Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 78.25.10.234 - "" |
No edit summary |
||
Line 47:
Chuck now supports 64bit.
But I don't know the rules, so I hadn't changed the status of matureness <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.25.10.234|78.25.10.234]] ([[User talk:78.25.10.234|talk]]) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Criticisms ==
The page has been criticized as having too short of a lead, and containing original, unverified research.
It seems to me that the header pretty well describes exactly what the article does. I hate big graphical unsightly and distracting criticisms that seem to me to be there for no very good reason that I can tell.
Concerning the "original research" criticism, someone left this bracketed comment:
[Observations based on what seems to be common experience with this sort of program are neither "original" nor "research"; while not necessarily 'verifiable' via "citations" there is probably good reason why these particular observations here have evidently not been contradicted by any knowledgeable readers, & I for one find them helpful...]
I agree, they're very helpful, and while we're waiting for someone who feels like it for some reason to do or find some actual objective research of some kind, it's nice to have access to someone's perspective who feels they can provide a perspective. A "subject comparisons" header advertises its content as being a matter of the subjective opinion of the author. Wikipedia might desire to encourage people to do or find objective research, and it might prefer to discourage people from proffering unsubstantiated, objective opinions, but it is a place where people come to get reports from other people about things, and we certainly would like to be able to get reports that include unsubstantiated, subjective opinions, rather than not be able to find anything at all.
| |||