Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 3

message: There has been some debate here which has led to this page becoming a dab page, with content (I think) now split between informatics and Library and information science.  What should we do with this entry? Walkerma 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need Informatics. I'm ambivalent about Library and information science.  Maurreen 20:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. Maurreen 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Information science]] 

message: I almost put Municipality in the list of "start" articles needing work (in the comment below), then I thought to check if City is developed. It is a much more developed and general article.  I have replaced Municipality  with City (which discusses the ambiguity between meanings of town, city, etc.) in the table.
:Good idea,! Support. Walkerma 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[City]] replaces [[Municipality]] 

message: I think it's very important to distingish between the general and the specific (though I admit that some are in between).  A casual visitor looking at our table might be shocked to find that so many core topics have such poor articles, when an obscure topic like gold(III) chloride has an A-Class article (guess which crazy guy spent his time on that...! Even so, there's now a Thai version of that page...!)  The fact is, I suspect that gold(III) chloride may well get as many hits as Humanities, because it is a specific topic.  Why?  In my (limited) experience there are two common reasons people look something up in Wikipedia:
* To look up a specific piece of information (e.g., What is the melting point of gold(III) chloride?).
* To provide material for a student paper (e.g., "The chemistry of gold").
With an article like humanities (or equally science!) there are not many facts to look up there beyond the basic definitions, and I suspect that few students have to write papers on such broad topics.  As editors, I think we tend to write to meet the need, hence all the starts in our table.  Also, as Gflores has pointed out, it's much easier to write about the specific such as Antarctica than about the general like technology, and this exacerbates the situation.  
Am I arguing that most of the core topics are a waste of time because they're too broad?  Absolutely not, or I wouldn't have spent so many hours on this.  Reasons to work on broader core topics are IMHO:
*I think that any publication of WP1.0 has to cover these topics well, because the more specific articles may be incomplete.  In other words, say I am writing a paper on the Age of Enlightenment (good choice for our list, btw!), and I read about the changes that occurred in chemistry. Say I find that history of chemistry is absent/redlinked.  If Core Topics has done its job there will be a decent section on this in the chemistry article.
*These are also major concepts that should be good articles, but aren't, for the reasons mentioned.  Core Topics can help to balance out the weakness of Wikipedia in general topics, by trying to focus effort on important but difficult-to-write articles.
To summarise, for any WP1.0 release I think we need:
*Level 1An umbrella of 100-300 core topic general articles that covers the entirety of knowledge (quite an undertaking!). Example: Technology.
*Level 2Beneath that umbrella, 1000 or so specific articles that covers all of the major topics users are likely to search on, like Julius Caesar.  
*Levels 3-4Ideally I'd like to go another level or two down and trawl for 10-50,000 specific articles on significant topics, such as acetic acid.
The job of this project should be to knock into shape the first two levels, while FAs first and WVWikiProjects (and WikiSort?) as well as GAs will help with the third level on down.  If we try to get 500 general articles up to par it will (IMHO) simply be so much work it will prevent us from publishing.  I think we need to decide when we have enough of the (time-consuming) general material and then move on to the (much easier) specific material.  We have to remember that there are many ways to "cut the cake" of knowledge (different core topic trees?), and we probably can't cover them all just yet. My proposed plan of action:
*Level 1: Look for the significant gaps in general coverage in our first list, and perhaps create a "Further Core Topics" list. Let's set up a page for your (Vir's) new core topics so we can debate them.
*Level 2: Then let's move on to the more specific topics, such as this list.
*Level 3: Meanwhile Work via WikiProjects is soon (probably) going to be asking every project for their suggestions on "subject-specific core topics". Also see :Category:Lists of basic topics).  
Thanks a lot for getting the discussion started, and for coming up with specific suggestions, Vir.  I apologise for taking up so much bandwidth, I hope others will pitch in! Walkerma 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General vs. specific

message: Can't sleep. Another take...
Here is an exercise -- Starting over from zero.
What are the most basic concepts or aspects of our physical, social and mental worlds? 
These are common to many disciplines and much of life. Here is a rough draft or one take...
Sixteen most basic subjects, things or concepts:
*Time
*Space
*Matter
*Energy 
*Earth (planet)
*Life 
*Love
*Mind
*Humans 
*Art 
*Culture
*Society 
*Religion 
*Knowledge
*Technology 
*History 
Sixteen more most basic subjects:
*Universe
*Sun (or star)
*Atom
*Animals
*Plants
*Sex 
*Nature 
*Death
*Medicine
*Family
*Language
*Experience
*Theory (or philosophy)
*Town (and/or city)
*Science
*Spirituality (or mysticism)
Sixteen more most basic concepts:
*Galaxy
*Molecule
*Electromagnetism
*Land
*Environment (and/or ecology) 
*Parenting
*Gender
*Ethnicity
*Country
*War
*Empire
*Humanities
*Social Science
*Natural Science
*Mathematics
*Consciousness (or personality, whatever)
Two more basic concepts:
*Pleasure
*Pain
So, fifty concepts, qualities or things.
There is a slight progression in specificity (and civilization creeping in) in the above groups but not too much. I wonder at what point we start to run out of general concepts that do not go across multiple aspects of life and multiple knowledge disciplines?
Consider: Is our basic topic list missing any of the above? Some. Not an issue if we are just getting started on working on the 1000 articles. (But that 1000 list misses some of the above.) Including most basic concepts (and relations of concepts) is an issue if we are building a knowledge tree or organization system, along with working on articles. Vir 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some most basic concepts