This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV :Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Google, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I propose merging Criticism of Google with Google the result will be a stronger NPOV article of Google, if the article gets too long we can divide it in ways besides POV ( IE Praise Vs Criticism )Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a good idea - there is simply too much information on the Criticism article to merge it with this one(which is also quite large already). It may be a good idea to organize some of the criticism already on this article into its own section though, and link to Criticism of Google there. Cannolis (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If the criticism article is really big it's possible that we are giving Undue weight to it, but also by keeping it out of the Google article we are creating 2 Articles addressing the same topic, which is not the best. If after adding the 2 articles together the Google Article is too long. we can look at spinning off articles on topics ( IE: Google Litigation, History of Google, etc ) I know it is a lot of material but we can look at the Criticism article. get it improved to where it is lean, dense, and accurate. then it'll be easier to merge into the main google article and the better the google article is, the easier spin offs become. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the article might become a little big. but Size is only a guideline, Nuetral point of view is a core pillar. which is more important than size. Does anyone have any disagreement that isn't the size guideline?Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not generally a fan of separate "criticism of X" articles, but Google is large enough to justify one because of the wide range of issues involved. I don't think that it could all be dealt with at the current level of detail without WP:SIZERULE becoming involved.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any article is "Big enough" to justify violating NPOV with a content fork. now, we can get spin off articles down to size breaking down google by various topics. The current level of detail may be giving undue weight to google criticisms. I really feel like Size is not one of the 5 pillars since it is subordinate to the corner stone neutral point of view. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So looking closer at Criticism of Google there's a lot there that we can easily merge. Section 1- "Page Rank" There is an entire article on Page rank we can merge that into. "CopyRight Issue" can go into Google. if it gets to long we can spin off "Google Search Results" that can contain Copyright issues, and censorship. "Privacy" can go into google. if it is so big we can make an article "Google Privacy Policy" where we can cover Google's Privacy policy and not just 1 POV of "Criticisms" Accusations of Monopoly can easily fit inside Google Article. and the "Other Section" is mostly. Apple inc is a big company that focuses on products. so each product that warrants it has a article ( iPod,iPhone,iPad, etc) google has a lot of services we can make articles for any services that have enough info ( including criticisms and non criticisms ) like Gmail, Search ( which might get sub articles even ) my point is the way we tackle big articles is breaking them down by Topic not by Point of View. It'd be a lot of work but it'll be worth it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I 've always felt this division was a WP:content fork and hence objectionable. I am glad that someone else, Bryce Carmony thinks the same way. It may not be easy to merge, but it certainly will make a fairer, stronger and more informative article for the reader.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, thanks for your input, you're right it will be a lot of work but I agree 100% that it'll be worth it.Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - Merging would create a serious neutrality issue; best kept separate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Support Shunting the criticism off to another page on any article creates a biased shallow summary in most cases even if that is not always the goal. Here we haved detailed discussion of things like the Easter Egg cruft while there is no section or even any discussion at all of their privacy issues. Also criticism articles tend to become inflated list cruft and hard to read since any time anyone reads something they dont like or has a gripe they add to it. Better to include a shortened summary of the main controversies here and then delete new additions to the article which are trivial. AaronY (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that criticism article all of the youtube stuff belongs in articles related to youtube so not including that here is one good way to keep the size down. AaronY (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
