[Foundation-l] "Vital Articles" underperforming?

[Alasdair]

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 at btinternet.com (mailto:peter.damian at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org)
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
>