Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1

For criticism of Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Criticisms.

Wikipedia holds to the editorial policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability in its articles. This is a general policy, and it certainly applies to criticism of topics treated in articles.

This guideline gives recommendations on how to format criticisms under varying circumstances. There are three main formating options:

• Integrated throughout an article, articulated as neutral, verifiable facts, as justifiable;
• In separate sections in articles about the criticised topic, as justifiable;
• In other articles than the article about the topic, as justifiable.

Justifiable in this context primarily refers to keeping a Neutral Point of View, achieving Consensus, Notability, etc., and is further detailed below. While some editors prefers integration of criticism throughout an article, other reasonable uses such as Criticism sections or other articles dedicated to Criticism are also options that can be explored. As always, Wikipedians should use wisdom and engage in healthy article construction to formulate readable, verifiable, encyclopedic content.

This guideline can also be reasonably applied to Praise which is merely the converse of Criticism, and has inherent POV problems. As with Criticism, integration of verifiable, notable praise of a topic into the article text as facts is preferable.

Preamble

This proportion and emphasis guideline attempts to provide guidance to resolve what often devolves into two extreme stances:

• When possible within the limits imposed by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources, all featured articles should contain criticism, either as necessary in each paragraph or in its own paragraph or ==Criticism== section, and all lengthy articles should do the same, such as in Igor Stravinsky. The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be said.

and

• No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts.

Criticism should not be given undue weight, any more than praise. In such edit disputes, the clear preference is to find a way to express history, information, praise, criticism, and other analysis in neutral, verifiable article text. There may, however, be reasonable exceptions to this.

Formatting criticism

There are a several approaches to the inclusion of criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The easiest is to place criticism in a section, often titled "Criticism" or "Reception", found in some articles (for example Igor Stravinsky#Criticism). A more difficult format is the integration of criticism into the article's introduction or body. The choice of method is subject to Wikipedia:Consensus and should be determined through the talk page.

Other approaches to the formatting of criticism include the criticism of a topic in articles about the critics of that topic, or in articles describing books or other media criticising the topic. Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not acceptable under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. (See Wikipedia:Content forking.)

Criticism integrated into the article

Criticism that is integrated into the article is prefered by some editors. In these cases, readers will less likely be led to conclusions, and controversial subjects can be addressed in a more NPOV manner. Generally, placing all the verifiable facts into the article body can improve flow.

There are two main types of criticism:

1. Facts presented in an interpretive context that tends to prefer a particular POV.

   In this case, verifiable, notable facts should be articulated in article text, with as little interpretive context as possible. That is to say interpretive frameworks should be described, but the article itself should not promote or oppose any particular interpretive framework. If possible, the references to and summary of criticism should be stated as facts, without drawing conclusions of correctness or falsehood.

2. Analysis of, and conclusions drawn about a particular POV.

   Analysis should be presented by reference - the content can be described in summary, but the article should not advocate for or against the conclusions of the analysis mentioned.

In either kind of criticism, the content of the criticism should not be articulated as fact, but the existance of the properly-cited criticism itself should be noted as a fact. The truth or falsehood of the claim asserted by a critical view, as with any topic, is something Wikipedia cannot itself assert.

Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. Criticism should also not be "hidden" by this means.

Criticism re-cast as verifiable facts or verifiable opinions are, of course, subject to WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Notability. That the criticism provably exists is not a sufficient test. It must also be proven from reliable sources that are notable.

A simple, hypothetical example: "Dartmouth College is one of the most selective undergraduate institutions in the world." Mentioning that anti-intellectuals disagree with such elitism adds an unnecessary value-based judgment to the fact and characterizes the source, just as mentioning the support of academic elitists would. If, on the other hand, a published, verifiable, notable, reliable source presents a specific critique of elitism with respect to Dartmouth College, this might be referenced as a fact with appropriate citation in the article with text similar to, "Micheal Blade Harris points to this selectivity as a type of elitism that contradicts the stated values and principles of the college."

Such a stated fact is verifiable and while it refers to a POV, the description thereof doesn't advocate the POV in the article text. Had the hypothetical criticism of Harris not been specifically levied against Dartmouth College, then this sentence should be struck as not being relevant to the article. If Harris had published this on a blog or personal website, it would fail the WP:Notability test.

Seperated in a "Criticism" section

See also: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures which can imply a view

Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.

Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the mean while the "separate" section might be tagged {{POV-section}} or similar).

"Reception" or "Reception history" section

A variant of a Criticism section can be a "reception" section, which separates the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids to be "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

Some recommendations and cautions:

• If the reception (history) of a topic is composed of both positive and negative critique and other significant events that are not usually qualified as "criticism" (e.g. notes about when major translations appeared found in an articles about a specific book), it is often better to have a "Reception (history)" section than a "Criticism" section, and to integrate the "criticism" topics in that Reception (history) section;
• "Reception (history)" sections can be susceptible to accumulation of Trivia, and this should be carefully monitored by active editors.

Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions"; "Studies and reception history"; etc.

Other Approaches

Criticisms about a topic in other articles

Criticism of a topic may be appropriate in an article about a specific critic of that topic. Such criticism should relate only to the critic and his/her work (or notability) even if it is found in a section titled "Criticism of <topic>". In other words, criticisms by other critics of the topic in the article about the critic should generally not be included. Of course, criticism regarding the critic can be inserted in the critic's article, per the above guidelines.

Publications (e.g. The Open Society and its Enemies) often criticise other topics. Wikipedia articles about such publications may include descriptions of criticism of these other topics (in the quoted example, most notably criticisms of Plato and Marxism) as a natural outcome of describing the publication.

The articles on the criticized topics should contain links to the "criticising" wikipedia article. In such cases the article on the criticised topic should refer to the major criticisms in summary). The above is obviously subject to WP:Notability.

Separate article devoted to criticism, trivia or reception

Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic can generally be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky".

Summary

• Articles should integrate all views into article text as verifiable, notable facts.
• Criticism sections should be carefully constructed to avoid undue weight and only be used if there is no reasonable way to include the criticisms in the article text.
• POV-sections to highlight criticism are inappropriate.
• POV-forking to avoid criticism are against policy.
• Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic if that topic has or should have its own wikipedia article.
• Don't make articles entirely devoted to trivia regarding a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article: this follows from discussions e.g. at wikipedia talk:trivia: putting trivia in a separate article is generally not seen as a good way to tackle trivia issues.
• "Reception history" articles (e.g. Tacitean studies) should be used carefully and with some reasonable precautions:
  • "Reception history" should be about more than exclusively positive/negative criticism and trivia (see above), and cover the whole domain of reception history;
  • The "main" article should have a section summarizing the "reception history", and properly linking to the subsidiary article (for the Tacitean studies example this is the "Studies and reception history" section in the Tacitus article);
  • This type of article should only be created if a split of the main article is unavoidable due to article size, and if splitting off the reception history is seen as the most appropriate way to perform that split, subject to Wikipedia:Consensus, and preferably discussed on the "main" article's talk page prior to the split;
  • Also the proceedings should be compatible with other applicable wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:content forking, and Wikipedia:Notability.

Examples

Articles with criticism sections

• Igor Stravinsky#Criticism

Articles with reception sections

• Country music#Reception
• History of Western Philosophy (Russell)#Reviews and reactions

Subsidiary "Reception (history)" articles

• Tacitus#Studies and reception history → Tacitean studies

Separate "Criticism" articles deemed to be POV forks

See Wikipedia:List of POV forks

See also

• For articles on living people, see also Biographies of living persons: Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors.
• As of 6 May 2006 there has been a EN-l mailing list thread about "criticism", starting here: Criticism sections on bios of living people - discussions however not limited to "living persons" alone. Some ideas:
  • Being careful about verifiability founded on reliable sources:

    > 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
    > What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
    > determining this?
    
    Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough. (reply by Jimbo Wales)

  • Reasons for avoiding separate criticism sections:

    [...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms. (comment by Jimbo Wales)

  • Is there a need for new "criticism" guidelines?

    > 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
    > kind of criticism in their biographies?
    
    WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy. (reply by Jimbo Wales)

    > The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is partly a cultural
    > issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and
    > cultural issues on articles dealing with living people.
    
    Indeed. (reply by Jimbo Wales)

Issues and current debates

Issues regarding this guideline

• Does a neutral description count as promotion?
• Should criticism be required of articles?
• How does one criticize simple topics?
• How does one deal with one criticism from multiple or countless sources?
• Is there a different standard of notability for criticism?

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Criticism.

Recent or current debates

• Country music