維基百科:批評
 |
 | 此維基百科頁目前正依照其他維基百科上的內容進行翻譯。 (2018年9月1日) |
根據維基百科的中立觀點方針，條目必須公正、不帶偏見、比例相當的提出有關主題的不同觀點。條目應該包括來自可靠來源的正面和負面觀點，不要過分強調特定的正面或負面觀點。可供查證方針要求·所有觀點都有可靠、公開的來源，並適當列出。維基百科的非原創研究方針, 除中立要求外，也禁止編者偏袒自己傾向的觀點。維基百科的生者傳記方針規定需要特別注意提出有關生者的負面觀點。
在大多數情況下，條目應避免在單獨章節中集中敘述批評、爭議或類似內容，這會讓這些章節過分關注負面觀點。文章應該使用可靠來源，公正地、比例相當地、沒有偏見地展示正面及負面觀點。
規範
[編輯]中立性和可供查證
[編輯]大多數負面內容的問題都可以通過遵守維基百科方針來避免，如使用好的來源、仔細平衡內容以及不帶偏見地寫作。當在條目中加入負面內容時，我們需要檢查以下內容：
- 確保有可靠來源支持該信息
- 不要過度強調這些信息
- 正面觀點和負面觀點始終保持平衡
- 當加入負面信息時，最好在段落或句子中指明批評的來源，以防使讀者誤解批評的主體是維基百科
- 將負面內容整合到對受批評的事件、產品或政策的所有觀點中，不要單獨在「批評」一節中列出
在世人物
[編輯]與在世人物有關的負面內容可能違反私隱政策或損害他人聲譽。因此有嚴格的規定來管理這些信息。詳見生者傳記。
批評的比重與表述：其他相關指引
[編輯]不應過度強調批評。一些方針和指引有助於確定文章中批評的比重和表述：
- WP:BALASPS：維基百科條目對其主題批評的比重應與本文主題的可靠來源中的批評的總體比重成比例。
- WP:POVFORK: 不要為了清理維基百科的合理批評內容而拆分條目。
- WP:ABOUTSELF與WP:PRIMARY：即使第三方可靠來源對某個主題的介紹通常為負面，也不應妨礙對該主題的公平描述。
- WP:FRINGE等具體的指引可能會指導如何處理某些領域的批評。
以上的建議清單展示了幾個額外的指引方向，並不全面。
避免聚焦批評或爭議的章節或條目
[編輯]我們通常不鼓勵專門創建一篇針對負面批評的條目，因為它往往有觀點分歧，而這一般是中立觀點方針所禁止的。
同樣地，在條目中設置專門講述負面批評的章節通常是不獲鼓勵的。時下關注或主題內容章節通常優先於專門闡述批評的章節。除關於特定世界觀、哲學或宗教主題等有不同考慮因素的條目（見下面），最佳做法是於同一章節內同時講述正面及負面材料。例如，如果某政治人物的公眾形象受到重大批評，就創建一個「公眾形象」的章節，並於章節內闡述所有正面及負面信息。如果一本書受到嚴厲批評，請於此書籍的條目創建一個名為「公眾評語」的章節，並於章節內闡述所有正面及負面材料。
藝術家和其作品的條目通常包含批評者、同行及評論家意見的描述。即使在此等情況下「批評」一詞可以包含正面及負面評價，但章節標題仍然應避免使用「批評」一詞，因為其可能向許多讀者傳達負面意思。這種情況可以「公眾評語」、「評論」、「回應」、「反應」或「評估」等標題名稱替代。
在部分情況下，「批評」一詞可能適用於條目或章節標題，例如，如果有大量批評材料存在，而同時有獨立的二手來源對批評材料作出評論、分析或討論。
章節或條目標題通常不應該包含「爭議」一詞。相反，標題應該只命名事件，例如「2009年抵制」或「狩獵事件」。「爭議」一詞不應該應用於標題，除非「爭議」一詞已成為對一次事件獲普遍接受的名稱等極少數情況，例如創造–進化爭議。批評及爭議是兩個完全不同的概念，不應混為一談。批評是具體的評價或評估，而爭議是持續的公眾糾紛。因此，「批評及爭議」之類的章節通常都是不合適。
當條目過長時
[編輯]The best approach to including negative criticisms is to integrate it into the primary article on the topic. Sometimes that may cause the article to get too large, in which case the article should be split, using the guidance on splitting the article can be found in the WP splitting guideline. The preferred way to split an article is as a content fork into sub-articles, using a "main" template to link to the new sub-articles. Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific points-of-view – instead sub-articles should focus on topical themes.
組織和公司
[編輯]Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism – however within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS.
Example: the sources that discuss the 2008 Summer Olympics often describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic. As the main article is very long and it was deemed unpractical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article: the summary style guideline was used to create a sub-article Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, while a summary overview of the controversies is retained in the main article.
哲學，宗教或政治
[編輯]For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.
提出批評的方法
[編輯]提出爭議或批評的方法如下：
| 方法 | 描述 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated | Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section. | Abortion, Slavery, PETA, George Soros, Bill O'Reilly |
| "評價" 章節 | With this approach, the article contains a section dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic. The section should not use a negative title like "Criticism" or "Controversies" but instead should use a more neutral term such as "Reception", "Assessment", "Reviews", "Influence", or "Response". This approach is often found in articles on books or other works of art. | Catcher in the Rye, In Search of Lost Time (book), 2001 (film) |
| "爭議" 章節 | For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about). | Michael Collins Piper#Antisemitism controversy, Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse and legal issues, Kanye West#Controversies (with subsection titles "General media" and "Award shows") |
| "批評" 章節 | In this approach, the article contains a section which focuses only on negative criticisms. This approach is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics. Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints. | World bank, Existentialism, Planned Parenthood, Materialism, Exxon, Oracle, Eugenics, Creationism |
| "評價" 條目 | This approach employs a separate article that includes both positive and negative viewpoints. This approach is often taken when the primary article on a literary topic grows too large and is subject to a content fork. | Reception of WikiLeaks, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Shakespeare's reputation, Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche, Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, |
| "爭議" 條目 | use the term "controversy" in an article title only when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic) | Gamergate controversy |
| "對...的批評" 條目 | This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint. Some organizations and corporations also have controversy or criticism sub-articles, but in those situations, the sources must support such a dedicated sub-article. In all cases, the article must be written neutrally and must not be a POV fork. | Philosophy/Politics/Religion – Criticisms of Marxism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of religion, Criticism of multiculturalism, Criticism of the War on Terror, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Libertarianism
Organizations – Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the United Nations, Criticism of Greenpeace, Criticism of Coca-Cola, Criticism of Microsoft, 2008 Olympics controversies, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina |
綜合整個文章
[編輯]Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. However, for example, when the structure of an article is timeline-based "criticism" can't precede the genesis history of the subject (except possibly for a mentioning in the lede).
"評價"類章節
[編輯]An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. Suitable section titles, depending on case, include: "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" and "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.
"爭議"章節
[編輯]For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic. "Controversy" is not necessarily part of the name of such a section (e.g. Antibiotics#Misuse, Rick Ross (consultant)#Jason Scott deprogramming). Avoid mixed bag section titles like "Controversies" without it being clear in the section title (or in the titles of the subsections of such section) what these controversies are about. If the content of such a section is of the "mixed bag" kind, the section should be handled as a trivia section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections).
"批評"章節
[編輯]A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."[1]
Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material.
Sometimes a section is created to describe a significant criticism made by a notable critic. In these situations, the section title should be something like "View of Maria Smith" or "Reaction of the NY Times", and should avoid the word "criticism" in the section title.
評價之歷史的條目
[編輯]A dedicated "Reception history" or "History of criticism" article may be acceptable for certain literary, historical, or artistic topics, if the sources justify it. Such articles should describe the historical progression of the criticism, as well as documenting both the positive and negative criticisms. The "main" article should have a summary style type of section summarizing the "reception history", and properly linking to the subsidiary article (for the Tacitean studies example this is the "Studies and reception history" section in the Tacitus article).
專寫爭議的獨立條目
[編輯]Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed for criticism-related material. Articles dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Whaling controversy, Global warming controversy, 2008 Olympics controversies, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, and Scientology controversies.
專寫批評的獨立條目
[編輯]Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic is generally considered a POV fork. Wikipedia:Content forking states that "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example, the "Criticism" section of Al Gore should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Al Gore". Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it; see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details.
參見
[編輯]註腳
[編輯]外部連結
[編輯]- intitle:"criticism of" site:en.wikipedia.org – Google search for "Criticism of ..." within Wikipedia