[Foundation-l] "Vital Articles" underperforming?

[rupert THURNER]

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 at 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 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l