[WikiEN-l] Some more unscientific findings

Sat Dec 10 06:45:11 UTC 2005

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Question: Of those estimated 42,000 good articles, can you give some
> sort of break down in subject. If we have a systemetic bias, it's
> reasonable to assume it also portrudes to the featured articles we
> have.
>
Well, except for a tiny portion of this estimated number, we don't
know where they are: if I knew where I could find them, I'd be cataloging
them, not writing emails! ;-)

Of the tiny portion -- 291 articles when I looked at the article tonight --
the 3 largest categories are "Rail transport", "Music", and "Chemistry
and materials science". I wouldn't dare to suggest that this somehow
represents the relative proportion of Good articles out there: each of
these groupings represents the work of a devoted group of Wikipedians
eager to promote the quality work in their own corners of our project.
All of those Rail transport articles are due to an active Portal team
devoted to railroads; the large number of Music articles are due in a
large part to the efforts of TUF-KAT (one of the Original Wikipedians),
who is very familiar in that area; & these Chemistry articles are the
product of a focussed effort led by Walkerma to systematically improve
Wikipedia's articles on that subject.

We've all heard claims that our math & computer material is very good,
but because many of the people who contributed in those areas have either
moved on to other parts of the project or left Wikipedia -- due to
Wikipedia-related reasons (e.g., burn-out) or non-Wikipedia reasons --
most of that quality work is not easily found. Had TUF-KAT left Wikipedia,
for example, I doubt we'd have more than 10 or 12 articles under "Music";
& if Mav wasn't so busy with other Wikipedia responsibilities, we might
also have 30-40 Good articles under Geology.

I guess it's time for me to leave off writing articles about Ethiopia
& her history, & spend my time finding some of those 42,000+ articles.

Geoff