Comment by crazygringo

Comment by crazygringo 11 hours ago

That doesn't have anything to do with special interests.

Literally nearly every Wikipedia page for a fictional work or creator will have a section on "controversies" or similar, if there have been any. Regardless of which political direction they go in. If it's been covered in the media or a book or whatever, it tends to be included.

This is a good thing. It helps situate everything in a broader cultural context. When I look something up on Wikipedia, I want to know these things. It's not irrelevant and it's not an opinion piece.

It's not like the articles takes sides. They just objectively describe the controversies which are real objective things which exist.

I find it curious that you seem to want to be shielded from the existence of these controversies. Nobody is forcing you to read them. But many people do genuinely find them useful and informative.

donnachangstein 11 hours ago

The problem is controversies can be embellished. In this case, the controversy focused on a minor detail among hundreds of others in a nearly two hour long film.

Is there guidance on what makes a controversy 'notable', or can anything be listed there? E.g. "Nobody blogger and her Twitter army were upset about $thing" - does that qualify? Nearly anything can be controversial, or have fabricated controversies. You see this a lot on political articles.

Reply View 4 replies

crazygringo 11 hours ago

I don't know what you mean by "embellished". Are you saying the statements in Wikipedia are false?
And yes, obviously controversy will focus on the one controversial detail. There are hundreds of other details that are not controversial, so they aren't mentioned.
I don't understand why this bothers you. The world is a controversial place. It's good to document these things.

Reply View | 3 replies
- donnachangstein 10 hours ago
  
  If something is controversial to an insignificantly small number of people, is it by definition a controversy?
  Hypothetically speaking, let's say you were a famous or notable person. Your Wikipedia article would probably have a controversy section with a vague statement like, "Some people find crazygringo's feet objectionable."
  The citation would be a podcast where a guest told the host in an offhand comment, "I went on a date with crazygringo once and thought he had oddly-shaped feet."
  Any attempt to delete this statement, even by you with full knowledge of your own feet, would be reverted as 'vandalism'.
  This is Wikipedia in a nutshell.
  Articles for celebrities and political figures are full of this garbage, which merely 10 years ago we would consider exclusively tabloid fodder.
  I've read articles on complete nobody actresses with a controversy section that listed any and every political opinion she's ever said. It's a lame attempt to extrapolate (or reimagine) someone's entire personality from a few offhand statements made once in her life.
  It's low quality content like this that undermines Wikipedia. Unfortunately it's all over the site and growing by the day.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  eezing 9 hours ago
  
  So don’t use Wikipedia then. Problem solved.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- firesteelrain 10 hours ago
  
  It’s a post facto embellishment for modern times. When that movie came out, no one was saying that nor is it relevant or correct. We might as well put a controversy template on every Wikipedia page and wait for someone to invent a perceived injustice.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies