Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences

From Kristin Luker (social sciences), "Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences" (2009); "It is a problem that we will be confronting over and over again in this book—we are fish studying water, and our very fishiness shapes how we think about it.". > this is about I feel that objectivity in essence impossible. Consider that.. if you were a character in a computer game and you had consciousness; you may very well regard the myths about the programmer as unreliable sources, see also relativism. Fish are born in water, and cannot escape it. In this analogy, Wikipedia is bound to objectivity as possible; a bias. Others (such as artists and postmodernists, philosophers have the viewpoint objectivity is impossible (also: knowledge is power). This is not original research. 95.145.158.20 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a general forum for criticizing Wikipedia; is a a page for discussing improvements for the Wikipedia article about criticism of Wikipedia. GMG^talk 16:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Differentiation on that statement tells this is a suggestion for what to be added to the criticsm of Wikipedia article. Please do not assume it was for forum purposes. 95.145.158.20 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, the source you reference doesn't seem to actually talk at all about criticism of Wikipedia. So it's not clear what the relevance is. GMG^talk 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry then. It's related to Wikipedia but not in the same sentence. This mentions issues with both Wikipedia and the "fish studying water" argument, but not in the same sentence; so people/and me would have to read it. 95.145.158.20 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That source contains exactly two paragraphs about Wikipedia, none of which has anything to with fishes, epistemic relativism, or post modernism. GMG^talk 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please back up with a citation of your own. 95.145.158.20 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally the book does say, "The studying of social order is itself a social process, so how could the process of doing it not be surrounded by assumptions, fetishes and beliefs, and values that are not simply mirror reflections of objective reality, if there is such a thing?" (socially: see Milgram). (Wikipedia is a social order) This then, may exactly what "fish studying water" means to them - but you need citations to deny relevance too. 95.145.158.20 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't need a citation to read the source you provide and know what it doesn't say. It may say things about Wikipedia, and it may say things about other stuff, but it does not say anything about this other stuff in relation to Wikipedia. GMG^talk 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That is by definition your own original research though. You need a citation within either the book, or accepted analysis of the book to infer whether it is related to Wikipedia or not. (If Wikipedia continues this way, but it feels that you don't want to cooperate). Both ways, there is no factual information (correlation does not imply causation on the other hand, there must be methodology to prove whether an assertion is true or false; not just your interpretation (nor mine)). Let's then please leave us both wrong (in asserting it is relevant and in asserting it isn't). 95.145.158.20 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research does not prohibit reading and understanding the meanings of words. We need not be so open minded that our brain falls out. GMG^talk 20:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Operatives and intelligence agents

There is already a section "Exposure to political operatives" but it isn't necessarily what this is about. A new article brings together different exposés of Wikipedia editors: Philip Cross and Slim Virgin are two mentioned that don't appear in this Wikipedia topic. The article goes on to say: "Many of these Wikipedia personae are editing articles almost all day and every day, indicating that they are either highly dedicated individuals, or in fact, operated by a group of people." and "The primary goal of these covert campaigns appears to be pushing Western and Israeli government positions while destroying the reputation of independent journalists and politicians."

It has many references embedded and as footnotes, and mentions the WikiWho tool that illustrates by color which editors made which changes on any article (WikiWho isn't mentioned in this Wikipedia topic either).

What is the best way to bring in this content, onto this topic page?

Also - or: Has this been addressed elsewhere?

Article: https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/07/wikipedia-a-disinformation-operation/

67.230.130.152 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy-mongering website mongers conspiracy! News at eleven! --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues in edit to gender bias section

Several issues need to be fixed before adding this paragraph. I'd do it, except that I don't have ready access to the article cited: (1) fix grammar and adhere to style guidelines (such as avoiding "recent" and not trying to forecast the future), (2) use proper form for the citation, and (3) explain the cited article as carefully as possible. Note that the "less than 10%" contradicts the first sentence in the following paragraph. (The proportion 1/6 has often been used in the past.) NightHeron (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bias on Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bias on Wikipedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bias in Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bias in Wikipedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Most belongs on wikinews

An encyclopaedic thing should not be made as it's occurring. How many articles have a controversies, criticisms, or misconceptions section because we feel compelled to address gossip and opinion? Did encyclopedia Britannica have a Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory entry? No. Because it's stupid. Jawz101 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Jawz101 This page is not for posting one's criticisms of Wikipedia, it is for discussing changes to this article. Your criticism or complaints can be posted to the appropriate section of the village pump. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. the original move discussion has been relisted at Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia#Requested move 12 June 2020. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Criticism of Wikipedia → Criticism of English Wikipedia – per this consensus. move protected, sysop required. my sysop buttons arent working properly currently. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernamekiran and Randy Kryn: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• This seems to need more discussion, as the RM you point to reads more of a 'no consensus' and, as such a large site-connected topic, should probably either be an RfC or closed by an administrator. The article in question seems to cover all of Wikipedia and it just happens to be written in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and maybe consider move review for that other discussion as well, which looks like a suspicious move. To the extent this is restricted to English Wikipedia only, it shouldn't be, so would oppose a change of scope. SnowFire (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: courtesy ping to @Randy Kryn, Anthony Appleyard, and SnowFire: I have closed this discussion, and re-opened the original one at Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia#Requested move 12 June 2020. I apologise for the mess-up, and regret for the inconvenience caused to you guys. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regional bias

This article and its linked study have some really good data on geographic bias in Wikipedia:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/15/wikipedia-view-of-the-world-is-still-written-by-the-west

I did not find any references to that study/article, or any equivalent documentation of the bias it describes, while skimming this article.

Fixing that bias across all of Wikipedia would be hard, but it could theoretically be mitigated a lot just by including data about it somewhere on Wikipedia itself.

I'm going to mention this on the talk pages for Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia too.

69.172.176.96 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Admire?

Do anyone admire WP as opposed to critiquing it? Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Presumably. But that's not the subject of this article. NightHeron (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I realize that but reading it, you might think there was ONLY criticism, mind you there seem to be a lot of these "Criticism of (insert pet dislike here)" articles, lol, Walmart. Google, you name it, it's got a criticism article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia fares no worse than Mother Teresa. It's true that the article on criticism of MT has a section on "Responses", which the article on criticism of WP does not. You could propose adding such a section. But then, since Wikipedia (unlike Mother Teresa) controls the article on criticism of itself, some would say that Wikipedia is being defensive and thin-skinned by including such a response section. Then we'd have to add another section on criticism of WP for feeling it has to include a response section to criticisms of itself, and then we'd have to include a response section to that section, and this could go on until the end of time, lol. NightHeron (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Haha,:).Right.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger not a source we should be using now that he's supporting conspiracy theories

Just a comment to say that I'm extremely skeptical about using Sanger as a source for comment any more. He seems to have lost it. A bit like Sidney Powell who went from being a respect lawyer to a conspiracy theorist, Sanger seems to have ended up in the conspiratorial right.[1] So it's a case "of course he'd say that, so what?". --Doug Weller talk 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Angry schools

My school lies about Wikipedia and claims that it’s “unreliable”. I think that my school is lying and Wikipedia is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.233.145 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what this Talk page is for, but one of my favourite retorts to comments like that is to say that, because it insists on content being reliably sourced, Wikipedia is probably the world's best public sources of sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Locked page

I would recommend locking this page, it is a prime target for users who dislike Wikipedia. ESBirdnerd (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The proper place to request locking (protection) of a page is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no page titled, praise of wikipedia?

I'm new, but I think it sounds appropriate. To balance the scales--Cripplemac (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We leave it to others to praise us!! --Bduke (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new sub-section on Wikipedia's Web bias

From reading this page, you would think all Wikipedia articles are either on a) scientific subjects (with the "publish or perish" kind of absolute fixation on "getting the facts right to the last comma", at the expense of what I would call "soft" scientific knowledge (two examples of which are Indigenous knowledge and cutting-edge not-yet published scientific hypotheses, there are many others) or b) political/ideological persons/subjects, especially if they are the current "talk of the town"; but there are zillions of other type of subjects, having their own "knowledge" properties, opportunities and problems, unfortunately they all must fit in the ever-more normative, almost robotic Wikipedia "rules". A perhaps entertaining, ++decade-long debate on these items have had the strange effect of a) rendering Wikipedia staff and busy regular contributors more than a bit paranoïd about "sourcing", "verifiability", "hidden agendas", that sort of things (what some call the "Encyclopedia Britannica web-replica syndrome" and b) an increasing focus on easily-available web sources and confidence that "everything is on the web these days so if Google does not report much on it that MUST be very confidential uninteresting stuff". I thus propose a new 1.3.7 sub-section with the title of "Web bias"; that would discuss how and why (or why not) a given "new" subject with lots of "juicy" web sources would be more acceptable to the higher-powers-to-be (and there are tons of those on WP, bravely and very seriously "working their shift") than say a very mundane, perfectly legit, possibly entertaining (or even boring to some), middle-of-the-road, blatantly average, not-so-new item, especially if that subject falls in the "Information hole", that period of history where "everything new" was not on the Internet but had not so much benefited either from bookish/printed sources because... well they happened to be passing by in that very paradigm-changing period (more or less a bit before the 90' and a bit after); therefore they may not have those precious "3-and-more" easily Web-accessible references to prove their worthwhile existence. You might say that it's not WP job to inventory things to the last trivial cavern-period humanoïd or slighty bizarre/exotic/not-well-known theme... but nevertheless! I have no doubt some of those dignified "people in the know" reading this will say "yet another Wikipedia hater" but FYI I have thousands of edits and counting on many namespaces and Wikipedia critique does not equate to Wikipedia hate (possibly the contrary), but to the most blinded of us. I won't write that page bit (1.3.7) myself because I don't like removal (who does) but if someone with the correct "number of degrees" does, I think it would be a worthwhile contribution to the betterment of this "slowly-titaniking" website (along the general lines of this external source: http://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia). --70.80.207.43 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That article is a bit old, no? While some of the issues persist, several seem to have been answered over the years. If there are specific issues I feel a call for comments at one of the central notice boards might help but this would require pain points being raised in a concise manner.. VV 07:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source 171 has no link

The link to source 171 has completely absent.CycoMa (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Link 36

Link 36 just takes you to the home page of The Times, not the article in it.Krystal Kalb (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

URL fixed. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

Copied content from Ideological bias on Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia; see former page's editing history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is the worst" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia is the worst and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Wikipedia is the worst until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. snood1205 15:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sanger's criticisms

My edit, briefly incorporating Sanger's recent criticisms of Wikipedia, was quickly reverted ([2]). Whatever the motivations of the reverting editor, the fact it was reverted is rather ironic given that Sanger's thesis is that Wikipedia has become increasingly one-sided. When the co-founder of anything criticises the thing he founded that ought to be noteworthy. Greenshed (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as WP:UNDUE because Larry Sanger's opinions are already covered four times in the article, and that's enough. Your source discusses his opinion that Wikipedia should be giving more credence to Republican claims about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. This opinion of his is currently under discussion at WP:NPOVN, and the consensus of editors so far seems to be that it doesn't deserve coverage.

Please don't edit-war; the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus on any change that's contested. NightHeron (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're the one edit warring, as you have edited and reverted this statement more than other users. However, your point about Sanger's statements already having four mentions is a good one. I'm neutral on this issue now, and am happy to hear other thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Sorry, my mistake. I didn't notice that another editor, not Greenshed, had restored the edit. In any case, the place to reach consensus is either here on the talk-page or at the current WP:NPOVN discussion, not through edit summaries of repeated reverting/restoring. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Four times is too much. The Essjay section could well do without Sanger, whose "criticism" always essentially boils down to "you are doing it wrong". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I had thought the “talk” section should be relatively open to all comments, at least on topic, but I notice even polite, legitimate comments seem to be aggressively deleted, from a talk page, not an article. In these times, I do wonder if there are political reasons, or if done by partisans. I am not affiliated with either of the two parties, but am concerned legitimate postings seem to be undesired, which is why I don’t post on articles anymore. Willing to bet this will be deleted, even though posted on the talk section of the criticism article. At least deletes should be explained, at least on talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

With “talk” section you probably mean Talk pages. You were wrong to think that, as they are only for discussions about article improvement. Since your contribution here is not about improving the article "Criticism of Wikipedia", it could be legitimately removed too. Your problem is not the Wikipedia editors are doing something wrong, it is that you don't understand what they are doing and why. And this is because you choose to remain ignorant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Edit war(ing)" assumed familiar term and not explained/hyperlinked

EOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.234.174 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Mandiberg

“Michael Mandiberg, writing in Social Text, remained unconvinced” What does this have to do with the article? Would someone add context please? 76.110.111.126 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look at the context, but didn't think it needed any clarification. The sentence immediately preceding it says: "The [ArbCom] committee also wrote that it 'does not rule on the content of articles, or make judgements on the personal views of parties to the case.'" Then follows "Mandiberg [...] remained unconvinced". The source mentioned and pointed to (Social Text) has an in depth essay specifically about the preceding content in the article. I figured any elaboration would be too wordy or facile. Was there some specific lack that made it difficult to relate it to the article in general? _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I read that as “unconvicted instead of unconvinced”.

76.110.111.126(talk) 22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.111.126 (talk)

It's true, though, that he wasn't persuaded enough for it to become a conviction for him. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether he is convinced? A few lines above, we already write what he thinks. Repeating his opinion without explaining why he would not accept a very solid reason is bludgeoning. Delete that last sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Reliability of Wikipedia into Criticism of Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

wide overlap, duplicated material and non-synchronization of content; AFTER the proposed merge, a new subarticle might be created with a better defined scope, such as in "Accuracy of Wikipedia", splitting off the entire section Criticism of Wikipedia#Accuracy of information, leaving just a summary (WP:SS), ideally via template:excerpt. fgnievinski (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Two different articles, two different subjects. Criticism ≠ Reliability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Dunutubble. Keep them separate. --Bduke (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose completely different topics. Critiquing and analyzing reliability is not universally complaining. Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose—per recent contributors—criticism and reliability are two totally different things. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all comments above. Plus, both articles are already plenty long enough, and are only getting longer over time. - JGabbard (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, not identical twins. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toxicity of Wikipedia

I recently browsed through these articles: [3] [4] which noted that the Wikipedia editing wars and other conflicts on the website have forced some people into severe depression, even contemplating suicide or self-harm, in the past, along with controversies over bans and disputes. If these allegations are true, they are quite serious, especially in today's day and age, where harassment of all kinds is VERY strongly frowned upon by most Americans and most people in the modern world, and mental health remains an extremely serious issue, both online and otherwise. Do you know if these incidents should be mentioned on the article page perhaps? Thanks a lot. PatriciaLarson37 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s definitely worth adding. Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I’m glad to see some criticism (from the Vice article specifically) of Wikipedia that’s focused on actual problems and not crap we already know and address appropriately like reliability, sexism, Larry Sanger’s incoherent complaining or something the admins/foundation/whoever did. Dronebogus (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"severe depression, even contemplating suicide or self-harm" While Wikipedia frustrates me on a regular basis, my own struggles with depression and suicidal thoughts have much more to do with problems in my personal life, the deaths of a number of my loved ones, and the fact that I was diagnosed as suffering from schizoid personality disorder. I am not certain how many other Wikipedians have similar problems, but I doubt Wikipedia is the only cause. Dimadick (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Selfstudier, you reverted my edit for absolutely no reason. Secondly, Larry Sanger's criticisms have been featured in several reliable sources[5][6][7]. Thirdly, Sanger's views on COVID vaccines have nothing to do with Wikipedia criticism. X-Editor (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The original edit summary by User:Doug Weller reverting your addition did not say that Sanger's criticisms couldn't be added, just that they couldn't be added without context, meaning that they'd have to be accompanied by information about the circumstances that raise doubts about his credibility, such as COI and fringe views. NightHeron (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Then what should the context be? What should the article say? X-Editor (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The editor who wants to add content has the WP:ONUS of proposing text on the talk-page that a consensus of editors agrees with. That's not the job of other editors. The original edit summary from DW outlined what would be needed. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the text I want to add: "Since 2020, Wikipedia co-founder and President and Executive Director of the Knowledge Standards Foundation, Larry Sanger, has criticized Wikipedia for what he perceives as a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles. In May 2020, Sanger said that portions of the Donald Trump Wikipedia article are "unrelentingly negative", while the Barack Obama article "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals". In July 2021, Sanger said that Wikipedia's coverage of Joe Biden contained "very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations. In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations from Sanger of having a particular political bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become"." The bold is text that I want to add to the description X-Editor (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That version is unlikely to get consensus of other editors, since it ignores the considerable evidence that Larry Sanger has low credibility. NightHeron (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron here. But just on a procedural level, perhaps wait until the RfC on precisely this topic has been closed? That should provide some clarity. There is no pressing need to add this material in the meantime. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. let's close this discussion for now and wait for the results of the RFC. X-Editor (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Quality of writing

I just removed a redundant section that I'm not sure is irony or illustration by perfect example, but in the subheading Quality of writing there is this passage:

Roy Rosenzweig, a history professor, stated that American National Biography Online outperformed Wikipedia in terms of its "clear and engaging prose", which, he said, was an important aspect of good historical writing.[62] Contrasting Wikipedia's treatment of Abraham Lincoln to that of Civil War historian James McPherson in American National Biography Online, he said that both were essentially accurate and covered the major episodes in Lincoln's life, but praised "McPherson's richer contextualization ... his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice ... and ... his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast, he gives an example of Wikipedia's prose that he finds "both verbose and dull". Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling—encouraged by the NPOV policy—[which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history". While generally praising the article on William Clarke Quantrill, he quoted its conclusion as an example of such "waffling", which then stated: "Some historians ... remember him as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while others continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero."[62]

The section immediately following (now removed) reads thusly:

In the essay, "Can History be Open Source?: Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" (2006), the academic historian Roy Rosenzweig criticized the encyclopedic content and writing style used in Wikipedia, for not distinguishing subjects that are important from subjects that are merely sensational; that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history"; and that most of the factual errors he found "were small and inconsequential", some of which "simply repeat widely held, but inaccurate, beliefs", which are also repeated in the Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia and in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet Rosenzweig's major criticism is that:

Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose. By those measures, American National Biography Online easily outdistances Wikipedia.[62]

Rosenzweig also criticized the "waffling – encouraged by the [neutral point of view] policy – [which] means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history [articles]", and quoted the historical conclusion of the biography of William Clarke Quantrill, a Confederate guerrilla in the United States Civil War, as an example of weasel-word waffling:

Some historians ... remember [Quantrill] as an opportunistic, bloodthirsty outlaw, while other [historians] continue to view him as a daring soldier and local folk hero.[62]

Rosenzweig contrasted Wikipedia's Abraham Lincoln article with that of James M. McPherson's article on Lincoln in American National Biography Online. He reports that each entry was essentially accurate in covering the major episodes of President Lincoln's life. McPherson—a Princeton professor and winner of the Pulitzer Prize—showed "richer contextualization", as well as "his artful use of quotations to capture Lincoln's voice" and "his ability to convey a profound message in a handful of words." By contrast Wikipedia's prose was "both verbose and dull" and thus difficult to read, because "the skill and confident judgment of a seasoned historian" are absent from the antiquarian writing style of Wikipedia, as opposed to the writing style used by professional historians in the American Heritage magazine. It was also mentioned that while Wikipedia usually provides many references, these are not the most accurate references.[62]

Now, I don't really care which passage gets preserved in the long run (I'm partial towards concise treatment rather than padding with copious block quotes), but this illustrates perfectly Carnegie Mellon University's findings that "the quality of a Wikipedia article... suffer[s] rather than gain[s] from adding more writers when the article lacked appropriate explicit or implicit coordination. For instance, when contributors rewrite small portions of an entry rather than making full-length revisions..." A good reminder that we should periodically read what an article says in its entirety, especially after adding large passages. Happy editing. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Chart

I don't see any context for the chart about praise and criticism of Wikipedia, and I don't understand it. What is it doing there? Imposterbruh (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No consensus?

There was consensus here to add criticism from Sanger to the article on Ideological bias on Wikipedia. 23:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion of the long closure statement was: Editors are encouraged to cordially engage in future discussion regarding how to present Sanger's criticisms, especially in light of the many concerns brought up in this RfC. (my emphasis) The "future discussion" -- taking account of such concerns as Sanger's fringe views, his COI, etc. -- need to take place on the talk-page before adding anything. There is no consensus at all for adding the material you added, which fails to provide context concerning Sanger's POV. NightHeron (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron agreed. I don't see the cordial discussion. Just insertion of this editor's preferred text. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I changed the text about Sanger's comment in the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article to reflect his conflicts of interest. Can the information there now be added to this article? X-Editor (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The text you have in the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article doesn't at all make it clear that there's a conflict of interest in his various aggressive campaigns against Wikipedia (e.g., trying to get the FBI to investigate Wikimedia for child pornography). Nor is there any indication there that Sanger is not a mainstream critic, but rather has some idiosyncratic POVs (e.g., publicly stating that he won't comply with COVID-19 public health mandates and falsely stating that the vaccines are not really vaccines). NightHeron (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only would that kind of explanation be extremely excessive, but it would also sound like the article is trying to push a particular POV. Your reasoning for not adding the information seems to boil down to you personally disagreeing with Sanger, which is fine on its own, but don't let that influence your editing. X-Editor (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't confuse facts with opinions. The COVID-19 vaccines that have been approved by health authorities are true vaccines. That's a fact, not an opinion. When Sanger denies a scientific fact and publicly states a falsehood, that says something about his credibility. The issue of his credibility is relevant here.

I am not arguing against adding information on Sanger's views. I am arguing against omitting the context for those views. NightHeron (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem with what you are proposing is that it sounds SYNTHY. X-Editor (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Under your interpretation of WP:SYNTH, if an article includes an attributed opinion from Mankind Quarterly or QAnon, it could not include anything about the credibility of the source without violating WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there aren't any reliable sources that document the more fringe things that Sanger has said. IMO, it's better to add something, even if it omits context, than to add nothing. X-Editor (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, the source for Sanger's anti-vaxx pronouncements, Newsweek, is reliable enough for Sanger's BLP, see [8]. The article Larry Sanger also cites RS concerning Sanger's efforts to get the FBI to investigate Wikimedia for alleged child pornography. NightHeron (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP says "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" and "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." And mentioning the child porn controversy? Not only would this be an excessive amount of background info for one man's opinion, but it would also sound like the article is trying to heavily push a particular POV before even getting to the main point, which is the criticism. X-Editor (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"Evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis" means using common sense. There's no reason to think that Newsweek's reports of what Sanger tweeted were fabricated.

The bottom line is that you want to include Sanger's opinions without context, and other participants in the RfC do not accept that. This discussion seems to be coming to a dead end, in which case nothing should be added. NightHeron (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere like you said, so let's just agree to disagree and end this here. X-Editor (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising and side-projects by Wikimedia

What is really lacking in this article is a section on the criticism over financial questions and the drives behind wikimedia continous fundraising. The cooperation with big tech, the profit-driven side-projects, the arguebly unethical request of donations to pandemic hit populations in the global south, and the hard to dismis false appearence of crisis that every fundraising campaign delivers to naive readers... JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverting edit about recession

My edit summary got truncated because of a computer hiccup. Here's what it said: rv per WP:NOTNEWS; weak evidence of "widespread coverage" or noteworthiness beyond news cycle. NightHeron (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

New edit on Recession

That's not an example of bias is it? It seems to be an example of an attempt to bias being prevented. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

History

Is there a page for the history of Criticism of Wikipedia? Anonymous included criticism of wikipedia in their recent hack of Chinese ballon control systems (I know what a weird world) but there doesn't seem to be a neat place to put it, from the source "The collective also railed against Wikipedia for allegedly underrepresenting women in its articles, having a "spending cancer," engaging in deletionism, and committing POV skewing. It also accused Wikipedia of failing to adequately support two Wikipedia Arabic editors, Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani, who have been imprisoned by the Saudi government for "swaying public opinion" and "violating public morals." "[9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I delete the following sentence? and were in fact orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party.

The sentence does not conform to the principle of non-originality. The BBC conducted a balanced report.It is Unreasonable to say that the Chinese Communist Party has conducted censorship.There is no evidence that the Chinese Communist Party is censoring Wikipedia. This sentence is only the editor's own guess. So I think we should delete this sentence. I don't know what you think? Ganlihao (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that you want to eliminate describes attempts to edit Wikipedia so as to reflect the Chinese government's viewpoint, as reported by BBC. The concluding sentence in the BBC source states that Wikipedia "may now be confronted by another force: the growing online power of states whose geopolitical struggles to define the truth now extend onto places like Wikipedia that have grown too large, too important, for them to ignore." If you don't like the current wording ("orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party"), you could propose a different wording that might be a better summary of what the sources say. But the sentence should not be removed. NightHeron (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I think replacing the Chinese Communist Party with the growing online power of states is better. Ganlihao (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

were Suspected of being orchestrated by some growing online power Entities, although there is no evidence of this suspicion untill now. Ganlihao (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note that Ganlihao attempted to censor this information back in August 2022 [10]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I also saw that Ganlihao is an SPA account only editing on this topic. However, I think we should be open to a change in wording. The words "orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party" is not a good summary of the BBC source, which mentions the CCP only once and talks more generally of efforts by academics and officials in China to push for the Chinese government POV on Wikipedia. The BBC article is mainly concerned with Chinese attempts to influence editing of Wikipedia, and if Ganlihao is only willing to suggest wordings that avoid saying this, then it's fine with me if we keep the sentence as it is. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that its an odd sentence with the quote modifying what is not in the quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think it is strange to delete,please give a more neutral and objective modification. Ganlihao (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a big problem with keeping it as it is. There is also a big problem with not modifying it and keeping it as it is. Ganlihao (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As you say, the BBC report states that "some growing online powers are now trying to manipulate Wikipedia and change the facts". But such a statement seems to be a direct insinuation of the Chinese  government or the Chinese Communist Party. But in fact, there is no evidence at all that the Chinese regime is manipulating Wikipedia here.

Another thing, please don't label others easily. spy is a very rude word. Does not conform to Wikipedia's politeness principle. Ganlihao (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol,"spa"looks similar to "spy",maybe you misunderstood what this user said.By the way,I agree with u that "and were in fact orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party"should be changed. 加贝圆子 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my mistake and your suggestion. Ganlihao (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't just make it up on one entry. Secondly, when I compiled it two years ago, I already told the relevant people about the relevant issues, but still It was restored, and I didn't care. When I had time to Edit Wikipedia entries now,I find that The problem hasn't been solved yet. Ganlihao (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you please explain what censorship is? Is there a wrong knowledge of this kind of unfair revision, is it censorship? Please don't make it easy Say the word censorship. Instead, I think you're censoring. Ganlihao (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

... 加贝圆子 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be willing to change "orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party" to "encouraged by the Chinese government" if others agree. First, that is closer to what BBC says. Second, although the meaning isn't much different, the words sound more neutral. To Western ears (or at least to American ears) the current wording sounds sinister, because the word "Communist" has a long history of being demonized in the US and because "orchestrated" sounds like some sort of conspiracy. The wording "encouraged by the Chinese government" sounds more neutral. In fact, the US government also has gone to great effort to encourage and financially support organizations and individuals who assist US propaganda objectives. I assume many governments do that. NightHeron (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that active editors in mainland China are patriotic. ,But they have not been encouraged by the Chinese government. Maybe they were influenced by patriotic education from their e

earyoung ly sage. So most of them agree from the heart that Taiwan is a part of China. But I don't think they are directly encouraged by the government. on the contrary, the chinese government does not encourage them to break through the firewall, and have activities on those foreign websites. In fact, most of them have to go through a VPN to be able to edit in wikipedia. Ganlihao (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

early young ages Ganlihao (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the BBC ,Many Chinese scholars and officials have called on the Chinese government to pay attention to Wikipedia. This just proves that in fact the Chinese government is Ignoring Wikipedia and not using Wikipedia as an object of censorship. This is the reason why I think this paragraph is very strange.This is also why I feel that this paragraph needs to be deleted. Ganlihao (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To say the least , if all countries will encourage netizens in their own countries to publish statements that are also in their own national interests, why should wikipedia highlight the Chinese Communist Party alone? It seems that placing the Communist Party of China in the column of censorship alone to be a very unobjective behavior. Ganlihao (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Although the BBC report says that the connections between the Chinese government and edits that promote the Chinese government's POV have not been proven, it says that "the edits do happen against the backdrop where a number of states, including China, have intensified attempts to systematically manipulate online platforms." The BBC report also says that some officials in the Chinese government have called for more efforts to edit Wikipedia in ways that support the Chinese government. No one is saying that the Chinese government is the only government that does this. On the contrary, the BBC report says that "a number of states" engage in similar efforts. The article Criticism of Wikipedia only briefly mentions China, and, in the section just before, it talks about political forces in other countries, especially the US and Israel, that attempt to get edits into Wikipedia that support their interests.

Also, I don't understand why you keep using the word "censorship". Neither the BBC report nor the article Criticism of Wikipedia uses that word, and I haven't used it either. The Chinese government of course does not censor Wikipedia. It doesn't even have the power to censor Wikipedia. When certain editors persist in removing well-sourced material from Wikipedia that criticizes China or that conflicts with Chinese viewpoints on issues such as Taiwan, the material will be restored and all they can accomplish by doing that is to get themselves banned from Wikipedia.

Concerning Taiwan, it's a fact that Taiwan is not currently a province of China, since the Chinese government has no control or jurisdiction in Taiwan. It is reasonable for a patriotic Chinese person to believe that Taiwan should be a part of China. But it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedia to refer to Taiwan as a province of China rather than as a separate country. That would be similar to a patriotic Mexican person expecting Wikipedia to refer to Arizona, New Mexico, and southern California as part of Mexico. Historically, there is plenty of justification for saying that those territories should belong to Mexico. They were seized from Mexico through military force without any legal basis, and in 1848, with US troops occupying Mexico City, Mexican officials were forced to ratify the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, acknowledging US control of vast amounts of Mexican territory. NightHeron (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you quoted Bbc" the edits do happen against the backdrop where a number of states, including China, have intensified attempts to systematically manipulate online platforms", You feel a little depressed, because you want Wikipedia not to be controlled by any power ,capital or hegemonic ideology. I agree with you on that. But I'm a little confused right now, Because I want Wikipedia to be able to Objective, accurate and fair . the BBC report just Point out that China manipulate online platforms.The BBC does not have any evidence that China is manipulating the Wikipedia platform. Online platforms are a broader concept, Compared to Wikipedia.

y. Ganlihao (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the BBC applied the rhetoric of insinuation to report that China maybe manipulated Wikipedia. I think this sentence is revised to " encouraged by the Chinese government which is insinuated by bbc report". I don't know if it is OK to modify it this way. Maybe you will have a better way to modify it. Ganlihao (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this sentence can be revised to " encouraged by the Chinese government which is insinuated by bbc report". Ganlihao (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to the wording "encouraged by the Chinese government", but the rest of your sentence is not necessary because the sentence starts with "According to the BBC," so it's already attributed to the BBC and is not in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally feel that the term 'encourage‘’ is not accurate enough, as according to BBC reports. if the Chinese government had engaged in encouraging actions, Chinese scholars would not be calling for the government to open up the internet to prevent systemic bias against China on Wikipedia. From the BBC reports, it can be observed that the Chinese government does not exhibit any form of encouragement towards the Wikipedia platform. I wonder if you can find a more precise way to express this meaning?" Ganlihao (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In your previous comment you accepted the change in wording. Also, just because some scholars were calling for the government to increase its interest in Wikipedia, it does not necessarily follow that the government had not been doing anything. It's still likely that people encouraged by Chinese intelligence or the Chinese Communist Party were editing Wikipedia in a way that supported Chinese government views. NightHeron (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL due to instability. The recent edit history of the article reveals that it is not currently in a stable state, with severe WP:Edit warring within the last week and significant such activity just within the last few hours. Consider renominating this at a later time, when this has abated. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unherd post about Sanger re: Authority and quotes throughout the article

This addition doesn't make any sense; the section is about Wikipedia's academic authority - that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. As I said when I removed it the first time, it's completely out of place for that section. The fact that we quote him there once doesn't make it the place to put every unrelated criticism he makes; squeezing it in there is a complete digression. And while it could notionally be added elsewhere (though certainly not in the section where it was added), we already cite Sanger's opinions repeatedly in the article; it's undue to repeatedly include every thing he says, especially when he's just repeating the same opinion over and over. Finally, of course, the page is glutted with quotes - it makes no sense to remove a bunch of them, cited to far higher-quality sources, while adding a quote of no significance from someone whose opinion is already represented. We need to decide what quotes are included based on WP:DUE weight and WP:RS, which means that clearly an Unherd post doubling down on one person's opinions can't be substituted for a bunch of academic citations. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, after reviewing this deletion, I've reverted it for now - my issue is twofold. First, the citations are mostly (though not uniformly) high-quality; there are multiple academic sources in there. I particularly object to the removal of Greenstein, which is a high-quality academic source that also has significant secondary coverage. Second, the removal was one-sided in a way that harmed the neutrality of the section - we cannot remove eg. an academic source with significant secondary coverage, like Greenstein, and leave Scarborough's opinion cited for half a paragraph via Human Events. In particular, we currently have two paragraphs devoted to the opinions of US conservatives (when the breadth of sources covers much more ground) - and removing this paragraph would leave almost the entire section focused on them. That is WP:UNDUE relative to coverage; if we're going to start trimming that section we should begin by condensing those two paragraphs into one and generally reducing the amount of text given to individual quotes, especially from people who lack expertise or relevance. I could agree to removing or condensing quotes and opinions in the article, but it has to be done evenly in accordance with representation in the sources, with a particular focus on removing the ones that are more weakly-sourced and trimming or paraphrasing more "fiery" quotes into neutral summaries for WP:TONE reasons - Greenstein in particular is the sort of source that the section should be focused on, rather than axe-grindy culture-war viewpoints cited to talking heads with no real expertise, which I think is a reasonable description of some other parts of the section. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion on information from Slate article "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot""

The talk:Bigfoot page sent me here to discuss the possibility of including the article "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot" here. The article is an opinion piece that interviews one Wikipedia editor, and discusses the talk page. It also goes into the coverage of cryptids overall on Wikipedia. Thought I'd suggest including it here, and open up for suggestions to anyone interested as to how it could be included, or if it doesn't really fit. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

January 23, 2024 discussion about edit

@GreenMeansGoThe first edit(the edit between lines 33 and 40) I can see reverting, but the second edit( the edit after line 40) removes content for no reason. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"I reverted back in some stuff I don't agree with once I looked at it" isn't a great start to a conversation. GMG^talk 19:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticism in Journal of Spatial Information Science article

Reading some literature, I stumbled upon the paper "Trustworthy maps" in the peer reviewed Journal of Spatial Information Science. I'm looking into how it could be incorporated, but thought I'd share. Relevant text states:

"There are many maps of coronavirus case or death counts and/or rates. If one does a Google search on “coronavirus map”, the first result is a map from Wikipedia (Figure 1).The dataset underpinning this map also comes from Wikipedia, and is a mashup of source sof highly varied levels of authority and reliability. Wikipedia, moreover, can be edited by anyone, so the data quality can vary depending on who has contributed the edit, their knowledge of reliable sources, and (sometimes) on their politics or other motivations. In fact, when inspecting the edit history for the Wikipedia page whose information is fed into this map, it was not hard to find one such instance (Figure 2). Although any errors or edits made with political or mischievous motivations may be corrected quickly by other editors, anyone inspecting the map at a particular point in time may be looking at unreliable in-formation, meaning that the trustworthiness of the information as well as the information itself varies dynamically. If one accepts that Wikipedia’s data may not be sufficiently trustworthy, where can one find more authoritative, if slightly less timely, data? Figure 3 is a map published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Although it may also suffer from data quality issues such as different data reporting practices in different countries, it only includes cases that meet the WHO case definition, a data quality standard set by the WHO."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Musk's opinion (and the "Wokipedia" epithet in general)

@HiLo48: Regarding your removal of the following text and supporting source:

Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by "wokeness".

Over the past several days, Musk has been on a Twitter rant about Wikipedia ([11], [12], [13]), with some of these tweets being viewed millions or tens of millions of times, and receiving tens of thousands of replies. This is itself a recapitulation of Musk's earlier expression of this opinion, which is documented in reliable sources (I picked the most convenient one). Our inclusion of content is based on the reporting of that content in reliable sources, not any one editor's questioning of whether the sourced content is "of significance". The sources decide that for us, and we don't censor them because the matter reported is attributed to an eccentric figure. BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 T 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the content about Musk needs to include some of the justification you have written above. As it stood, there was no reason given for why anyone should care more about what Musk thinks than what anyone else thinks. Musk is an expert on some things, but not on creating encyclopaedias, so we we need to say why his opinion matters. (If it really does.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The justification is that it is important enough to be covered in sources, and that it reflects a current more broadly expressed criticism of Wikipedia characterizing it as "woke". BD2412 T 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't tell me. Tell the readers. By that, I mean that we need to say in the article why Musk's opinion matters.

@HiLo48: Perhaps we could say something along the lines of: Tech billionaire Elon Musk has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia, referring to the platform as "Wokipedia" to assert that its neutrality has been compromised by "wokeness", and at one point announcing that he would pay the site one billion dollars if it changed its name to "Dickipedia". BD2412 T 19:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References

No. That still doesn't explain why Musk's opinion is of any more significance than anyone else's. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there justification in the article itself for why any of the specific opinions expressed are important enough to be included? Every criticism of Wikipedia is a criticism by someone. BD2412 T 23:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth. I am opposed to criticism articles and criticism sections in articles in general for that and other reasons. If someone criticises something, it often says more about the person doing the criticising than whatever it is they are criticising. This about Musk's criticism. I will keep asking why it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Suppose, then, that we take Musk out of the equation. Should the criticism of Wikipedia as "woke" be included in the article? BD2412 T 18:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"Woke" is one of those silly, ineffectual insults. The people its aimed at see the attributes that make up being woke as positive things. It's like "leftie". HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Our article on the subject suggests some specifications for the meaning of the insult. I'm not sure what "ineffectual" means in this context, but the proposition seems to be that Wikipedia engages in performative posturing that overcompensates for a perception of bias derived from the characteristics of its editing base. BD2412 T 23:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

By "ineffectual", I mean that it generally has no negative impact on whoever it's aimed at. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You're inferring meaning to someone's one-word derision to make it sound more like real criticism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really, he pretty much says it here. Specifically, he quoted a tweet about Wikipedia abandoning a 'free and open' internet so as not to recapitulate a 'white male Westernized construct', and said that this was "literally the point of Wikipedia". The criticism at issue goes beyond just using the word "woke", and although Musk is the architect of this stream of it, there is plenty of follow-up to his tweets, including by fairly prominent public figures, to the effect that Wikipedia suppresses facts that counter the asserted ideological narrative. BD2412 T 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the really facts? HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter, for the purposes of criticism existing as criticism? We have substantial content in the article right now about accusations of Wikipedia being both liberally and conservatively biased, including criticism from the likes of Fox News that Wikipedia has political and ideological biases. We also have coverage of assertions of Wikipedia being biased against minorities. The assertion being made by Musk and echoed by his followers is that Wikipedia has tried to go too far in the opposite direction and become biased against the majority group. BD2412 T 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Misunderstandings and insults do not count as "criticism". They do count as "opposition". Wikipedia definitely suppresses "alternative facts" (also called lies), making it less "free and open" and more reliable than the internet at large. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Would you say, then, that the place for such content would be an Opposition to Wikipedia article? There seem to be sources sufficient to support having such a thing. BD2412 T 16:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I have a watchlist. And even if I did not, there is no reason to assume that I would know the answer any better than anybody else. But if you want such an article, I have no probably with you writing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

[not hilo48 but] IMO we need more criticism than just calling it "woke" to include in the criticism of Wikipedia article. Just saying it's "woke" is both lacking any kind of depth or evidence and a term applied to basically anything conservatives don't like about the left (or history, or race, or gender, or science). By the original definition, the fact that we have articles on slavery, redlining, and don't say the American Civil War is "just about states' rights", we are by definition woke (but that sense of the word was never used as "criticism"). Aside: I was about to give an example and accidentally chose one that was about the WMF, which made me realize we surprisingly don't have something like criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not sure it's notable, but my example didn't actually concern Wikipedia so omitting it for now. In general, we need more then a one-word political diss. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Is Musk aware of Wookiepedia or is that part of the joke unintentional? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is Musk calling Wikipedia "wokipedia" "criticism"? Is that the scope of this article? If another celebrity said "Wikipedia sux" and was retweeted enough for a media source to cover it, is that "criticism" worth including? If we had a trolling of Wikipedia article, then it would certainly fit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I see no indication anywhere that Musk is aware of, or referencing Wookiepedia. @Rhododendrites: Musk's trolling is encapsulated with quotes by Musk of other figures asserting that Wikipedia is "woke" and seeks to perpetuate anti-majoritarian politics. If that isn't a criticism, what is it? BD2412 T 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the proposed text: Elon Musk has referred to the platform as "Wokipedia", asserting that its neutrality has been compromised by "wokeness". Yes, we include specific criticisms by other people, but what does Musk's "wokipedia" add? I'm not saying it should be omitted; I'm asking if basic trolling like that is the kind of "criticism" this article seeks to summarize in an encyclopedic way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to leave out this sort of trolling altogether. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of stupid tweets – we have better things to do, I hope, than summarising everything celebrities do to keep being talked about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If Musk has specific complaints and *tweets about them and reliable sources cover his statements, it would then be worth discussing if his comments belong in the article. Random shit like "he called it Wokepedia" does not belong. He's a guy. His opinion by itself is worth no more than anyone else's. --Onorem (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This article should cover substantive criticism. Not the random musings of a wealthy monopolist who dominates the 21st century megaphone market, and uses his "X" powers to spout banal and uninformed things to his vast audience. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Second volume of something

Why exactly is the paragraph However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee in this article? It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It essentially says "some people said that someone else did not influence Wikipedia, and some people with a very, very, very long description said that someone influenced something which is not Wikipedia. Nope. Here's what the content said in reference to Wikipedia:

"However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election cites a 2016 study published by the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence that found that entities supported by the Russian government have employed paid online trolls to post misleading information on Wikipedia in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the report did not identify Wikipedia as one of the Web 2.0 services used by the Russian government to influence voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

What it says is that A (the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee) cited research by B (the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence) that has found that Wikipedia has been subject to internet manipulation by C (the Russian government) for a specific purpose (for the Russia-Ukraine conflict), but that A however did not identify Wikipedia as a Web 2.0 service that been manipulated by C for a different purpose (interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election). I included the content because it is an example and a non-example of Wikipedia being subject to internet manipulation, although perhaps it would have been better to include the content in the "Commandeering or sanitizing articles" secondary subsection rather than the "Exposure to political operatives and advocates" secondary subsection. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I waded through the paragraph back then without finding any such manipulation of Wikipedia. I only found non-manipulation of Wikipedia and manipulation of something else, as I said. If you reinsert it, could you please cut that part away to leave only the manipulation-of-Wikipedia part? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's what the full text said:

"However, while the second volume of the report issued by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election cites a 2016 study published by the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence that found that entities supported by the Russian government have employed paid online trolls to post misleading information on Wikipedia in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the report did not identify Wikipedia as one of the Web 2.0 services used by the Russian government to influence voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Instead, like the first volume of the report issued by the Special Counsel investigation into the interference, the joint press statement issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in October 2016, and the declassified assessment released in January 2017 by the U.S. Intelligence Community, the second and fifth volumes of the Senate Intelligence Committee report released in October 2019 and August 2020 respectively concluded that the Russian interference occurred primarily by hacking-and-dumping operations targeting the internal communications of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton campaign officials (specifically John Podesta) and active measures social media campaigns primarily on Facebook and Twitter to influence the electorate to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the general election."

I'd recommend keeping all of the first sentence; I've encountered people in life who believe that Wikipedia was used by the Russian government for the purpose that the report U.S. Senate Intelligence did not identify it as being used for and generally believe it to be a source of false information and fake news. The second sentence can be moved to a footnote for a curious reader's interest. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is what I've proposed acceptable? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I still do not think it is relevant, but I am not the boss here and others should chime in.

The reason I do not think it is relevant is that it is not criticism of Wikipedia. The core, which I had overlooked the first time because of all the other stuff around it, is "trolls post misleading information". But trolls are not Wikipedia. If they succeeded and the misleading information was there for a long time, pointing that out would be criticism of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason I do not think it is relevant is that it is not criticism of Wikipedia. ... But trolls are not Wikipedia. Do you think the rest of the content in the "Exposure to political operatives and advocates" and "Commandeering or sanitizing articles" secondary subsections is irrelevant? If so, how is the content that I added different in substance from the rest of the content already included there? Both sections discuss Wikipedia being subject to manipulation by state and non-state actors to further their political interests rather than the project's purpose of creating an encyclopedia. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Those parts list clear examples of articles that have been under attack, they are not as vague as the part I removed. But yes, I think they are not criticism of Wikipedia. But you are right that this is where the text in question belongs if it is added.

I wish other people would enter this conversation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wish other people would enter this conversation. This is why I wish there was a committee of editors where individual members regularly respond to third opinion requests and resolve disagreements en banc as a panel upon request for an appeal, but other editors here seem not to agree with me that such a committee is needed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)