> Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article... > > I've been getting into a fairly nasty feud on a popular culture > article in which I added an "academic criticism" section, summarizing > articles I could find on the subject. > > This seems to me well-supported by numerous policies. But it has > proven inordinately contentious, and contentious in what seems to me > particularly pernicious ways - the articles (from peer-reviewed > journals) have been compared to blog posts and fancruft, declared non- > notable (not that notability determines article content), and the > sections have been accused of being jargon-filled (which, they are, > yes, but we're dealing with criticism in the humanities. It's jargon- > filled, and the jargon doesn't translate to everyday words easily, or > else we wouldn't use the jargon). > > I'm very, very troubled by this, for a number of reasons. For one > thing, it seems to me to cheapen Wikipedia, miring us in the everyday > and the simple. I am unable to think of anyone who would seriously > criticize an encyclopedia for excessively covering peer-reviewed, > academic scholarship. Covering academic criticism of any subject > should be a goal for us. It should be the goal for us. > > But apparently this position is not only not widely held, but an > incredible minority position. > > Am I crazy? Did I just get a bad bunch of people conversing on the > article, such that I should spill the article name and get the sanity > brigade on it? Or are we really of the opinion that peer-reviewed > academic criticism is a non-notable perspective on a subject? > > -Phil
You're right, but so are they. Scholarly works in this field are just opinion, sophisticated opinion, but still, just opinion. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l