Wikipedia:Criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For criticism of Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Criticisms. For Wikipedia policy on positive and negative evaluations see WP:NPOV and WP:V.

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.

Shortcut: WP:CRIT

He [sic] only profits from praise who values criticism

—Heinrich Heine

Wikipedia must strive for a neutral point of view and verifiability in general and in regards to the reception and/or positive and negative criticism of article's topics. Negative criticism is not held to a higher standard from other content, with the exception of legal concerns associated with biographies of living persons.

Criticism: criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections. Furthermore, see the warning below.

This guideline, Wikipedia:Criticism/Wikipedia:Reception, gives recommendations on how to format and locate evaluations, which, if justified, may be:

In separate sections in articles about the evaluated topic,
Integrated throughout an article,
In other articles than the article about the topic,

as long as this complies with Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:SUMMARY, and WP:POV FORK, further detailed below.

1 Neutral point of view
2 Titling evaluations
3 Locating evaluations
4 Examples
5 See also

[edit] Neutral point of view

Warning: per Wikipedia:Verifiability an article should only contain sourced statements. Explicitly calling such statements "criticism" in the text of the article without any serious reason to do so (ie, if they are not negative criticism) can result in a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

As with all Wikipedia articles, evaluations must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there are valid counter-arguments to the evaluations, then these must be fairly included.

Just as in most cases the existence of an article seems to inherently promote its topic, "Criticism of ...." articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view. In this case they would be POV forks, however, there is no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles/sections in general are always POV forks, especially if balanced by an article/section describing positive evaluation and influence. It also a concern that often these articles or sections quickly degrade into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic, known as "POV magnets".

[edit] Titling evaluations

Thus "Criticism of..." should be avoided (see WP:POV FORK). Preferred titles include "Critique", the synonym "review" which may also imply a more comprehensive study.[1], and "Reception". "Reception" sections should contain rebuttals immediately if available.

As is the convention with summary-style articles, reception should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Before being spun off, "Reception of ..." articles should contain rebuttals if available, once spun off the original article should contain a summary of the "Reception of ... " article.

[edit] Locating evaluations

There are two main forms of positive and negative criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The most obvious is the evaluation in a section, often titled "Criticism" or "Reception", found in some articles (for example Igor Stravinsky#Reception). A second format is the inclusion of evaluation into the article's other sections or, if justified, introduction.

Another format of evaluation is including the criticism of a topic in the articles about the critics of that topic, or in articles describing books or other media criticizing the topic.

[edit] Kinds of article subjects

The appropriate way to structure evaluation may depend on the style of the article. In articles on people, places, things, etc., it can be very useful to integrate evaluation into the article. In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with evaluation of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook.

[edit] Evaluations of a topic in its article

See also: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words_that_may_advance_a_point_of_view

[edit] Evaluations in a "Criticism" section

Shortcut: WP:CRITS

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article Stucture and Wikipedia:Pro and con lists

A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition. Separate sections containing negative evaluations may become a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. There is currently no consensus on what is best, and even User:Jimbo Wales has weighed in on the question:

In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, 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.

– Jimbo Wales

These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article. They also must not imply that the criticism section is in any way less important or less truthful than the rest of the article.

Many criticism sections started as separate from the main body of articles by editors with a strong point of view on the subject or who are concerned that the article does not present a balanced view of the subject but do not have the time or resources to integrate the criticism effectively. Sections created for these reasons may be temporary and may eventually be integrated into the main article in appropriate places. The "separate" section might be tagged {{POV-section}}, {{criticism-section}}, or similar to indicate that it is expected to be temporary.

Sometimes a criticism section is used because of a single notable critic or group of critics on the topic, and these sections are often better titled as such (e.g. "Views of foo, bar, and baz") than as "criticism" sections. These sections often include sources which are only used as a source for the criticism, and combining them into a group simplifies referencing.

Criticism sections should not be used to describe attributes that are likely to be criticized unless and until a meaningful individual has criticized the subject for that attribute. All criticism in the dedicated section should be attributed to a specific critic. Attributes which are likely to draw criticism may be documented elsewhere in the article if relevant.

[edit] Evaluations in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section

Often Wikipedia articles separate 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 being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic. Conceivably, per Wikipedia:SUMMARY, eventually all major topics would one day have reception articles.

Some recommendations:

If the reception (history) of a topic is composed of as well positive and negative criticism, and other significant events that usually aren't qualified as "criticism" (e.g. about a book, notes about when major translations appeared,...), 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 might be a bit more susceptible to accumulation of Trivia, which is a disadvantage compared to straight "Criticism" sections.

Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions"; "Studies and reception history"; etc. "Critical reception" may be preferred in some cases so as to imply the need for cited information.

[edit] Evaluations integrated throughout the article

Negative 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. This is often why separate criticism sections are created. Alternatively, this section could be retitled "Early reception".

[edit] Evaluations about a topic in other articles

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

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). This is natural proceeding in Wikipedia.

The articles on the criticised topics can (and preferably do) contain links to the "criticising" Wikipedia article; also, if the criticism is considered important or notable, the article on the criticised topic would preferably give a summary of the major criticisms (e.g. formatted in summary style).

[edit] Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history)

Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually 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".

Overview:

Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that 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.
Making separate "reception history" articles (e.g. Tacitean studies) is tricky business, with a lot of ifs and buts – make sure to follow recommendations if pursuing this option:
- "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 summary style type of 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 can only be done 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 (so: subject to consensus of Wikipedians, 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 and Wikipedia:content forking.