Wikipedia:批評
 |
呢篇page講嘅係強調負面批評嘅材料。假如你想揾嘅係對維基百科嘅批評，請睇「Wikipedia:答批評」。
|
呢版係篇論文；唔同政策同指引，佢只反映一啲編者嘅意見。若有需要，請更新佢，又或者響討論版度傾。 |
根據維基百科嘅中立觀點政策，文章一定要公正、唔帶偏見、比例相當噉提出有關主題嘅唔同觀點。文章應該包括來自可靠來源嘅正面同負面兩面觀點，唔好太過強調特定嘅正面或負面觀點。查證得到政策要求·所有觀點都有可靠、公開嘅來源，並適當列出。維基百科嘅非原創研究政策，除中立要求外，亦禁止編者偏袒自己傾向嘅觀點。維基百科嘅生人傳記政策規定需要特別注意提出有關生人嘅負面觀點。
喺大多數情況下，文章應避免喺單獨章節集中敘述批評、爭議或類似內容，噉會令呢啲章節太過關注負面觀點。文章應該用可靠來源，公正噉、比例相當噉、冇偏見噉展示正面同負面觀點。
規範
[編輯]中立性同埋查證得到
[編輯]大多數負面內容嘅問題都可以通過遵守維基百科方針來避免，例如係用好嘅來源、仔細平衡內容以及唔帶偏見噉寫。喺文章插入負面內容嗰時，我哋要查下：
- 確保有可靠來源支持嗰個信息
- 唔好太過強調呢啲信息
- 正面觀點同負面觀點始終保持平衡
- 加入負面信息嗰時，最好喺段落或句子入面指明批評嘅來源，以防俾讀者以為個批評係維基百科立場
- 將負面內容整合到對受批評嘅事件、產品或政策嘅所有觀點之中，唔好單獨喺「批評」一節中列出
在生嘅人
[編輯]同在生嘅人有關嘅負面內容可能違反私隱政策或損害他人聲譽。因此對管理呢啲信息有嚴格規定。睇生人傳記。
批評嘅比重同表述：第啲相關指引
[編輯]唔應該太過強調批評。一啲政策同指引有助確定文章中批評嘅比重同埋表述：
- WP:BALASPS：維基百科文章對佢主題批評嘅比重應該同本文主題嘅可靠來源中嘅批評嘅整體比重成比例。
- WP:POVFORK：唔好為咗清理維基百科嘅合理批評內容而分拆文章。
- WP:ABOUTSELF同WP:PRIMARY：即使第三方可靠來源對某個主題嘅介紹通常係負面，亦唔應該妨礙對該主題嘅公平描述。
- WP:FRINGE等具體指引可能會指導點樣處理某啲領域嘅批評。
以上建議清單展示咗幾個額外嘅指引方向，並未全面。
避免聚焦批評或爭議嘅章節或文章
[編輯]我哋通常唔鼓勵專門開一篇針對負面批評嘅文，因為佢往往有觀點分叉，而呢個一般係中立觀點政策所禁止嘅。
同樣地，我哋都唔鼓勵喺文章入面專門講述負面批評嘅章節。時下關注或主題內容章節通常優先過專門闡述批評嘅章節。除咗關於特定世界觀、哲學或宗教主題等有不同考慮因素嘅文章（睇下面），最好做法係將正面同負面材料擺埋喺同一節。例如，如果政治人嘅公眾形象受到重大批評，就開一個「公眾形象」嘅章節，並喺入面闡述所有正面同負面信息。如果一本書受到嚴厲批評，請喺呢本書嘅文章開一個叫「公眾評語」嘅章節，並喺入面闡述所有正面同負面材料。
藝術家同佢哋作品嘅文章通常包含批評者、同行同埋評論家意見嘅描述。就算喺呢種情況下「批評」一詞可以包含正面同負面評價，但喺章節標題都應該避開唔用，因為佢可能向好多讀者傳達負面意思。呢種情況可以用「公眾評語」、「評論」、「回應」、「反應」同「評估」呢啲標題名替代。
喺某啲情況下，「批評」一詞可能適用於文章或章節標題，例如，如果有大量批評材料存在，而同時有獨立嘅二手來源對佢哋作出評論、分析或討論。
章節或文章標題通常唔應該包含「爭議」一詞。相反，標題應該淨係命名事件，例如「2009年抵制」或「狩獵事件」。標題唔應該用到「爭議」一詞，除非係佢已經成為對一次事件獲普遍接受嘅名嘅一部分呢啲極少數情況，例如創造–進化爭議。批評同埋爭論係兩個完全唔同嘅概念，唔應該混為一談。批評係具體嘅評價或評估，而爭議係持續嘅公眾糾紛。因此，好似「批評同爭議」之類嘅章節通常都係唔合適。
篇文太長嗰時
[編輯]包含負面批評嘅最佳方法係將佢哋整合到有關嗰個主題嘅主文。有時噉會令篇文太長，喺噉嘅情況下應該根據維基百科分拆指引去分拆佢。分拆文章嘅首選方法係將內容分叉去子文，再用「main」模連去新嘅子文。 一般嚟講，新嘅子文唔應該專注於批評、爭議或其他特定觀點——相反，子文應該專注於時下關注嘅主題。
組織同公司
[編輯]好多組織同公司都被捲入有詳細記載嘅爭議，或者可能受到重大批評。如果可靠來源——「除咗批評者本身」——提供大量「致力於」爭議或批評嘅報導，噉可能證明設立專門討論爭議或批評嘅章節同子文係合理——但喺WP:BLPGROUPS嘅限制範圍之內。
例如：討論2008年夏季奧林匹克運動會嘅來源，經常將佢啲爭議作為一個獨立話題嚟進行詳細描述。由於主文太過長，將所有爭議材料整合到主文被認為係不切實際：摘要風格指南被用來開一篇子文關於2008年夏季奧運會嘅關注同爭議，而主文就淨係保留對爭議嘅撮要。
哲學，宗教或政治
[編輯]對特定觀點嘅主題——例如哲學（唯心論、自然主義、存在主義）、政治觀點（資本主義、馬克思主義），或宗教（伊斯蘭教、基督教、無神論）——通常都適宜開一個「批評」章節或「對…嘅批評」嘅子文。將啲批評納入主文可能會引起混亂，因為讀者可能會將批評材料誤以為係哲學觀點、政治立場或宗教教義嘅代表。
提出批評嘅方法
[編輯]提出爭議或批評嘅方法如下：
| 方法 | 描述 | 例子 |
|---|---|---|
| 綜合 | 通常最好做法係將負面批評整合：將負面資訊分散去文章適合嘅唔同章節。文章冇專門嘅「批評」章節。 | 墮胎、奴隸制度、善待動物組織、索羅斯、比爾·奧萊利 |
| 「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. | 麥田捕手、追憶似水年華、2001太空漫遊（電影） |
| 「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). | en:Michael Collins Piper#Antisemitism controversy、 en:Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse and legal issues、 :en:Kanye West#Controversies（有子章節「General media」同埋「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. | 世界銀行、存在主義、美國計劃生育聯合會、唯物主義、埃克森美孚、甲骨文公司、優生學、創造論 |
| 「評價」文章 | 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」文章 | 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…嘅批評」文 | 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. 喺任何情況，篇文都要寫得中立，絕唔可以有觀點分叉。 | 哲學/政治/宗教 – Criticisms of Marxism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of religion, Criticism of multiculturalism, Criticism of the War on Terror, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Libertarianism
組織 – 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 |
綜合成篇文
[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).
「招待」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: 「招待」、「評論」、「回應」同「反應」. 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. 抗生素#濫用, 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 珍寶威 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]
好多喺文章揾得到嘅批評章節係因為編輯者查到負面材料，但冇時間將佢哋整合去文章嘅其他章節。噉就應該喺呢啲負面章節插入{{POV-section}}或者{{criticism-section}}，話畀其他編輯者知要做多啲嘢去整合材料。
有時，一個章節係開嚟描述一名出名批評家嘅重要批評。噉嘅情況下，章節名應該叫「瑪莉亞史密夫嘅觀點」或者「紐約時報嘅反應」之類，同埋避免用「批評」呢個詞。
評價嘅歷史嘅文
[編輯]對於某啲文學、歷史或藝術主題，如果來源證明係合理嘅話，專門嘅「招待史」或「批評史」文章或者可以接受。呢類文章應該描述批評嘅歷史進程，同時記錄正面同負面批評。「主」文應該有一個撮要風格類型、總括記載「招待史」嘅章節，並正確連結到輔助文章（以塔西佗研究為例，即係塔西佗文章入面嘅「研究同招待史」章節）。
專寫爭議嘅獨立文
[編輯]同批評相關材料相關討論過嘅眾多相同原因，專門討論有關某個主題嘅爭議嘅文章通常唔會得到鼓勵。不過如果一個主題嘅可靠來源係將爭議作為一個獨立主題嚟討論，噉專門討論爭議嘅文章就可能適合。專門討論爭議嘅文章例子包括捕鯨爭議、全球變暖爭議、2008年奧運會爭議、對脊醫嘅爭議同批評同埋山達基爭議。
專寫批評嘅獨立文
[編輯]如果淨係為咗結集對特定主題嘅批評或者闡述個別批評而去獨立開文，通常會被視為觀點分叉。Wikipedia:內容分叉指出「維基百科文章唔應單單為咗主張對一個主題上嘅唔同立場，而被分拆成多篇文章。」例如，戈爾嘅「批評」章節唔應該移去單獨嘅、例如「對戈爾嘅批評」嘅文章。有來源去合理證明嘅話，專門嘅「對…嘅批評」文章有時適用於組織、企業、哲學、宗教或政治觀點；詳細請睇「哲學，宗教或政治」章節。