Hacker News Reader

Comment by itcrowd | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

Well it's impossible to have a list of any '1000 best of' that will be agreed by everyone. If you want to delve into the subject, it was a puplar subject in literature some time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon#Debate

Totally agree. I just read Earth [1] for the first time and it was really fascinating. Don't forget to click on 'Level 1' in the top bar as well, to see the top 10 most important articles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com