It's a Wiki standard that articles shouldn't get much bigger than 50kb. Remember, these are suppposed to be encyclopedia articles, not rambling essays. At the time the article was split, it was much larger than that, with the bulk of it the criticism section. If you think you can put the criticism back in, keep the article under 50kb, and make everything concise and NPOV you're welcome to do so. Right now several editors are working together towards that goal. I hope we can do it, because I agree with you: the criticism should be part of the article.
I just don't understand why when people see something wrong with Wikipedia they don't just fix it instead of posting smugly to their blog and accusing other's of being "Wal-Mart lobbyists" without a lick of proof.
I just wanted to come forward as the person who actually split the criticisms off into a new article (now titled "Debates over Wal-Mart"). I am hardly a "Wal-Mart lobbyist" (ha!) I did this purely because of size. The article was huge, still is, and the criticisms was taking up more than half the space...most of it poorly referenced material from POV-pushers on both sides of the issue.
The strategy was to move it off to a seperate article, get it down to size, and then fold it back into the main article. That goal is still out there, but it's getting harder to do. The "Debates" article has continued to grow (and has itself been forked).
The tricky issue here is balancing the criticisms (which are very notable) with the other encyclopedic aspects of Wal*Mart, while remaining neutral.
It's easy to sit back and take potshots at Wikipedia. It's another thing entirely to sit down and help edit it. If you can see a way to help improve the situation, please join us in trying to get these articles up to snuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't understand why when people see something wrong with Wikipedia they don't just fix it instead of posting smugly to their blog and accusing other's of being "Wal-Mart lobbyists" without a lick of proof.
The old "I hate Wal*Mart but I love their prices" argument, eh? You're absolutely right.
I just wanted to come forward as the person who actually split the criticisms off into a new article (now titled "Debates over Wal-Mart"). I am hardly a "Wal-Mart lobbyist" (ha!) I did this purely because of size. The article was huge, still is, and the criticisms was taking up more than half the space...most of it poorly referenced material from POV-pushers on both sides of the issue. The strategy was to move it off to a seperate article, get it down to size, and then fold it back into the main article. That goal is still out there, but it's getting harder to do. The "Debates" article has continued to grow (and has itself been forked). The tricky issue here is balancing the criticisms (which are very notable) with the other encyclopedic aspects of Wal*Mart, while remaining neutral. It's easy to sit back and take potshots at Wikipedia. It's another thing entirely to sit down and help edit it. If you can see a way to help improve the situation, please join us in trying to get these articles up to snuff.