did you already improve one of these articles or you are just writing theoretical mails about theoretically improving a list, and theoretically improving some text?
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 19:31, Alasdair web@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
If you look at the '10,000" articles list - it becomes very clear that the selection is totally arbitrary. ( more actors than painters listed - as a random example) So far the best suggestion that I have seen for "important" articles is that a wikiproject has ranked that article as "high" or "top" importance. But even that is a totally arbitrary criterion.
-- Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner <peter.damian@btinternet.com (mailto:peter.damian@btinternet.com)> wrote:
Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism, empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this?
There are always going to be disagreements over what should constitute a vital article. That isn't important to this discussion. I think most people's top 1000 articles would have a lot of overlap (I expect most of the top 100 VAs would appear at least somewhere in most people's top 1000) and even articles in that overlap aren't particularly good at the moment.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l