User:SDY/Criticismofcriticism

A disclaimer: this essay could easily be accused of assuming bad faith on the part of many contributors. I do not deny this, and I apologize in advance and acknowledge that there are some points in this which I expect are unusual views about how Wikipedia works or should work. It is just my opinion.

Introduction

Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core principles. Without WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is reduced to the level of Conservapedia, a site that is not notable for its value as a resource. This essay deals with only a subset of those articles, all of which are on contentious topics where many people have strong opinions. The objective of wikipedia policy in this case is to restrain the strong opinions of those editors so that the resulting article is balanced and reflects history and scholarship, not the opinions of the editors.

Many of these contentious articles sprawl across multiple pages since the topic is controversial, there are many important viewpoints and most if not all will be well documented in prominent and recognizable sources that editors typically use. In many cases these are news sources that do not hold the opinion themselves but are instead reporting the opinions of notable individuals, many of whom would be considered the complete opposite of neutral sources of information on controversial topics.

In many cases these people are influential figures whose opinion is notable in and of itself. The opinions of these individuals are often also held by editors on Wikipedia, and editors will want to make sure that these influential figures be given significant WP:WEIGHT because they believe in good faith that the opinions of these individuals add significantly to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

Many of these opinions are critical of the subject, and these are often consolidated into a page entitled "Criticism of (subject)". The equivalent would be to have a page entitled "Praise of (subject)" which would likely be immediately deleted as WP:SOAP or an article that would be nature have problems with WP:NPOV. The criticism articles have been allowed to persist, partially because in many cases because of strong opinions of editors. A consensus is reached, but NPOV must trump that consensus, since that consensus may be reached by editors who have a vested interest in that bias. As WP:BIAS has pointed out, the English Wikipedia does have inherent biases simply by the nature of the people who have access to it and are interested in editing.

Policy must exist and be enforced to overrule the opinions of biased editors. Neutrality is more important than consensus. This is a sticky point, since neutrality is judged by consensus, but these "criticism" articles are cases where it is clear that neutrality has failed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even if that person is preaching to the choir and no one objects.

What is the problem?

There are several ways in which "criticism" articles can be harmful to Wikipedia.

Problems with dedicated articles

The first and foremost problem about criticism articles is that they are by nature negative. A comment that is "neutral" within the context of criticism is still a critical comment.

Criticism articles are also a one-sided argument: they provide only one side of the story. They can be well-reasoned and well-supported, but providing only one side of the argument fails the expectation of neutral coverage, even if the article itself is nominally neutral.

Criticism articles provide a vehicle for opinions, many of which are likely to bring out the worst in Wikipedia editors who have strong opinions. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and criticism articles are likely to bring both defenders and attackers in an ever-widening circle of flame. Inciting these strong opinions will never create neutral coverage, and no article at all is better than a biased page permanently stuck at the wrong version.

If the article does not devolve in this fashion because it has not been noticed, it is extremely likely that it is solely a reflection of the opinions of the editors and has no place in Wikipedia.

Hidden criticism

In many cases, the criticisms provide important context about the topic of the criticism. A "criticism of" article can be used to minimize information about valid criticisms which editors may find that they do not want to include. The decision about what criticisms are relevant would ideally be made by an impartial secondary source, but finding one of these for the topics in question is impossible, so the editors will have to find some sort of consensus on what is relevant. Criticisms that are hidden may as well not have been included in Wikipedia's coverage of a controversial topic.

The main article is also much more obvious, and truly glaring mistakes or omissions are more likely to be noted and corrected.

What can be done?

Given these potential problems and that many of these articles already exist, what can be done to address the issue? We cannot force editors to be neutral, since they are probably human and some level of bias will always happen despite all of our best intentions.

Giving existing articles a new purpose

The simplest solution would be to take existing "criticism" articles and re-purpose them to articles that cover all opinions, not just negative ones. A "responses to" or "controversies involving" article does not have the loaded title that expects it to be negative or perceived as negative.

In many cases, there are many controversies about a topic that are encyclopedic, should be covered and can be covered in a neutral manner since reliable tertiary sources exist that have evaluated the controversies. Those sources should be used in the case of a dispute between editors as to what is "worth" covering in an article about notable controversies. There is no Criticism of censorship article, but criticism of censorship is well and reasonably documented on Wikipedia, particularly in the main article.

These can be awkward to title for people, and that is a good thing. Controversies and criticism should be targeted at things, not at living people. Criticism of the presidency of George W. Bush is a meaningful discussion that historians will probably discuss for quite some time. Criticism of the individual is not nearly as historically relevant and is more likely to include personal attacks and other things which are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Merge relevant content, delete the article

In many cases, these articles contain useful information that should be retained. Many of them have content which would give inappropriate weight to an article and should simply be forgotten. There will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth at this, but I personally feel that much of this hue and cry will be from editors who have invested too much in the topic and are incapable of neutral assessment. This is an assumption of bad faith, which is difficult to stomach, but WP:AGF has limits, WP:NPOV does not.