Kritikk-seksjoner kan bli funnet i mange Wikipedia-artikler. Sitat Jimbo:

«In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary.»
«I mange tilfeller er [kritikk-seksjoner] nødvendige, og i mange tilfeller ikke.»

For enkelte artikler kan slike seksjoner eller avsnitt få stå som en midlertidig løsning inntil artikkelen har fått kritikken plassert i mer relevante avsnitt. It may then be desirable to have a «General criticisms» section near the end of the article, for those points which did not neatly fit anywhere else. For very long articles, such a section - appropriately titled - can be useful for users who are searching quickly for relevant information.


 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.
Jimbo Wales
 My view is that criticisms belong in the main page, if at all. A collection of criticisms separately seems to me to be inconsistent with NPOV. 

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

Words to avoid

Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and Undue Weight. Examples that may warrant attention include: articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;7

7 Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section)..


Se ogsåRediger