Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/Community view
Discuss this story
- Thanks for this article! I enjoyed reading some of these articles, several of which covered topics I had never heard of. Overall, they present a strong endorsement of the view that Wikipedia can be a unique force for good, a sui generis example of collaboration and learning enabled by technology. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- While many people, no doubt, think that the importance of this encyclopedia is so bound up with current affairs, I don't. Where is the medical coverage in this list, for example? One of my hobbyhorses is the perpetual "media-pedia" tension. Let's recall, always, that what we do is produce reference material; for all those things that people need to look up. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- By definition, our million newest articles are skewed to things that have become notable since we passed the five million mark. It would be difficult for a truly important article that could have been written ten years ago to make this list. There are of course lots of less important articles that have been written since we passed the five million mark, but which could have been written years earlier. A list of most important articles on the pedia should have much less of a current affairs focus than a list of most important articles from among our most recent million. So when I was invited to contribute to this article I wrote about an article that someone had created about a major recent event, rather than the article I started on an Irish hillfortϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Shrug. Science and technology progress all the time, bringing previously marginal topics into the limelight. The humanities break new ground. More than that, the pool of available reliable sources constantly grows. But even more than those factors, people with all sorts of expertise join Wikipedia and contribute. There is a "books of the year" genre of journalism, which I stopped taking seriously when I realised it was more about the agenda of the person choosing, than what you should read. We're all entitled to our opinions (and anyway, the article-as-unit is a bad fit with a hypertext site). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes they progress, and sometimes that requires completely new articles. But when previously marginal topics come into the limelight they don't necessarily get new articles - often existing ones improve or change. There certainly have been some STEM ones in the last million articles, if we had had an astronomer among the people who put this together we might have had ʻOumuamua and an archaeologist might have picked something new, but the two newish important archaeological articles I looked at were both in the 5 million. I suspect that it is difficult for generalists like longterm Wikipedians to pick an important new article that isn't new because it is current. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Shrug. Science and technology progress all the time, bringing previously marginal topics into the limelight. The humanities break new ground. More than that, the pool of available reliable sources constantly grows. But even more than those factors, people with all sorts of expertise join Wikipedia and contribute. There is a "books of the year" genre of journalism, which I stopped taking seriously when I realised it was more about the agenda of the person choosing, than what you should read. We're all entitled to our opinions (and anyway, the article-as-unit is a bad fit with a hypertext site). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is exactly why my favorite article in the list above is Matrilineal society of Meghalaya; a subject that is not 'in the news' or anything like that, and is both historic and current. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- By definition, our million newest articles are skewed to things that have become notable since we passed the five million mark. It would be difficult for a truly important article that could have been written ten years ago to make this list. There are of course lots of less important articles that have been written since we passed the five million mark, but which could have been written years earlier. A list of most important articles on the pedia should have much less of a current affairs focus than a list of most important articles from among our most recent million. So when I was invited to contribute to this article I wrote about an article that someone had created about a major recent event, rather than the article I started on an Irish hillfortϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Older articles are important too of course. I personally nominated Greta Thunberg not because her biography is super important but because she is representative of an issue which is in my opinion the most important issue in the world right now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Maria Elise Turner Lauder
[edit]While no one questions the need for articles on women and the need for women editors, is Maria Elise Turner Lauder really the 6,000,000th article or is just a good advert for Wikipedia which happened to be created around the time of the 6,000,000th article? Giano (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Giano, there is some discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Six million articles. I'd summarise it as a photofinish and a close decision, with a number of editors trying to click save at exactly the right second. It is a reasonable assumption that only a tiny proportion of the articles created that week were created by editors who were watching the relevant counter and trying to get the 6 millionth. ϢereSpielChequers 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most fortuitous. I think I'll name my next horse The Lady in Red and hope you are adjudicating at the finishing post. Giano (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Giano: It was a "photo-finish" and after that decision was made all involved agreed with the outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well to continue the racing metaphor: I suspect had we known of the ten or so runners, it wouldn't have been very hard to pick the winner. Giano (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Giano: It was a "photo-finish" and after that decision was made all involved agreed with the outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most fortuitous. I think I'll name my next horse The Lady in Red and hope you are adjudicating at the finishing post. Giano (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
← Back to Community view