I'm looking for opinions (from anyone) on revising the project page on Criticism... namely, the thinking behind when exactly Crit sections are needed, and when they are not. It really is a simple enough issue: at the moment, Wikipedia policy and guidelines, both, are too vague to resolve ANY disputes over when exactly Crit sections can exist, and when they should be scattered into articles. Both sides of Crit section disputes have to resort to arguing over who's point of view simply makes the most SENSE... (which is utterly fruitless, of course, and becomes just a battle of patience... ie, whoever gets sick of it and leaves first loses, and the other editors draw consensus, and make their changes. Ie, these disputes become "democracy-driven", because policy doesn't help)

So, I'm just trying to get some editors together who can work on some clarifications to the Criticism section... I started a discussion on the talk page for the Criticism article, but nobody has chimed in yet, in over a week. (well, one guy did) This isn't a policy article - just guidelines - but I still want to make sure there's some consensus before just tossing in these clarifications. So far, none of it is my thinking: I've read all this stuff at some point or another, and am just collecting the ideas.

Criticism of Dario D
____________________________________________________________________

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Wikipedia Review's purpose is to help Wikipedia form a consensus; it really aint so D, shocking I know.

Go recruit some saps from elsewhere, here's a thought....Try Wikipedia!

Spam those noticeboards the 'pediots love it when you do that.

Right, I wouldn't come here looking for a consensus cabal to help with article-per-article disputes, but I thought this would be the perfect place to discuss the very basis of the Crit Section. This is a huge deal...

As for searching for editors on Wikipedia itself, I have no idea where to find them. Is it a good idea to just go tap shoulders on people I find in random articles?

Why not ask here?

No it's not a huge deal, it's more Wikipedia navel gazing.

Just go to Wikipedia's AN/I noticeboard and post;

"Hello 'pedia cuntmonkeys please come and debate about the need for criticism sections on articles"

This should get your need noticed and will probably give you much 'pediot kudos.

This debate has been on for 3-4 years now. As with all other Wikipedia policies, it is generally a function of the POV of the involved editors. If the editor is trying to craft an attack article, he'll generally want a prominent criticism section, while his opponents will prefer that the criticism be diffused throughout the article so that it packs less of a punch. However, the really bold BLP violator will scorn the criticism section per se, preferring to pack the criticism into the article lead.

This is exactly the kind of considered and reasonable reply that has led to a tarnishing of wikipedia review's reputation.

I hope you're ashamed of yourself Herschy.

The whole freakin' encyclopedia is a damn "Criticism Section".

Except maybe for all the asteroids pages.

And the BLPs owned by there subjects.

"Butchering them via blending them into the article" sounds like the proper thing to do...

As with "In Popular Culture" sections ("In episode XXX of Family Guy..."), "Criticism" sections on WP tend to become dumping grounds of information of dubious importance, often jarring from the rest of the article. If criticism of the subject is noteworthy enough to merit a mention, there should be a natural point in the flow of the article to discuss it, usually warranting a more descriptive section heading than "Criticism."