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 <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> 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 > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
