| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
While participating in edits and discussions on various articles related to gender issues, I identified some problems with criticism of criticism in Wikipedia articles.
Note: I will often use the phrase "defense of X" as a shorthand for "criticism of criticism of X",
Notability Inequality is the simple observation that criticism of a view cannot be more notable than the view itself. Criticism necessarily mentions the criticised view, therefore every reader of the criticism notes the criticised view, but not the other way around.
Notability Inequality ails us when we try to ensure NPOV by citing a POV, then a criticism of that POV, then some defense of it, some criticism of the defense, and so on. As notability of cited views decreases at each "turn", we eventually end up in a paradoxical situation where the least notable voice, which is also barely notable in absolute terms, enjoys the privilege of having the final word because no existing counter-arguments are notable enough to be mentioned.
This phenomenon can be exploited in bad faith. In a Wikipedia article about fooism, a fooist can "fix" barist criticism of fooism by deliberately injecting references to barely notable defense against that particular criticism.
The Notability Inequality exploit can be prevented by instituting a guideline discouraging multi-level criticism in a single article. If (a particular source of) criticism has its own Wikipedia article then that article could have a Criticism section where the corresponding defense should be placed as first-level criticism. Multi-level criticism should only be allowed if criticism doesn't have its own article and the corresponding defense is deemed notable enough to be mentioned. In short, a criticism section should be expected to accomodate corresponding defense only if the latter has nowhere else to go. This seems to be a moderate position compared to what Joema suggests on the criticism talk page.
