
Vital Wikipedia Articles - soheilpro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles
======
tapland
I would argue that List of Common Misconceptions[0] belongs in any list of
important or vital Wikipedia-articles.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions)

~~~
po
Second only to the List of Cognitive Biases:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

 _really... you think you know them all but you don 't. Everyone needs to
understand the IKEA effect for example_

~~~
virgilp
The problem I have with these sort of lists is that they try to be
comprehensive and add a lot of second order biases that tend to drown the
basic/ fundamental ones. Take your example for IKEA effect: it is in fact a
consequence of loss aversion. Once you invest emotion, time or money into
something, you assign more value to it, because you do not want "lose" your
initial investment.

~~~
andruby
Is that again a consequence of "sunk cost" fallacy?

------
itcrowd
This list is awesome. Along with [1], it could make a great starting point for
learning about new topics but also quickly gaining knowledge on _what_ topics
are considered important in a discipline. For example, if you want to learn
about philosophy but don't have a good understanding of what topics are even
available, just scroll down in the list!

I think it could also serve as a list for topics a well-rounded person should
know something about (of course, this is highly personal / debatable etc.). Or
at least heard of. Perfect way to learn something every day!

Great submission, bookmarked, thanks!

[1]
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikip...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have)

~~~
o09rdk
I had a different reaction. I understand the reasons for having this sort of
list internally, but some of what's included and left out is really odd to me,
especially when it comes to biographical entries. I worry that these lists
will kind of reify a very superficial approach to certain areas.

I'm not sure how they came up with these lists, but it would seem better to me
to somehow quantitatively organize them, by numbers of edits or some index of
controversy or something. That way there would be a more direct relationship
with the reason for having the list in the first place.

As it is these lists remind me a lot of the controversies over Wikipedia when
they started giving editors more and more power. It seems to reflect some
preconceptions on the part of the Wikipedia editors more than anything else.

~~~
itcrowd
First, I don't understand what you mean by "having this sort of list
internally". Wikipedia is completely open, so what does "internally" even
mean?

Second, I don't understand your desire. Do you want more controversial topics?
The goal of an encyclopedia is not to list/explain controversial topics[+], or
am I mistaken somehow?

Third, to be concrete: who should come off the list and who should be on the
list if you don't agree?

Fourth: if you don't agree on the list and can't come up with replacements,
give us _exactly_ the definitions that should be used to warrant inclusion. My
guess is that these definitions / rules / decisions are so difficult to make
in the first place, that agreeing on those rules is as difficult as agreeing
on the people / topics that are included in the list.

[+] Definitely not to mark them as somehow more important than other subjects
that are less controversial.

~~~
o09rdk
1\. By "internally" I meant primarily for the purpose of Wikipedia itself, as
opposed to closed. I admit the choice of term was poor or misleading.

2\. I don't want more controversial topics, I just meant that I can see how
Wikipedia would want to track or flag topics that are especially
controversial. Controversiality (if that's even a thing) is just an example. I
just meant I could see how Wikipedia would want to flag topics based on some
quantitative criterion.

3\. That's a big topic and I'd rather not delve into it. Some might be on such
a list if I made one, but others would not, and still others that aren't on
the list would be there. I think my underlying concern is that there shouldn't
be a list at all. If it's important enough to be on Wikipedia, it is
important.

4\. Again, I wouldn't have a list of "importance." I would have a discussion
of which topics should be flagged, and why--what the criteria are for deciding
something should be flagged--and flag based on those criteria. My sense is it
should be based on something objective and quantifiable.

------
benplumley
I know it's possible to download the entire Wikipedia database, but does
anyone know of a way to download every article in this list? Preferably as a
torrent.

~~~
computator
I was _about_ to say that a torrent is hardly necessary. How big could a 1000
mostly-text files get? Pretty big as it turns out. Downloading a dozen random
entries from that list, the sizes seem average around 2 MB, and that's
including only the small images on each page (not the big picture you get when
you click on an image). So 1000 entries at 2 MB each would be 2 GB.

Picking apart just one page (the Jane Austen entry), the plain ASCII text with
no markup is only 88 KB. The 19 small images, plus some tiny buttons and
logos, are 536 KB, and the markup (HTML, CSS, and whatnot) is 497 KB. I was
surprised that Wikipedia, in terms of page weight, is mostly images and
markup. (Not complaining, of course. Wikipedia is one of the few big sites on
the web that doesn't throw in gratuitous and irrelevant images and videos.)

~~~
DanBC
Are you including page history? Are you allowed to re-distribute without page
history?

Also, you probably know this but there is a prize for compressing bits of
Wikipedia. Here's the wikipedia page about it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize)

[http://prize.hutter1.net/](http://prize.hutter1.net/)

About the test data:
[http://mattmahoney.net/dc/textdata.html](http://mattmahoney.net/dc/textdata.html)

And discussion on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405129](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405129)

------
1wd
Level 5 has 31 video game designers (under Artists, musicians, and composers
-> Game and toy designers), including Shigeru Miyamoto as the only one also
included in Level 4 (under Businesspeople). (Mario is the only fictional
character from games included in Level 4.)

Notable omissions: Richard Stallman (Linus Torvalds is in), GNU (Linux is in),
GPL, Free Software (Open-source software is in Level 4), Rust (Assembly, C,
Java and Javascript are even in Level 4), Deep Learning, Hacker News (Reddit
is in).

~~~
lm28469
> Rust (Assembly, C, Java and Javascript are even in Level 4)

The languages in parentheses basically run the world, Rust is barely used in
comparison, it's not surprising it doesn't get the same attention.

------
throwawaylolx
Is is possible to see these ratings/labels/classes on an article? For
instance, can I tell
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens)
is B-class from the page itself? I assume the lock icon at the top right may
have some correlation with the assessed quality, but it doesn't seem
consistent across classes.

~~~
inops
The article's class is on its talk page.[1]

If you have an account and don't want to leave the article to find out the
class, you could enable the metadata gadget. [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Dickens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Dickens)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Metadata_gadget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Metadata_gadget)

------
dcchambers
Well there goes my productivity for the day.

------
0wis
Superb list. Should read ! A great example of a « knowledge tree », could be
useful to find a root concept for an idea you want to explore. Any other tool
to find « first-principle » roots of any topic ?

------
freddref
I wonder how these pages change in content and tone across languages..

~~~
yorwba
Level 1 with 10 articles is available in 32 languages. There are some
differences among the languages I checked, but they are mostly just using
different representative articles for the same general categories. E.g. French
has "culture" instead of "human" and Chinese has "culture" instead of
"philosophy" and Catalan has "geography" instead of "Earth" and "society"
instead of "human".

------
tobr
What does the process of selecting these articles look like?

~~~
kaycebasques
See “What makes an article vital?” and “How are articles selected?”

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions)

------
Sharlin
Surprisingly ”University” is only level four. I’d say it definitely deserves a
place on level three, being not just a subconcept of ”school”, but an
institution responsible for the majority of scientific research.

Edit: Okay, these are definitely the weirdest downvotes I’ve ever got on HN.

~~~
jimmychangas
I guess it is pointless to argue about what topics are the most relevant. This
"vital articles" list seems completely arbitraty and, frankly, not very
important.

------
incidentnormal
So few A-class articles in the list.

~~~
8bitsrule
One problem there is Wikipedia culture. Suppose you're a bona-fide content-
area expert, fully capable of accurately conveying your knowledge in clear
language that most people can understand. You might want to concentrate on
creating the article.

Instead ... if the topic is not obscure and unpopular ... odds are high that
you'll wind up jousting with dozens of inspired but unqualified challengers.
The first time two of the paragraphs you've spent hours crafting disappear on
someone's whim, you're probably going to stay gone.

"Anyone can edit"? In many cases, no. Take the 'Start-class' article
'performing arts', for example: how many people are truly qualified to
summarize that enormous topic?

A-quality doesn't emerge from a melange of bits and pieces.

------
jvln
What I want to emphasize is that majority of articles represent western
democratic, capitalistic, liberal culture. Reading these articles you won’t
learn anything extra that you were tought in school. On one hand it is ammusig
how english wikipedia became a western culture mirror. On the other hand it is
sad that you can not get insights into other cultures without western culture
filter.

~~~
falcor84
>...it is sad that you can not get insights into other cultures without
western culture filter.

I don't understand this sentiment. Why can't you? There are quite a few other
entry points out there created by non-westerners; why complain that an index
created by westerners for the English Wikipedia has a western bend? How could
it conceivably be different?

------
agumonkey
They could include Lewis Dartnell

------
sittingnut
wikipedia is now under the effective control of limited number of entrenched
editors, mostly subscribing to western establishment's "liberal" ideology,
with almost absolute power over content. a prime example of this bias, is the
article about british empire. comparison of that article with articles about
other brutish regimes(ussr, mao's china, etc) is telling, even though it's
atrocities far exceeds any other regime, in terms of both quantity and extent.

~~~
the_duke
Can you provide some links to said atrocities by the British empire? (I'm
genuinely curios)

There probably are some Wikipedia articles you could link to.

Edit: just a few examples

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Enslaved_Af...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Enslaved_Africans)

~~~
mehrdadn
I was looking this up just now. It seems 29 million died in India alone under
British rule due to famine. [1] However there was widespread crop failure in
the late 19th century. [2] I don't know how much control they had over what
and how every set of deaths occurred, so it's not yet clear to me you can just
directly compare number of deaths between empires without taking into account
the surrounding context.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-did-the-British-
empire...](https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-did-the-British-empire-kill-
worldwide/answer/Karthikeyan-Madathil)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#East_India_Comp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#East_India_Company_in_Asia)

~~~
claudiawerner
>so it's not yet clear to me you can just directly compare number of deaths
between empires without taking into account the surrounding context.

This is true, but perhaps in a way you weren't anticipating; this point was
made decades ago by Herbert Marcuse in response to people attempting to
compare, for instance, Nazi death tolls with Soviet ones. This mode of
argumentation reduces concrete matters of policy and motivation (quality) into
mere numbers to be thrown about (quantity). But authoritarianism is not a
quantitative matter - a nation with harsh laws under which only few are
convicted is still an authoritarian nation.

------
p1esk
“Adolph Hitler” is the 6th most visited article in the last 90 days. Wow.

~~~
JetSpiegel
> Vital articles sorted by number of views in the past 90 days (as of 17 July
> 2014)

Sex is the eight.

~~~
p1esk
I don't see anything wrong with that :)

------
inmate4587
The list seems awesome, I'll definitely go through it all.

