Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina/Importance

Systemic bias

A quick perusal of the list makes me think systemic bias towards the present is in action. I wouldn't rate Menem or de la Rua as high as they are, and I definitely do not think Kirchner is a vital topic.

The most obvious gap that comes to mind is the Perito Moreno glacier in the High Importance list. And immigration in Argentina seems to me a terribly important topic. As for culture, I think Astor Piazzolla may be right there with Cortázar.

Another point I'm not too sure about is how should we treat Nobel Prize winners. I'd deem them rather more important than current provincial governors and such. Taragüí @ 11:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further point. I believe Juan Manuel de Rosas is clearly as important as Yrigoyen. I'm not so sure about other political leaders (although Mitre and Roca did their own to shape the future of the country), but Rosas clearly dominates the political landscape of the Civil War era, and has exerted both direct and symbolic influence unlike any other political leader, Perón excepted. Taragüí @ 11:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taragua, and thanks for your comments! your comments seam prety logical to me. The only objection is regarding presidents: the current president is somehow very important to the encyclopedia (unless an interim for 3 days...) But you've got a point anyway. Mariano(t/c) 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what systemic bias is all about. I've always pictured Wikipedia as not being geared to those who're involved in it here and now, but rather as a source of more-or-less perennial information. Kirchner is a hot topic right now, but he may not be one in 10 years (OTOH, he may well be; I'm not in the divination business). I think we can do more good to the eventual readers in writing on Rosas or Leloir than on Rubi Colombi, whose main claim to fame is being his cousin's cousin.

Those of you who cross the border sometimes may want to have a look at our still-in-the-making evaluation and importance criteria. As the Wikipedia 1.0 project is not really active on the Spanish wiki, we might end up doing some things rather differently. Best, Taragüí @ 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands

I think this is a Mid-importance geographical article. The war itself can be considered a Top-importance matter, but the islands themselve are no more important than a mid-size city in any givne province. Mariano(t/c) 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Also, how much can we as a project add to the article, as opposed to articles about the dispute, war and its repercussions? Mid-importance. Martín (saying/doing) 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "technology" topics?

As for example: car designs, weapons designs, ships built or operated, airlines, aircraft designed or built? IMHO, should be "MID". Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]