Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Linux 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. "Merge" is an editorial decision that is a variant of "keep", and I will leave it to interested editors to work out more of a consensus as to keep a standalone or merge into Linux, but consensus to keep in one form or another is clear. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Linux

The page is inherently biased and is mostly sourced to Microsoft, a biased source in this area. What little useful information should be merged into the Linux article, but not as a section. See things to avoid and Wikipedia:Criticism for arguments against this form of article. Localzuk^(talk) 11:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Linux- agree it is POV to have a criticism article mostly sourced to a competitors website. Thunderwing 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we can have Criticism of Microsoft and not this... both would have to be inherently biased. --W.marsh 13:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think the article is biased – each criticism is balanced with a response. It is a worthy subject for an article, as is Criticism of Windows XP. Jll 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see any horrendous bias problems in the article that warrant deletion. MichelleG 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wow, Linux looks like it's owned by Linux fans... any criticism is apparently quickly removed. --W.marsh 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bias is based on whether an article is one sided or not. Having an article entirely based on criticism makes that into a bias. If information can be well sourced then it should be included in the Linux article, if not then it has no place on this site. Also, how can you say that this is not biased? Most of its sources are Microsoft! I also think we should be rid of the Criticism of Microsoft article, but calling for that to be deleted would have a snowballs chance. Localzuk^(talk) 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Criticism of ..." articles are not encyclopedic and magnet of trolling, fanboism, not-sourced info, and POV. -- AdrianTM 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the criticism has to be of encyclopedic amplitude, I don't think this qualify, for Windows which is used in 90% of computer a widespread criticism can be considered of encyclopedic nature, but for an OS that's used by less than 3% of people I don't think its criticism is of encyclopedic nature, it's just a marginal issue... -- AdrianTM 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It still feels like propaganda. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to keep. Looks better now - it simply analyzes the criticism. Much better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm generally pro-Linux and I don't see this as especially biased. There is much room for improvement in the LInux desktops, so a little criticism is warranted. References 4-9 are from the Microsoft perspective, but then the single section they are referencing is specific about that. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all "Criticism of..." articles back into their main articles; left on their own, they are likely to become POV forks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't believe that the removal of factual information is warranted due to baseless POV concerns, so far I have not seen any evidence (other then claims) that the article contains any at all. (Disclaimer: I have contributed significantly to this article.) — H.7004.Vx (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I don't object to a merger, provided that the article retains its own section and that a significant amount of the material remains. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to neutral. Localzuk and AdrianTM, I have good news for you. After the excellent release of Ubuntu 6.10, I am extremely disappointed with today's 7.04 release, so much so in fact that I don't even want to contribute to any article related to Linux anymore. Thus as of now I will be completely indifferent in regards to which direction this article goes. Congratulations in regard to your victories on this subject. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after reading Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history). --SLi 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it's our fault, but a merge vote is basically a delete vote here, as the editors of Linux will not allow a criticism section in that article (see its talk page). --W.marsh 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, that's a separate (and in my opinion very real) issue that needs to be dealt with separately. It cannot be a rationale for doing things for one article that there are disputes on how another article needs to be written. --SLi 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Please note that I have removed content that some claimed to be unverifiable and added new material with citations from news organizations such as CNN and ZDNet. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed quite a few of these new sources due to them being from between 3 and 9 years old. Sorry but Linux changes so rapidly, an article a year old is out of date let alone a 9 year old one!-Localzuk^(talk) 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...And I have added them back. If Linux "changed so much" over the past years (you haven't proved this, by the way) then why are many of the citations on the main Linux article "between 3 and 9 years old" as well? — H.7004.Vx (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...And I removed them again, no need to use obsolete info. Also removed complains about GNOME, GNOME is a Desktop environment that can be used in other OSes is not specific to Linux and in Linux there are many other choices therefore criticism against GNOME is not criticism against Linux by any measure. -- AdrianTM 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I vehemently disagree that the structure in this article implies a point of view. "Israeli terrorism" (see words to avoid/article structure) is of course not suitable as an article title because it implies that something disputed occurred. This is what that guideline is for. Criticism on the other hand, does not imply anything, except that criticism of Linux exists, which is a fact. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment W. Marsh is right - there is some serious article ownership going on over at Linux. But the answer isn't a criticism POV fork... the answer is fighting to ensure a balanced main article, taking the owners to dispute resolution if needed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you substantiate your claim? All I have seen is a series of poorly sourced edits criticising Linux being given undue weight and them being removed. I have yet to see a valid criticism be added by someone. However, if I am wrong, please show me.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When Microsoft – the world's largest IT company – criticizes Linux, that's notable. Obviously their criticisms ought to be taken with a grain of salt, since they are a competitor (and no doubt there are sources pointing this fact out). But such prominent criticism should be mentioned. Virtually every article on a subject as notable as Linux has a "criticism of" section. Here, it had to be improperly forked due to article ownership. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like you to substantiate some claims of your own, including how such a short article has given "undue weight". — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say that this is a subject area which requires minimal coverage, within the main article itself. Giving it an article on its own - with such poor sourcing is giving it undue weight. It is like saying that the criticism is of as much importance as the artile itself.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is why I advocated it be merged back into the main article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more attribution/reference was put in. While on the surface it seems that it is balanced, many of the critism is originate from Microsoft. If you condensed all of those into Microsoft, then there is only 1 article on ZDNet, one refute from GNU foundation, and one critized on linux by microsoft. Thus, it fails WP:ATT. However, there must be plenty other attribution, but until then it definitley violates WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep since well, the criticism of almost any large subject is somewhat notable, and in this case is clearly valid enough as an encyclopedic subject. If nothing else, the numerous news articles I've seen either containing the criticism or refuting it are more than enough for me to say it's notable. [1],[2],[3] The concerns expressed in the nomination are content disputes, or essays that have not attracted widespread support. I also note the current good article, Criticism of Wal-Mart, which was nominated for deletion back in September. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then put those URL in! My only complain is not enough Attribution from multiple sources, that's all. Geez, do I have to do this myself?! Personally speaking, I do not think any article should be deleted if it has enough attribution. If you have references, from multiple source, put it in yourself—don't expect a Wikignome to know every single reference out there.George Leung 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I might have, except it looked like a bit of an edit war was occurring above, and I didn't want to cloud the issue further. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.I seem to remember reading about some kind of fork.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge: A writer above brings up a good point when he says, “criticism of almost any large subject is somewhat notable.” The problem here is that the article is not very strong right now. Unlike the articles on Microsoft and Walmart that were mentioned by others (both of which have over 100 sources) this article is brief and poorly sourced. (The Microsoft and Walmart articles, on the other hand, are well sourced and detailed.) A refined of this text should find a home in the Linux article until it grows up enough to be out on its own. I'm a Linux user myself (I'm typing in it right now) and I see no problem with this information being merged. Fixer1234 08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem is that any criticism will be removed from Linux due to article ownership by Linux advocates, so it will have no real chance to grow into something well-sourced and comprehensive. I realize that makes it sound like this is a POV fork, but it's really a NPOV fork. --W.marsh 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That said, this criticism article has improved and I will try to merge some content over later. I suspect I'll get reverted obviously, but we'll see. --W.marsh 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try to merge in sections where the criticism belongs, not in a separate category. -- AdrianTM 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many articles have criticism sections... just because a few editors of Linux don't want one doesn't mean it can't have one. --W.marsh 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that many articles are bad is not an argument for criticism sections. -- AdrianTM 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that it's in many articles (including featured articles) is an argument that you're not correct in saying it's bad in the first place. --W.marsh 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You have previously stated that separate criticism sections are are "POV and troll attracting" (see Talk:Linux#Criticisms). I don't believe this should be of concern, and I certainly don't believe that this makes an article "bad". As I've said before, if a vandal attempts to troll, his or her edits will be reverted. This applies to any article. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this article (section) is the best example, it tried to pass forum posts as "reliable source" anyone can check Talk:Linux and my fight against this people who promote forums as sources for an encyclopedia... I'm also not sure how Microsoft could be considered reliable source either... but I'll let that slide for now. -- AdrianTM 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is no longer an issue. ~~I have removed the forum citations.~~ Edit: Actually, Localzuk did, but I have also removed the information cited from the forums entirely. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm posting from an Ubuntu machine right now, and I have to say that I don't see any big problems with this article. Keep it, and it will grow into a beautiful, reference-bearing flower. Lankiveil 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- - - - Comment as to Microsoft as a source. It's not whether they are reliable or not, in the sense of the truth to whatever they may say, but whether or not they can be sourced as what they are saying. If whatever they are saying is disputed by other reliable sources, then that should itself be part of the criticism. To put it another way, Gimble's can say Macy's is a horrible store. If the New York Times reported that, then the inclusion of such would be valid, as would the hypothetical response of saying it's just sour grapes. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with this as long it is sourced from some reliable source not from Microsoft ads/"research" is fine by me. -- AdrianTM 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep

1) the argument to delete it because it's a certain TYPE of article is bogus. One would have to delete all such articles. Of which there are many 2) I'm an ubuntu user, I love linux, I started this article 3) There is a "criticism of" article for every Windows release, and Microsoft product. we need this kind of thing to maintain the overall neutrality of wikipedia as a whole. 4) instead of deleting articles, try putting your energy into how to improve them. :-) Hendrixski 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That is why I think all 'criticism of' articles should be deleted and the information put within the subject articles and those split out according to their large sections. Why should the positive and negative information about a subject be split? It makes no sense. Also, your argument #4 is silly to be blunt. In my opinion, criticism articles can't be improved as they will always be biased and NPOV.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree. If you saw a section entitled "Negative reactions to the Vietnam War" in a history textbook, would you object to that as well? — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well it depends on what the purpose of that history textbook was. Most books like that don't pretend to be unbiased whereas we (wikipedia) are supposed to be striving for a NPOV. That is the difference between most sources and this site.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You give this example with Vietnam because you (or people in general) are comfortable with that opinion, personally I don't think we should have a "Criticism of McDonalds" section or page where we quote Wendy's or Burger King ads or "research". -- AdrianTM 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just for your information, here are four featured articles I could find quite easily with criticism sections (there are most likely others as well):

Anarcho-capitalism#Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Tony Blair#Criticism

Microsoft#Criticism

Windows XP#Common criticisms

— H.7004.Vx (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Let me guess, they don't use blog and forum posts as sources, right? -- AdrianTM 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said before, this is no longer an issue. I have removed all information cited from the threads and will not cite threads again. Let's keep the discussion focused on relevant topics. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it looks like a valid subject and is handled in an encyclopedic context. Yamaguchi先生 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Clearly a valid topic, and with good clean up, quite an extensive one also. --Jimmi Hugh 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those who vote to keep here. Do you disagree with Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article of Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history)? To me the wording seems quite clearly opposed to exactly this kind of articles. --SLi 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't vote, I shared my thoughts, and no, I don't agree with that essay. And note, it's just an essay, which represents some people's thoughts on a subject. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, true. I thought I was referring to a guideline. Thanks for pointing that out :) --SLi 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AdrianTM, an owner of the Linux article, is censoring references to the Microsoft studies on Criticism of Linux. 74.15.52.3 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't refer to people as 'owners' without substantial evidence. I support the removal of information sourced directly to Microsoft as they are not a reliable source of info on the subject of Linux - in the same way that Communist Russia wouldn't have been a reliable direct source with regards to the USA - both have something major to gain from providing information that is detrimental to the opposition. However, if a secondary/tertiary source can be provided which analyses the MS sources and are themselves a reliable source then I would be happy for the information to be included.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.