Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/Entries/Archive 1

Duns Scotus
Binksternet says: ''Hmmm, I don't see this one listed anywhere at Wikipedia:Vital articles, not tier 3 or even tier 4. Of course, your improvements to the article are appreciated—a benefit to the encyclopedia.''

I'm actually having trouble accessing Vital articles/Expanded as it times out, I get the "Wikimedia Foundation: Error" message, or a "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again." message so I can't check what is and what is not on there. But the instructions at the top of the page do say:

''Editors are also welcome to improve and nominate an improvement to a broad or important article which lies outside these two lists as long as they can provide a rationale as to why their article should be considered. ''

which I think applies here. The Duns Scotus article does seem more "core" or "vital" than, say, Lebensraum, which is also mentioned in the instructions.

Volunteer Marek 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was added to vital-3 by the OP and then removed with a request that the addition be discussed first. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, anyone know why Vital articles/Expanded is not working? Is there really that many users trying to see that list or is it my connection or something? Volunteer Marek 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would vote for level 4, not 3. 3 is really limited (lots of pretty damned notable countries like Austria don't even make it in there).  Level 4 has a lot of room.  Just cut some Bollywood actor or the like.


 * I'm just a trade school Amurican, but I had never heard of Scotus. He has 6,200 hits per month, whereas Aquinas has 62,000.  William of Ockham has only 9,000, but his famous razor has 130,000.  (And Aquinas has a lot of colleges and high schools and churches and the like named after him.)  Obviously Scotus is well over my 3,000 arbitrary threshold and (I guess) intrinsically important in his expressed ideas.  Of course, if you are interested in the dude, write about him.  I just would not get all irked if he gets judged by his lower notability.TCO (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Duns Scotus is actually one of the big medieval philosophers, right up there with Ockham and Aquinas. The fact that your average joe on the street is clueless isn't really a good indication of notability - see his ODNB biography - here. In the words of the author of that biography, Gordon Leff, "Duns's system introduced a new, and in many respects final, phase of medieval scholasticism. Together with William Ockham, though from opposed standpoints, he marked the parting of the ways, theologically and philosophically, between the high and later middle ages." and "What can be said is that, within a few years of his death, Duns became the doctor of the Franciscans, as the counterpart to the Dominicans' designation in 1314 of Thomas Aquinas as official doctor of their order. The two theologians thereby came to stand for rival allegiances; but these were institutional rather than intellectual, and in both cases posthumous." - in other words, in the history of ideas, he's right up there with Aquinas and Ockham. He certainly belongs on the Vital 4 list, but in general, the whole Vital 4 list suffers from recentism, the coverage of medieval and ancient topics is scanty compared to modern topics. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a better indication of "vital importance" would be to see other lists of significant philosophers. An author of a biography will obviously describe his subject as important - thats the point of a biography. I also do think that hits per day is a good indicator of vital importance for wikipedia - and I don't think dismissing our readers as clueless is a very good selling point. Obviosuly it is more important to have a high quality article for a topic read by 6200 people per day than for one read by 62000. That is what vital status is supposed to indicate - not whether specialists in the topic consider their topic of expertise to be highly important.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what the Vital-4 list really suffers from is the sheer difficulty of drawing up such a list. It's difficult to weight modern topics against old ones. Vital-4 seem appropriate but in any case if Peter or others want to work on the article, we should allow them to enter it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the article should be entered and accepted - but I don't think that requires changing its vitality level unless some good reasons can be provided other than experts in Scotus thinking he is important.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not an expert in medieval philosophy (in fact, I detest the entire subject of philosophy) but as a medievalist - Scotus is on par with Ockham and Aquinas. If the Vital 4 list is going to include two Chinese philosophers (Wang Yangming and Zhu Xi whose traffic stats are 2400 and 2500....) we should certainly include the big three of medieval philosophers. But I'm sorry - that list is so insanely recentism - there are 57 movie directors listed, which is only 2 less than the total number of philosphers listed for the entirety of history! Surely no one argues that Peter Jackson has had more influence in the world than Plato? Or even equivalent? Or Confucius? What I meant with the clueless note is that the average joe's idea of important shouldn't be the only indication of "vitality" - and page hits are pretty much an indication of what the average joe considers important. While we should do a good job with things that are popular, neither should we neglect the historical subjects of importance either. We should consult various books that purport to list the most important people in history - or the most influential - such as 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women who Shaped the Millenium (which, incidentally, lists Scotus at 655 and William of Ockham at 601 and Aquinas at 8), or The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (which gives Aquinas an honorable mention). The New York Public Library Book of Chronologies gives dates for 8 medieval philosophers - Boethius, Avicenna, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Aquinas, Averroes, Scotus, and Ockham. I'm sure there are plenty of other list type books that could be consulted to help flesh out the vital 4 list. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I would tend to agree with you there, but I would also note that in any list like this there is bound to be a very large element of arbitrariness - and I think using hits per day is a good way of making that arbitrarity less contentious. I can only imagine the outcry removing Peter Jackson and adding Duns Scotus would cause in other (amnd probably more numerous) quarters. That is why I think decisions of inclusion and exclusion should be made based on some kind of evidence or criterion not merely by experts saying that this guy is really important.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Repeating my comment from another conversation on this: The rules of the Core Contest are very sensibly flexible, and there is absolutely no requirement for the article to be on the Vital Articles lists, which are no doubt a worthy effort at deciding how long a piece of string is, but are not really worth taking seriously, or arguing about (especially at tier 4). The Duns Scotus article gets around 80K views a year, which is not massive, and only about 10% of Aquinas's views, but a very respectable figure for a medieval philosopher. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely enter it. I don't think the judge was trying to stop entry. Just to make an initial comment on notability. If Saint Aquinas and Dons Scutus are equally important to specialists, but TA has 10 times the viewers, it just means that when both aspects of notability are taken into account that TA edges DS.

Of course, DS is still well over the median for recent FA hit count (by my calc about at the 75% of recent hit counts). Just means that the author will need to have the ability to write a book on the fellow to counteract the notability burden. Oh, wait.

TCO (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a bystander - (not entering for various reasons) 6,200 hits per month is substantial enough notability to be included, especially interesting given Duns Scotus somewhat esoteric following...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely enough to be included in the core contest yes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will certainly analyze the work on the article and judge it for this contest, no matter what. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Objective measures of notability
I don’t understand the use of page hits to measure notability. Does that mean Britney Spears is more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? The whole purpose of a reference work is to educate, which literally means drawing people out of their state of ignorance. Obviously there has to be a balance between the medicine pill, which may taste awful, and the amount of sugar we put on it, but we should not let the sugar prevail over the medicine.

Before getting involved in this I conducted a little survey to determine the notability of Scotus as standard reference works view it. My view as a specialist is that Scotus is now the most notable medieval philosopher, as measured by interest in specialist journals, talks at conferences and so on. But that is specialists only. What about standard reference works? I looked at three works: Chambers biographical dictionary, Hyman and Walsh’s Philosophy in the Middle Ages and the Blackwell Companion to Medieval Philosophy. For each philosopher in the list below I counted the number of lines in Chambers, and the number of pages in the other two works. Then I expressed these as a percentage of the total. The results are in the table below. You see that Chambers puts Scotus third, Hyman and Walsh also third, Blackwell at top equal. The average puts him second. Obviously a pretty crude test but you can see he is up there. Also refer to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or Stanford or any other reliable reference work (I don’t count Wikipedia as reliable in any way, naturally) and you see the same thing.

On whether he is level 3 or 4, my logic is based on the fact that Scotus is more important, by a long stretch, than Bing Crosby, and Crosby is on the level 3 list. Looking just at the list of philosophers I see:


 * Confucius
 * Socrates
 * Plato
 * Aristotle
 * Adi Shankara
 * Nagarjuna
 * Avicenna
 * Thomas Aquinas
 * Ibn Khaldun
 * René Descartes
 * John Locke
 * Immanuel Kant
 * Karl Marx
 * Friedrich Nietzsche
 * Max Weber

There are separate articles on Socrates and Plato but surely one would do, considering that Socrates wrote nothing, and Plato wrote down everything that Socrates said (as it were, I appreciate it is more complicated than that). On Ibn Khaldun, Hyman and Walsh do not mention him at all, although a quarter of their book is devoted to Islamic philosophers. I suspect the reason is this. What on earth is Max Weber doing there? Part of the problem is the category ‘Philosophers and Social Scientists’. These are entirely separate disciplines. Adi Shankara seems more like a religious figure than a philosopher or social scientist. He is not discussed in any scholarly work about philosophy, as far as I can see. He should be in ‘religious figures’, if at all.

On the level 3 list as a whole, why is ‘Classical music’ one of 6 different genres, most of which are Western popular styles. No oriental tradition of music? Why a separate section for pop and rock? What is ‘hip hop music’?

And to come back to my original point, why are Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley and the Beatles on a list which excludes Duns Scotus? Is Wikipedia a collection of trivia, or is it aiming to be a serious reference work. (OK, silly question).

Regards Quisquiliae (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't know exactly how to articulate it, but I think that reader interest (hits) should be accounted for. It is market demand. Fixing the Aquinas article will mean that 10 times as many eyeballs have a better readine experience than fixing the Scotus one. Yeah, maybe the two are equivalent to specialist logicians, OK. But still, we help more people by helping Saint Tom.

2. I don't exactly know how to articulate it, but TA seems more like someone that you would hear of in a World Civilization class than Scotus. It's not just Britney Spears popularity, but notability even for generally educated people and in fields of history and religion.

3. Comparing to Bing Crosby is not sound basis for an argument (and you as a rhetoritician should know better). It is a single data point (and we talk of lists with 1000-10,000 members, compiled by humans subjectively). Think of it this way...leave ASIDE the DS debate. Would you defend Bing as deserving of being top 1000 topics? Really? If not, then it is a cheap trick to say DS deserves top 1000 in comparision to Bing (since you don't really think BC deserves top 1000). Bing is also in a different field so hard to judge.

TCO (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

P.s. Don't let the meanies get to you. I don't think anyone here would have given a shit if you edited the article or entered it (even though you would not have won). The unban request and predictable opposition from the little Internet Napoleans was unfortunate. Would have been better to just edit the damned thing and then stay or hatch your little plot or whatever. Sigh. :(
 * Thanks - the unban request was a separate event that sort of collided with this one. I should have thought more carefully about it, but reason tends to go out of the window whenever I get close to Wikipedia - probably isn't good for me, as many people try to tell me. Thanks for your kind comments though. Quisquiliae (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the question about Bing Crosby, in no way would I defend him being there. The top 1,000 articles is something that can be objectively and systematically decided. You would start with the main areas you wanted to cover, striking the balance between the 'sugar' and the 'medicine', just as the BBC used to have a 'light' programme and a 'serious' one, called originally the Third Network. You would need to separate classical music from popular music as well as composers from musicians.  As for Crosby, a bizarre choice.  And I have a record by him too.  His best known hit was penned by Irving Berlin, who was not on the list.  And if we are having crooners, why not Sinatra?  And if Berlin, what about Gershwin? The whole list is ad-hoc and nonsensical. Why not improve it?  Not enough time, and it would be wasted time.  In my professional work I sit on many committees and make recommendations as an expert.  We have the concept that once the decision is made, it is set in stone until the agreed review time.  This prevents any aggrieved committee member from changing the decision sneakily, after the event.  With Wikipedia, by contrast, you have to watch it like a hawk.  It's like being one of those people working the baggage scanner at Heathrow airport, and no more rewarding. And about the same level of skill required.  Those with the most time to waste have the most power.  Meanwhile, I have to go back to sitting on committees in real life. But you know all this. Quisquiliae (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS - from memory, you produced a study about FA content, yes? I liked that.  The premise was that there was a perverse reward system.  Those who wrote obscure articles on lizards or mushrooms would get the same 'points' as an article on, say, the history of the Middle Ages.  Quisquiliae (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Chill, dude. Don't bring it up.  I'm very impressed by what is going on here and don't want to spook the fish.


 * Um, Gene Kelly was a better dancer. No?  And Brigadoon is a better movie than White Christmas.  Although the whole "let's put on a show" thing is soooo Wikipedian.  N'est pas?  ;)


 * TCO (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As a professional audio engineer, I would not dismiss Crosby so quickly. His soft crooning style required more audio gear than anybody before him, so lots of equipment was bought across the nation. Later, he was foundational in bringing the idea to American radio that the performer could pre-record the show—that he did not have to be present in person. (Hitler did this first, in Germany, using a wire recorder.) Crosby was driven to use his money and influence to help the American tape recorder industry develop; he was a strong technical innovator, not just a singer who was wildly popular and an actor who won an Oscar. That said, I cannot imagine that Bing Crosby is more important than Austria, Yugoslavia or Poland, in the weighting of tier 3 articles. Binksternet (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I will stop editing mainspace, as I said below. I have had a messenger from The Castle, saying that an unblock request may be considered by the Castle administration. Those of you who have not been on the unfortunate end of a so-called 'community ban' simply cannot imagine how painful and difficult it is to reverse it.  The people who enacted it are mostly scattered to the winds (it was 3 years ago), and those who remain imagine it was the result of a dreadful iniquity.  It is an experience I would not wish on worst enemy.  If any of you want to help, it may help if you get in touch with a friendly arbitrator and ask them to take the case on.  This has dragged on for more than 3 years.  Time to get it sorted out, no? Quisquiliae (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's water under the bridge in the light of the above (and below) but hits or views are imo a very useful measure of "importance" for an article, though obviously there is no point comparing big articles from popular culture/sports/current news etc with less well-known historical topics. But there are in fact probably some thousands of pop singers whose articles get fewer hits than Duns Scotus.  Comparisons with similar figures are certainly useful. Ultimately we write so that people can read, and it is important that we can see that people are reading. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Beatles, Elvis Presley and others (Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards) affected many millions of people with their works - (world class) - their originality (radically changed the world) - their philosophies (like them or not), I don't know about Bing Crosby or why he's been mentioned here - but Bing and Bob Hope were world class propagandists for nearly 30 years and also affected many millions of people. I've got no quarrel with your article selection - but you seem to have a major problem - which is why you keep getting kicked out of here - I just supported your re-entry and when I read some of your lame comments - about how smart and erudite you are and how bourgeois and pedestrian the rest of us are - it gives me pause...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK sorry, I'll keep my mouth shut. I agree I seem to cause problems any time I get involved in this place.  Sorry. Quisquiliae (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to see you return, the situation ain't fair...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just...wow
I am blown away by the number and importance of the articles being worked on. Meant 100% and not as light praise. Am scared to say it in case it stops the activity (unintentional reverse psychology). Anyhow...really cool content.TCO (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally! Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm outraged, why are we working on crufty articles like Language when Nicki Minaj on Twitter is still a red link? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * . Binksternet (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reckoned carrots were better than sticks...though I can't take credit for the idea as it was Danny's, I'd been musing this was an idea worth reviving for some time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Message
In view of what is happening on WP:AN I will stop editing from this account. I think it is pretty obvious who I am.

I reluctantly agreed to the unblock request, knowing the kind of comments it would attract. It is particularly frustrating when a person accused of such things is not allowed to reply to the accusations.

I would just like to set the record straight about my participation in the ‘contest’. Money is no objective and I would have donated any prize to the WMF in the unlikely event of winning one. My reason for participating was the detoriation of the Duns Scotus article for a year now. When the contest was announced and it seemed a good opportunity to put it right.

I have always been sincere about wanting to improve Wikipedia. This can happen in two ways: either by the internal culture of Wikipedia improving in ways that encourage the participation of subject matter experts. I believe this is increasingly unlikely, having studied Wikipedia for many years. Or by public shaming of the project, which though unpleasant for those involved in it, may bring improvement in the governance of Wikipedia. You may disagree with that, but please don’t accuse my of bad faith or lack of sincerity. Education and the values associated with education is what I care most about, and it concerns me deeply about the often inaccurate material on Wikipedia (such as the Scotus article before this month), and the effect that it will have. I care deeply and passionately about bringing the sum of all human knowledge to every person on the planet. I just don’t believe that Wikipedia, as currently set up, is helping that objective. You may disagree, but please don’t accuse me of not being sincere. I am perfectly sincere – I wouldn’t be spending so much time on and around this wretched project if I wasn’t.

So, I will discontinue editing from this account. I would prefer that my edits to the Scotus article be reverted, except for the warning templates, until I have a chance to complete them. The improvements were in a half-finished state when the unblock proposal was made.

With every kind wish, Quisquiliae (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * sigh - it has been and is continuing to be thought-provoking. I am preparing for extensive rumination and discussion on ethics, rules and ends justifying means etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also sigh. Do you realize that I was going to support this opportunity for your gradual return until it was made clear you had been socking?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm sorry. Really. I was too impatient that's all, and it was not my idea for the unblock proposal, which I reluctantly gave my consent to (I have been through this before, and you can't imagine what it's like).  I can't possibly see what harm it has done to make those edits.  All these cases of so-called 'socking' - like writing nearly all of History of logic have been to improve the project in some way. Why do you call it 'socking'?  It's deeply upsetting. I care very deeply about the idea of bringing the sum of human knowledge etc, and you call it 'socking', as though I were some common vandal. I have never, in 9 years of editing Wikipedia, used multiple accounts to gain an advantage in editing, or to stack a vote. That's terribly unkind of you to say that. Quisquiliae (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We badly need good editors in philosophy. In the ANI thread, I just suggested you post an updated version of Duns Scotus, licensed cc-by-sa, on Wikipediocracy or somewhere, explaining the merits of your version.


 * I agree on the socking point. Quietly improving articles is qualitatively different from gaming a "debate" or disrupting with socks, and you appear to have been doing the former. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, PD. There's precedent. Me. None of the socking shite matters. I've used about forty accounts and they've done good work. Coren, just unblock him. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) (Jack Merridew;) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that I agree with Jack...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. What a strange internet it is. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See, there's hope for you louts, yet ;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Less of the cheek young man. We're just as god made us. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I still owe you some serious butt-hurt ;> Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that, and a look at the refs on a certain van eyck diptych. If you think you're hard enough, like. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haz Moby Dick... Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Jack. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * there's the bureaucratic route:
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded
I asked this before - For whatever reason I simply cannot access that page. It times out, I get the Wikimedia error message, or a message that too many people are trying to access the page at a particular time (which doesn't seem plausible). What's going on with it? Volunteer Marek 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is forked into dedicated subgroups; though I havent figured out the naming convention yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very big and loaded with symbol templates, & takes forever to load on my m/c. But you're not missing anything. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) The page is too huge (2285 kB). The amount of text is insignificant, but all those templates are expensive. You could try looking at it whilst logged out; you will be served a cached version, which will load much quicker. Stefan Banach is not on the Level 4 list. --Dianna (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the procedure of adding things to the Vital 4? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Negotiation on the talk page, but really the whole thing is so totally flawed (though a brave effort etc etc) there's no point wasting time arguing over it. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not so negative. There was a long while that the thing had openings.  If you can displace something less useful in category, will be an  easy change.  Are much few tough choices as compared to top 1000 where even many countries do not fit.  I would not put a topic in there that "you think is super important", but is not recognizable to the average Anglo sphere person (Marie Curie is a decent choice, but not someone I have not heard of.)TCO (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pencils down!
Actually, the pencils can keep on moving, but the contest period has ended. Please continue to improve the core articles while the judges tally the scores. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Da Rulz said this was on Aussie time ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! 8 hrs earlier is it. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what will the judges do here? Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many/most contestants were aware, & have presented the right diff, but for those who weren't, I suppose you should just look at the last diff before the end time per the rules. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's precisely what should happen because if a user did not read the rules or forgot them, it's there own fault. There were posted well ahead of time. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet isn't paying attention to this as he just entered a bunch of final diffs that go past the deadline. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bullshite; wp:Ignore all rules. It's about articles and readers, not editor games. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. It's not fair to those who heeded the rules. If it's okay to ignore them, why make them. By your logic the contest should never end. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS, I'm not talking about the funkin' eight hours, I'm deriding yet another wiki-game. Why Sydney Time? Arbitrary Rule by teh Game Master. This is no different than Teh House of FAP or Did You Kare... At least In Da Newz and On Diz Dae have real world connections; the other wankery is shite MADEUP on wiki. I've been saying this since way before the term "Star Collector" hit the Streets of Wikipedo. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a big deal PS - I'm with BR on this. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. If it's okay to post diffs from right now, then it's okay tomorrow, and so on. You have to draw the line somewhere in a case like this and stick to it. Besides it punishes those who followed the rules because they, I, could have spent 8 more hours improving the article. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No big deal, its not about the rules but about the improvements. Its not as if you could have gotten Kafka to FA in those 8 hours anyway - you did great work and everybody can see that you did. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh uh. So I can improve it tomorrow and still have it count for the contest, right? OK. Contest continues til tomorrow, and then I'll have it extended til Sunday, and so on. So yes, here the rules matter. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you do keep improving it and I encourage the judges to consider all changes made before the winner is announced.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So the contest goes for another two weeks when they announce the decision? Why have an end date then? What a fucked up contest. Binksternet essentially admits he didn't read the rules in a contest where he's a judge (Cas' talk page) Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its about improvements not about winning, and PS you have more than a reasonable chance of winning in any case with the amazing work you've done (I would certainly put my money on Kafka) there's really no reason to stress about it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, who cares? Arguably I did the best work here, turning a crock of shit that gets something like 2 million hits a year into somewhat less of an embarrassment than it needed to be, until stalled by the usual Wiki stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't give a shit about winning. I care about being treated fairly and this isn't right. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously you do care about winning, else this is a pointless discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong Mal. You don't know me anywhere near as well as you think. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And obviously "fairness" is not reducible to a question of a couple of hours of work when the entire judgement procedure is necessarily subjective.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 8 hours. Fuck this. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats the spirit! Fuck it indeed!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know you at all in fact, but I know you're talking bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, your're mistaken on this, and I don't speak bollocks. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why are you the only one going purple in the face about a minor interpretation of the rules? Why not do now what you might have done in those extra eight hours? Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

After apologizing to Casliber for my gaffe regarding UTC/Sydney time I went out to dinner with the wife and I come back to this very excited discussion! Not to worry, people, there will be new diffs brought to bear after midnight Sydney time. I've been working so long on looking at these articles that I stopped seeing the rules section at the top of the contest page. Absent-minded professorism. No harm done, I hope. Carry on... Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what was afeared of. This is supposed to be fun. We'll be conferring and reviewing over the next few days. Sorry 'bout the confusion folks....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rubbing my eyes in the morning: I think the one who invents a game can set the rulz. I did in the eight hours what I would have done anyway: listen to a concert and improve Zürau Aphorisms, on the Main page, about the "True Way" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was LOTS OF FUN Cas. Truly. I entered because I saw Kafka as a great chance for Gerda and I to work together on an important article. We really enjoy working together and I think many are aware of that. I apologize to all for getting upset last night, but as I mentioned before, I really really don't like unfair treatment, but that's being straightened out so all is well. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Grammar..."great chance for Gerda and me"....but seriously...now for the judging....watch this space folks.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pumpkin, I can understand why you were fustrated, but ye two can be proud of the work ye did on such a hight profile widely read article. Thats all that matters, and good for ye. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right, Cas! Can I sign you up for my Campaign for the Retention of the Accusative Pronoun? --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its an underground, secret society. You'll be approched in a few weeks by a man wearing a dark coat, stapled with a red rose. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine was a vicarious participation (until August 30) when I took a short break. In my opinion it ain't about the prize, it ain't about the kudos, it's getting the work done, and Cas's contest served as a very good motivation, classy and it produced some great results, by all...Modernist (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerda and I, Gerda and I, Gerda and I, und so weiter. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aber sagt man niemals "für ich", immer "für mich" - daher für Gerda und mich. --Rexx Schneider (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ja Ja, mich, dich, ich, usw. Das englische Sprache kommt aus Deutschland aber jetzt hat sein eigenes Leben. Und auch, hier, für Spass, wir streiten mit einander. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mein Deutsch ist schrecklich, ich brauche einem Babelfisch oder einem Google Translate....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you need to attend the "Gerda School For Those Who've Forgotten Most of Their Deutsch"! Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to the German Wikipedia, and I talk (almost) only German to you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Top articles by traffic
Here's a list of the 1000 most viewed articles in december 2010. The overlap with the list of the 1000 vital articles is negligible. I expected a focus on American pop culture and sex - but its more extreme than I thought/feared. A few articles are quite surprising for example F and Salvia Divinorum. Not a single medieval philosopher (or any other philosopher) on the list - Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Beatles and John lennon are all there though. :(·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the Core Contest entries in August 2012, the highest ranked one on the list in your link is Henry VIII of England which sits merrily at position 201 out of 1,000. The next two closest entries are not inside the 1,000 mark: Information technology ranked at 1,415, and Crusades ranked at 1,713. Everything else is quite a bit further down the ranking lists, with Tree leading that peloton with a ranking of 4,030. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we sit trying to contrast the core/encyclopedic with the popular :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Table of quantity (doesn't show quality)

 * It would be cool with columns that show the percentual increase in prose size/source and the relative increase in number of citations to prose. :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For Information technology, was the number of readable prose bytes really exactly the same (3416) as the place in the views ranking? Just asking. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, as Binksternet pointed out in the section above. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Langauge and Marie Curie occupy exactly the same place in the ranking by page views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I applied some of the suggestions and corrections. The percent change column shows some negative change; this kind of change is typically beneficial cleanup of poor quality text and poor quality references. In fact, most of the additional text and additional references on these articles were reduced quantitatively by the removal of poor material. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the process of interpreting quantitative and qualitative improvements together will be the really interesting part.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many good arguments for quality work performed on the articles. Some had greater problems requiring cleanup, so a bare number quantity does not show that kind of hard work. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes agree Maunus - trying to compare one article's breadth or coreness with another's level of improvement is like comparing apples and oranges. Also weighing up what articles were in a worse state to begin with an how rounded was the improvement -in any case this is supposed to be fun and WRT this I am relieved a bit we're talking modest prizes rather than big ones....anyway, a decision will come soon (a few days at most I think). Sorry about the delay all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a column of page views for a representative month: May 2012. Some of these page views are combined from the main article plus a few significant redirects, e.g. Henry VIII of England, Henry VIII and King Henry VIII. This information is supplied mainly because it is interesting, not because it has an integral bearing on the Core Contest judging. Judging is based on an article's "core-ness" or importance, state of initial disrepair, degree of improvement, and the final tally of added benefit to the encyclopedia, judged subjectively and qualitatively. Only a fraction of an article's encyclopedic importance comes from the quantity of its page views. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Sculpture started with 24 references as far as I can tell, FWIW, have all these numbers been checked?...Modernist (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like 21 in though a number of these are no longer there. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - although the AB, AB makes for 24...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see 23 initial refs, adding the 4 from merged article to the 20 of the, subtracting 1 reference in common.
 * Any interested editor is welcome to check the numbers in the table. I am not infallible! Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like an interested editor ;) I don't doubt the figures, but do you trust that the average reader will calculate the absolute differences? The difference in % for the number of references seems rather misleading/irrelevant (searching for a better word), if one article starts with 3 and another with 85. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the percentage is somewhat informative because it shows something about relative degree of value improvement for the encyclopedia. Forexample adding one source to an article that only has three is a bigger step forward than adding one to an article that already has 30.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerda, all of the table's numbers have problems with relevance in this contest. The judging leans quite a bit more toward the qualitative side. If an article started small, incompletely covering the topic but fairly presenting a small amount of information, then it is not judged as highly as an article that started in disreputable shape, with poor text and ugly tags, assuming in each case a high quality article produced at the end of the contest. To your point, small numbers of references might include the best possible ones, or they might be lousy. Mere quantity does not suffice. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) It is SOMEWHAT informative, but if you start with 3, it's easy to reach several hundred percent, try that starting from 85 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerda, if it will make you happier I'll happily remove myself from this "contest" at this point and ask the judges to remove my entry. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that, Truthkeeper88. Your contribution stands out not just for its stunning quantitative prowess but for the quality of its carefully polished prose and neatly formatted references. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * New morning: What did I say that made you think I was even thinking of you? I wasn't. If you want to make me happier, do your precious article work. I am the first to set quality above quantity. But I also confess that I don't like the heading of this thread because it seems to imply that high quantity implies low quality. I may be wrong, my English is limited ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)