Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia and public opinion

Wikipedia and public opinion

Title is misleading--"Wikipedia editing scandals" more accurately describes the content. The topic seems inherently POV, and this write-up certainly is. betsythedevine 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

( Article history )

Keep Could have a better name, as it is somewhat vague but so is Mass media and public opinion, which the article is loosely based on. But is this really a AfD issue? As for NPOV, there's a flag for that.Yeago 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is not perfect, and tone could be improved. But the topic seems sufficiently encyclopedic, and avoids WP:SELF as long as it relies on external sources that mention Wikipedia rather than on WP itself (which it does currently). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would definitely oppose a rename to Wikipedia editing scandals. That title is inherently POV, since judging what is a "scandal" expresses a very non-neutral opinion about the allegedly scandalous events in questin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I agree, that's a bad article title--just my attempt to describe what's now in the article Wikipedia_and_public_opinion. As for public opinion of Wikipedia, maybe what we need is a category that would link to such scattered articles as Wikipedia#Evaluations, Criticism_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Testimonials, Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great, and Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections. betsythedevine 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those pages is at all relevant to this article, since most are within the WP namespace. If anything, the meaning of WP:SELF is that article space pages should not link to Wikipedia space internal pages. Criticisms of Wikipedia is roughly on topic, maybe I'll add a "see also". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, irrelevant. Your suggestions indicate that your (unspecified) NPOV claim is based on a fear that these articles are being used as examples to discredit Wikipedia. While this is not happening in the article, it is happening widely in the press.

You have the relationship backwards. It is How Wikipedia effects public opinion, not the public opinion of Wikipedia.Yeago 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can use revising, but the subject matter is definitely notable and worthy of an article. 23skidoo 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article exists, I can certainly see the motivation for the merge sentiment: it's mostly roughly things where the mass media was critical of WP. However, I've changed the intro a little bit to allow expansion to a topic more fitting to the title. Ideally, I'd like the article to include areas where WP affects public opinion, but not simply as a criticism of WP (not necessarily praise as such either, but more subtle external mentions of WP's effects, especially in how people understand authority and knowledge). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the growth of Wikipedia popularity number of people angry with this or that will grow as well and sensationalist media will pick it. Stating obvious truth that it is not possible to please everyone doesn't make an article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Yeago comments, the idea of the article isn't "What does the public think of WP?" Rather it is "How does WP influence public opinion on other topics". See the comment I just added to the article talk page for more clarification. It's sort of like an article on Conservative think tanks and public opinion... presumably it wouldn't be about "What do people think of the think tanks". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply happen to believe that contributions bordering on propaganda should be internally tracked.

As for obviousness, you could remove thousands of sections with that logic.Yeago 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POV. Article is a short list of "scandals" that would seem to be either better merged into Criticism of Wikipedia or are simply not a fair representation of bad edits. Article is self-referential in a non-encyclopeadic manner. The list of scandals would be better suited for the Wikipedia: namespace. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]