维基百科:批评

根据维基百科的中立观点方针，条目必须公正、不带偏见、比例相当的提出有关主题的不同观点。条目应该包括来自可靠来源的正面和负面观点，不要过分强调特定的正面或负面观点。可供查证方针要求·所有观点都有可靠、公开的来源，并适当列出。维基百科的非原创研究方针, 除中立要求外，也禁止编者偏袒自己倾向的观点。维基百科的生者传记方针规定需要特别注意提出有关生者的负面观点。

在大多数情况下，条目应避免在单独章节中集中叙述批评、争议或类似内容，这会让这些章节过分关注负面观点。文章应该使用可靠来源，公正地、比例相当地、没有偏见地展示正面及负面观点。

规范

中立性和可供查证

大多数负面内容的问题都可以通过遵守维基百科方针来避免，如使用好的来源、仔细平衡内容以及不带偏见地写作。当在条目中加入负面内容时，我们需要检查以下内容：

• 确保有可靠来源支持该信息
• 不要过度强调这些信息
• 正面观点和负面观点始终保持平衡
• 当加入负面信息时，最好在段落或句子中指明批评的来源，以防使读者误解批评的主体是维基百科
• 将负面内容整合到对受批评的事件、产品或政策的所有观点中，不要单独在“批评”一节中列出

在世人物

主页面：Wikipedia:生者传记

与在世人物有关的负面内容可能违反隐私政策或损害他人声誉。因此有严格的规定来管理这些信息。详见生者传记。

批评的比重与表述：其他相关指引

不应过度强调批评。一些方针和指引有助于确定文章中批评的比重和表述：

• WP:BALASPS：维基百科条目对其主题批评的比重应与本文主题的可靠来源中的批评的总体比重成比例。
• WP:POVFORK: 不要为了清理维基百科的合理批评内容而拆分条目。
• WP:ABOUTSELF与WP:PRIMARY：即使第三方可靠来源对某个主题的介绍通常为负面，也不应妨碍对该主题的公平描述。
• WP:FRINGE等具体的指引可能会指导如何处理某些领域的批评。

以上的建议清单展示了几个额外的指引方向，并不全面。

避免聚焦批评或争议的章节或条目

我们通常不鼓励专门创建一篇针对负面批评的条目，因为它往往有观点分歧，而这一般是中立观点方针所禁止的。

同样地，在条目中设置专门讲述负面批评的章节通常是不获鼓励的。时下关注或主题内容章节通常优先于专门阐述批评的章节。除关于特定世界观、哲学或宗教主题等有不同考虑因素的条目（见下面），最佳做法是于同一章节内同时讲述正面及负面材料。例如，如果某政治人物的公众形象受到重大批评，就创建一个“公众形象”的章节，并于章节内阐述所有正面及负面信息。如果一本书受到严厉批评，请于此书籍的条目创建一个名为“公众评语”的章节，并于章节内阐述所有正面及负面材料。

艺术家和其作品的条目通常包含批评者、同行及评论家意见的描述。即使在此等情况下“批评”一词可以包含正面及负面评价，但章节标题仍然应避免使用“批评”一词，因为其可能向许多读者传达负面意思。这种情况可以“公众评语”、“评论”、“回应”、“反应”或“评估”等标题名称替代。

在部分情况下，“批评”一词可能适用于条目或章节标题，例如，如果有大量批评材料存在，而同时有独立的二手来源对批评材料作出评论、分析或讨论。

章节或条目标题通常不应该包含“争议”一词。相反，标题应该只命名事件，例如“2009年抵制”或“狩猎事件”。“争议”一词不应该应用于标题，除非“争议”一词已成为对一次事件获普遍接受的名称等极少数情况，例如创造–进化争议。批评及争议是两个完全不同的概念，不应混为一谈。批评是具体的评价或评估，而争议是持续的公众纠纷。因此，“批评及争议”之类的章节通常都是不合适。

当条目过长时

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

组织和公司

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

哲学，宗教或政治

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

提出批评的方法

提出争议或批评的方法如下：

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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
"评价" 章节	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)
"争议" 章节	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")
"批评" 章节	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
"评价" 条目	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,
"争议" 条目	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
"对...的批评" 条目	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

综合整个文章

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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).

"评价"类章节

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

"争议"章节

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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).

"批评"章节

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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."

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.

评价之历史的条目

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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).

专写争议的独立条目

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

专写批评的独立条目

已隐藏部分未翻译内容，欢迎参与翻译。

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.

参见

• Wikipedia:修缮评价章节

外部链接

• intitle:"criticism of" site:en.wikipedia.org – Google search for "Criticism of ..." within Wikipedia