here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

alphabetize?
would anyone object if I alphabetized the headings? Richardjames444 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Intelligent design articles are "biased", says ID activist...
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, the intelligent design creationism publicity machine says of Wikipedia:


 * I know of numerous people who have tried to suggest changes to Wikipedia to lessen the current bias of the ID entries -- including staff of Discovery Institute. They were rebuffed. The moderators of Wikipedia's ID-pages have repeatedly rejected and censored changes that would provide some semblance of balance or objectivity to the discussion. Basic accuracy on dates and names have suffered, never mind the downright falsehoods about the science.

Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries


 * 1) Should this be put in?
 * 2) Where should this be put in? Paul A. Newman 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Up-to-date?
Does anyone keep this page up-to-date? Are there any new critics since 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2aprilboy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —Marcus Qwertyus   14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdated criticisms
A lot of the criticisms don't apply anymore. For example, Péter Jacsó said that making more than 100,000 articles was "quite a tall order." We now have more than 4,000 times that number. Also, he said that "Jimbo expects advertisers by mid-2002, and then you know who is going to be laughing all the way to the bank." That never happened. Maybe we should remove the outdated criticisms.Madeleined2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 2 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Editorial Comment
The phrase "Notice that much of the criticism is based on how they perceive the process of Wikipedia and not the actual quality." is not very encyclopedic. Something like "Criticisms on this page may be based on perceptions rather than on measurements of quality" would be better, but I think we should just delete it as self-serving soapboxing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My testimonial
I have a testimonial I wrote in December 2012, after I was proven to be a sockpuppet and surprise permabanned (I was actually in the middle of a fairly big edit when it happened, which I of course lost). After my testimonial was written, my talk page, along with the testimonial, was replaced with a sockpuppet tag.

It is titled "Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!" and I would like to submit it to the community for consideration, because I was unable to submit it (or anything else for that matter) to the community at the time. Note that it has been vandalized/censored by other editors, but it is still in the logs.

I admit, it is a little crass. I should have at least prefaced the call to revert my edits with the possibility that my surprise permaban could be and would be overruled. But hey, we all make "simple mistakes". Int21h (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Filmkritik
Zitat aus der Zeitschrift die Welt:"Einige Benutzer von Wikipedia benutzen ihre Plattform zu politischen Zwecken. Das Widerspricht dem selbst gegebenen Anspruch der wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit". Bisher musste ich den über mich verfassten Artikel dulden obwohl er nicht richtig recherschiert ist. Es wird alles auf der Artikel und Diskussionsseite gelöscht, was von mir geschrieben wurde. Als Zeitzeuge und Hauptakteur in der beliebten Doku: "Willkommen im Sozialismus" bisher 30 Ausstrahlungen im ZDF und auch als Mitwirkender in: "Von Speewaldgurken zu FKK, DDR privat" sowie Staatssekretär in der 10. Volkskammer der DDR wurde meine Filmkritik sofort gelöscht. --Hier wiederhole ich sie textlich exakt wie sie auf meiner Benutzerseite gelöscht wurde:

TV Kritik

Die NTV Verfilmung "Von Spreewaldgurken zum FKK, Die DDR privat" trägt nicht zur Aufklärung des damaligen DDR - Alltags bei. In allen Folgen ist sichtbar, das die Filmemacher, die DDR Wirklichkeit nicht selbst erlebt haben und das Ganze aus westlicher -und ihrer persönlichen Sicht darstellten. Die RTL Gruppe kam auch nicht beizeiten ihrer Aufsichtspflicht nach. Ich hatte selbst mitgewirkt, aber durch entspr. Schnitte wurde das in harmlose Feigenblätter gewandelt. Die Produzenten glaubten an ihren großen Wurf, weil sie viele DDR Promis oft ihre wenig negative Sicht erzählen ließen. Das war nicht die DDR Wirklichkeit. Das ZDF zeigt das man auch DDR Promis Filmen kann, ohne die DDR Wirklichkeit zu verzerren. Das beste Beispiel ist: die ZDF Verfilmung: "Kati und der schöne Schein". Hier wird gezeigt was Katis Verdienste sind und wie sie eingebettet war, in das Unterdrückungssystem DDR. Sie war so frei (reisefrei), dass sie jederzeit hätte gehen können. aber sie arbeitete kräftig am Überleben des Staates DDR mit. Auch alle anderen Verfilmungen des ZDF zeigen viel Insider- Wissen. Und durch Zwischenkommentare wird eine klare Linie nie verlassen. So war die DDR wirklich! Z. B. Mauerhase u. anderes. Entweder haben überwiegend Filmemacher aus dem Osten produziert oder ehemalige DDR Oppositionelle haben mit darüber geschaut, um ein Gleichgewicht zu wahren.--Manfred Dott (Diskussion) 21:50, 12. Jan. 2014 (CET) --Jakob Dott (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

From Google Translate:

Movie review

Quote from the magazine the world: "Some users of Wikipedia use their platform for political purposes The contradict the self-given claim of scientific activity.". So far, I had to tolerate even though he is not really the recherschiert written articles about me. It will erase everything on the article and talk page, which was written by me. As an eyewitness and main actor in the popular documentary, "Welcome to socialism" so far 30 broadcasts on ZDF and also as a contributor in "From Speewaldgurken to naturism, GDR private" as well as Secretary of State in the 10th People's Chamber of the GDR has been deleted my movie review immediately. -- Here I repeat it lyrically exactly as it has been deleted on my user page:

TV criticism

The NTV film "From Spreewald gherkins Nudist, The GDR private" does not contribute to elucidation of the former GDR - in everyday life. In all consequences is visible, the filmmakers, the GDR did not experience reality itself, which showed the whole of Western and their personal point of view. The RTL group was also not in time according to their supervisory responsibilities. I had even worked, but by the Equivalent sections were converted into harmless fig leaves. The producers believed in their big hit because they were often tell their little negative view many East celebs. That was not the GDR reality.

ZDF shows that one can also DDR celebrities movies without distorting the GDR reality. The best example is the ZDF film "Kati and beautiful appearance." Here is shown what Kati's merits are and how they were embedded in the suppression system GDR. She was so free (free travel) that they would have any time to go. But she worked hard with the survival of the state GDR. All the other movies of the ZDF show a lot of inside knowledge. And by intermediate comments will never leave a clear line. Thus, the GDR really was! For example, wall Hare & other. Either have predominantly filmmakers from the East produced or former GDR opposition have looked at over it to maintain a balance -Manfred Dott (talk) 21:50, 12 Jan. 2014 (CET) - Jacob Dott (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad grammar
"This page is intended to list quotations from critics of Wikipedia, especially in publications, whose criticisms may be contested."

I honestly do not understand that sentence. It is the worst written sentence I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and I've seen some doozys. (That word is American slang for "powerful example", usually of a flaw or problem.) What is the antecedent of "whose"? If it's "critics", then ", especially in publications," is a textbook example of bad sentence structure.

Criticisms not in publications not that important: I'm OK with that.

Critics...whose criticisms may NOT be contested? Are there any? If all criticisms may be "contested" (disputed?), then why say "whose criticisms may be contested"?

I'd fix it, but I don't know how. Maybe "This is a list of published criticisms of Wikipedia". 9 instead of 19 words. Or do I have it wrong? deisenbe (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"Paulo Correa" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paulo Correa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)