SashiRolls (talk | contribs) |
95.145.158.20 (talk) |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:Since none of the above wanted to discuss, I've rewritten the lead to summarize the body. In so doing, I've removed the false claim that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, contradicted both by the Terms of Service and page protection policies on en.wp. Using the corporation's slogan in the first line of an article about criticism of the corporation strikes me as being particularly inappropriate. 🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 13:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) |
:Since none of the above wanted to discuss, I've rewritten the lead to summarize the body. In so doing, I've removed the false claim that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, contradicted both by the Terms of Service and page protection policies on en.wp. Using the corporation's slogan in the first line of an article about criticism of the corporation strikes me as being particularly inappropriate. 🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 13:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences == |
|||
From Kristin Luker ([[social science]]s), [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LecAx7ffQzoC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=%22fish+studying+water%22&source=bl&ots=qtGkj0YzrT&sig=ACfU3U2WPkCD2ekuK2Zi_Rf8vQtHgIgsCw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgsaPLgZXnAhXNRhUIHVH6AhgQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ "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 [[postmodernism|postmodernists]], [[philosophy|philosophers]] have the viewpoint objectivity is impossible (also: [[knowledge is power]]). This is not original research. [[Special:Contributions/95.145.158.20|95.145.158.20]] ([[User talk:95.145.158.20|talk]]) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:37, 21 January 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spelling and punctuation
I am wondering whether the section entitled "Quality of presentation" should have a section on spelling and punctuation errors in Wikipedia. Prior to coming to this article, I just noticed a superfluous apostrophe in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Lack of effective conflict resolution
I believe that there should be a subsection under Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of process for issues relating to the current conflict resolution mechanisms. I've given up on writing anything major on wiki because I'm not willing to engage in perpetual edit wars with an editor who refuses to accept mediation or arbitration. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)
- I would certainly agree that conflict resolution is a very unsatisfactory area of Wikipedia, but to include anything in this article would require reference to writings outside Wikipedia regarding this problem. Do you know of any such sources? HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Using ad hoc Wikipedia pages to talk about racial bias
A contributor has twice now added links (e.g. #2) to categories about Americans on en.wp to suggest that (because of the number of stubs/pages listed) that there is little racial bias. There are multiple problems with self-sourcing an article about Wikipedia to automatically generated (ad-hoc) lists of pages. First WP:PRIMARY. In 2020, or perhaps tomorrow, the categories may no longer verify the numbers cited. Second, the category list page says nothing about racial bias concerning page creation about Americans. Third, the racial bias of en.wp refers to global coverage, not just about coverage of US parochial matters. I would encourage the contributor to find an independent secondary source. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- . I followed the rule: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source see WP:PRIMARY --also read WP:SELFSOURCE The notion that statements must use the word "bias"is not true of other statements in the section (Liriano, Murguia) and is not related to any Wikipedia rule or guideline. The article is about "criticism" not about "bias." Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- As I've said, there are a number of problems with this: 1) what statements are being verified? (if you answer that there are n pages about a subject, that's not very interesting, as it does not allow the reader to know anything about the quality of those pages without clicking on n pages. 2) it is impossible to verify that these articles themselves do not display racial bias. 3) Also, you should be aware that an admin and arbcom clerk has said above that we cannot quote the Wikipedia Terms of Service in order to talk about the terms of service on Wikipedia because the TOS does not contain the word "criticism" (voir supra). So, given that this is a much, much clearer case where we should be able to use a stable Wikipedia page as a source concerning itself but are not (according to Bradv), I don't think we should be using ad-hoc categories as a source about Wikipedia. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Since the page has archived since last I wrote here it's in Archive #4 (Unhappy Gatekeepers) rather than just supra...
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)the added text is cited directly to the foundation, which does not mention "criticism of Wikipedia". We're supposed to rely on what third-party sources say about the subject, rather than use primary sources to draw conclusions not stated by the source. (bradv)
- Since the page has archived since last I wrote here it's in Archive #4 (Unhappy Gatekeepers) rather than just supra...
This seems like a straightforward example of original research, using specific examples from Wikipedia itself to "respond" to (explicitly or implicitly) more general claims in reliable independent sources. The only time this might be a reasonable thing to do is if there were an article specifically mentioning these categories, then perhaps we could give updated figures from those categories now (in a footnote, say). But I don't see these categories mentioned anywhere. Instead it looks like it's trying to diminish certain claims of bias in Wikipedia by saying "look, we have more articles now." If the claims may be dated, the solution would be to ascribe to them an "as of" statement. Discussion about Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles really should not be cited to Wikipedia except perhaps as supplemental to claims already made in reliable independent sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. OR, if it were permitted, would be a game anyone can play, including critics of Wikipedia. Such an editor could include in this article the fact that the article on Jabba the Hutt (4306 words) is more than twice the size of the article on the prominent writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2057 words). That editor could use this statistic to show that Wikipedia suffers not only from racial and gender bias, but also from wacky priorities. Fortunately, if someone put that in the article, it would be reverted as OR. In this case Wikipedia policy says that it's best for editors not to get started hurling Wikipedia stats at one another, arguing over whether the criticisms in this article are valid. NightHeron (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I also agree that this is original research, the arguments have been made above by other editors and I've got nothing to add. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
updating coverage of blacks and Latinos
The article contains old information on the coverage of blacks and Latinos: eg argued that the lack of information regarding black history on Wikipedia "makes it seem like it's not important." and stressed how it is important for Latinos to be part of Wikipedia. I propose updating with this fresh factual information: In 2019 Wikipedia included 928 articles in the category "Activists for African-American civil rights." [ref> See full list.[/ref> It also included 95 articles on "Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights," as well as 52 articles dealing with Cesar Chavez. <[ef> see listing of the articles and here for Chavez.[/ref> Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- You might be interested in digging around to see if, according to en.wp, there as many high schools in Haïti (pop: 11m) as there are in Montana (pop: 1m). There's no entry for Lycée Alexandre Pétion , not is there an article on Lycée Toussaint Louverture for example (basically Haiti's Lycée Henri IV and Lycée Louis le Grand as I understand it), both reconstructed in 2015 (five years after the earthquake): e.g. "Le Premier ministre, Evans Paul, a fait l'éloge du Lycée Toussaint Louverture, pour sa participation à la formation d'une grande partie de l'intelligentsia haïtienne" (1, 2) (as well as the sitting (on the hot seat) President Jovenel Moïse and quite a few before him). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, last night I added the reconstruction facts over "there" to the school which had an entry and found that in fr.wp there are three pages in the category, but no Lycée Toussaint Ouverture. Lots of encyclopedic work to be done if we want to claim that there is no racial/regional bias, in other words. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 06:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The encyclical that anyone could have edited
A couple users seem to feel that people criticize Wikipedia because anyone can edit. In fact, much of this article refers to the fact that it's the encyclopedia that anyone (in the wealthy world) could have edited. I hope that the lead line will be restored to the real focus of the criticism and not to the slogan about what Wikipedia's "nature" is. Not much that's "natural" about Wikipedia...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reason given: sorry, but that's what most of my colleagues say too: it's the possibility of ongoing editing by whoever (source)
- Guideline (MoS): The lead summarizes the body.
- BRD: when reverting you are expected to engage on the TP: Aquillion, NightHeron, Drmies, and El C have all failed to do so.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since none of the above wanted to discuss, I've rewritten the lead to summarize the body. In so doing, I've removed the false claim that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, contradicted both by the Terms of Service and page protection policies on en.wp. Using the corporation's slogan in the first line of an article about criticism of the corporation strikes me as being particularly inappropriate. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
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)