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 <w...@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.dam...@btinternet.com >> (mailto:peter.dam...@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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
