User:ErrantX/Essays/Core topic problem
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: core topics are a mess due to the broadness of the subject matter and a general dis-interest |
The core topic problem is a phenomena on Wikipedia where the main "top level" topics receive little or no interest and are in a general state of disrepair.
The problem
[edit]Of the top nine article (i.e. the root science & social subjects) the highest classification is a B (admittedly some are former Good Articles, but that often dates for '08 or earlier). Most are C class while Natural science is of a start class. Here's the list:
| Article | Quality | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Natural science | Start | reasonable scope, but zero citations |
| Personal life | C | reasonable scope, with ~30 citations |
| Social sciences | C | ok scope, scatty and oddly balanced, ~40 citations |
| Geography | C | good scope, if a bit scatty, ~30 citations |
| History | C | good scope ('regions' section poor), ~40 citations |
| Technology | C | well written, good scope, ~50 citations |
| Humanities | B | good scope (linking headers is dodgy), ~30 citations |
| Science | B | ok scope, bit heavy on 'critiques', ~50 citations |
| Mathematics | B | great scope, well explained, ~40 citations |
The slightly broader core list of around 150 core topics contains just 15 featured articles. Which doesn't seem a horrific figure except that six are all within the Astronomy topic. There are just 11 Good Articles and about half of the list is B class. The rest is C or below.
In terms of topic coverage the best areas appear to be broadly: Astronomy (but not the other physical sciences) and Organisms, followed by Mathematics and Earth Sciences. Interestingly Technology is a very poor area by comparison.
Causes?
[edit]There are probably a number of causes, but these are the ones most easily observed.
Topic scope
[edit]These are broad, top level, articles - so agreeing on a reasonable scope is always going to be a problem. Taking a quick scan through there is no cohesion in structure; some of the core articles act as an introduction to the topic - summarising history, fields and theory.
Scope & Sourcing
[edit]Because the topics being dealt with are so broad finding sources to cover the material is problematic. Article scope is usually defined by what reliable sources treat as the scope, but it is unlikely you will find one that adequately summarises the whole field of physics.
Lack of incentive
[edit]Editors like to work on their pet topics; for a number of reasons. Partly because it is what they are comfortable with and partly because there is incentive to create a featured or good article. They can achieve accolade much easier for work in sub-topic areas. Tackling one of the core topics is a time consuming and painful task, and it is unlikely that you will achieve GA or FA level within any sensible time frame (or for it to last).
| Policy |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Community | ||
| Other | ||