3 ms·

So wikipedia will happily delete things based on notability and such. How is it that this has escaped the cull? It's not the type of thing I'd expect to find i

So wikipedia will happily delete things based on notability and such. How is it that this has escaped the cull? It's not the type of thing I'd expect to find in wikipedia at all. To be clear, I don't have a problem with technology X being in Wikipedia. Indeed I expect there to be a page, and it would probably be my first port of call for finding out more. My problem is with an editorialised list of 'Emerging Technologies'.

matt_kantor 8y ago
I'm not sure if there's any official policy around this, but to me it seems that lists often get a less-stringent treatment than other article types on Wikipedia. Here's a sampling of some other interesting list articles: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_w... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ballooning_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ballooning_accidents - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_s... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_junctions_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_junctions_in_the_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_websites - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_nicknamed_Titans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_nicknamed... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolves - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_condiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_condiments And the all-time best: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists I, for one, am happy these exist, despite the editorialization, etc.
- benj111 8y ago
  My prior comment did get a bit ranty. Personally I'm a Wikipedia maximalist, it should record everything. They seem to have decided on a different path, partly on notability grounds, partly on the basis that its done elsewhere. That's fine as far as it goes but be consistent. Lists make sense in a lot of contexts, lists of songs, albums, monarchs great. List of 'best' songs, 'greatest' monarchs, 'emerging' technologies, less so.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  This is missing the list of sexually active popes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_pope...
- tumblen 8y ago
  This is probably my favorite Wikipedia list (List of Common Misconceptions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

matt_kantor 8y ago

I'm not sure if there's any official policy around this, but to me it seems that lists often get a less-stringent treatment than other article types on Wikipedia. Here's a sampling of some other interesting list articles: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_w... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ballooning_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ballooning_accidents - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_s... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_junctions_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_junctions_in_the_... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_websites - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_nicknamed_Titans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_nicknamed... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolves - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_condiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_condiments And the all-time best: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists I, for one, am happy these exist, despite the editorialization, etc.

benj111 8y ago
My prior comment did get a bit ranty. Personally I'm a Wikipedia maximalist, it should record everything. They seem to have decided on a different path, partly on notability grounds, partly on the basis that its done elsewhere. That's fine as far as it goes but be consistent. Lists make sense in a lot of contexts, lists of songs, albums, monarchs great. List of 'best' songs, 'greatest' monarchs, 'emerging' technologies, less so.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
This is missing the list of sexually active popes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_pope...
tumblen 8y ago
This is probably my favorite Wikipedia list (List of Common Misconceptions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions