Wikipedia talk:Recentism

Why was 10:YT changed to 20YT?

Can we please talk about changing it back to 10 year test? MaximusEditor (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am curious about this change as well. I agree that some discussion on this would be in order. Sal2100 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor, @Sal2100, and @Andrevan: As the editor who changed it to 20 year test, I would be happy to explain my reasoning behind the change. The reason why I made this change was because I think the ten-year test is a little too soon to get a good historical evaluation for an event. I understand that the choice of 10 years is a bit arbitrary. We could have chosen 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years. I do think 10 years is a bit short of a period since the event could still be fresh on people's minds. I think that a 100-year test would be too long since there is a lot of uncertainty about what the world would look like 100 years from now. I think that for most events, doing a 20 year test is reasonable since the event is not fresh on people's minds and also not too far away in the future. Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. 10 years is not arbitrary, 10 years is the decade, the standard unit of generational measure and also the basis of our decimal system used for everything from money to science to calculators and computers. Let's try it. 10 years ago was 2013. Can we write about events of that year and feel confident that it is distant? I would say yes we can write about Obama's 2nd term. That is now historical. Actually, 2013 kind of seems quaint. Andre🚐 00:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: The problem with 10 years is recent memory, not just living memory. People who voted for and against Obama might not have enough information to evaluate it properly even unbiased people. We are still feeling the effects of NAFTA or the Patriot Act as an example. Think about it. Imagine evaluating World War I in 1928, the Great Depression in 1939, and World War II in 1955. I still think 20 years is the way to go. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Those examples are all massive world events that involved millions of people and multiple countries - what about more mundane things? As far as Obama, he's been out of office since 2016. But something that happened in 2013 or earlier is settled. Sure, there may still be changes in the historical consensus view of events from that time, but I can't see a lot of new information coming out that would make it impossible to write about it with a reasonable view. More to the point - the 10YEARSTEST was 10 years until now, a bold change is fine, but given a few people have opined we should change it back, I think it should stand at 10 unless there is a good consensus that it should be lengthened. This just an essay, not a formal guideline or policy so maybe you want to write your own separate 20YEARSTEST essay to talk about major events like the Depression or WWII. Andre🚐 23:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thank you for explaining your rationale, engaging in discussion, and for making this edit. I find this change to be an agreeable resolution to all the points and concerns made in this discussion. Sal2100 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sal2100: Thanks. I'm glad that I was able to work with everyone to find a reasonable compromise between all parties. Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate date precision

We often see that when an event happens, many editors will add it to the relevant article with a rather precise date, such as "on 30 July 2023, Mr. X stated that Wikipedia is awesome." It's my view that unless the specific date itself is notable to the topic (such as the chronology of a topic with fast-changing events that need such precision for clarity, such as a war), this is essentially instant recentism and merits editing down to a less precise date. When I come across situations like this, I will consider whether or not the month or year is the right level of precision; it's almost always year. Is there a guideline that addresses this, or am I just off the hook here? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A related issue is "internetism" or "googleism"

People or events for which most of the coverage was published before 1994 tend not to have a large internet footprint. But doing a google, pointing to the lack of results and then AfD-ing the article is just lazy. Just because it's difficult (or even impossible) to find on the internet doesn't mean it's not notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)