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
>
>