A while back I posted about the debates that often occur when articles are featured on the front page of Wikipedia. Basically, each day there are a few dozen entries on the front page including one feature article. Often, there is debate over whether the article is worthy of being on the front page and sometimes whether it should even be a Wikipedia article. Earlier this week, Troy McClure, a supporting character on the Simpsons was featured. McClure (pictured below in his role in Stop this Planet of the Apes, I want to get off) was indeed a fan favorite, but should he be on the front page of an online encyclopedia? Should there even be such a thing as category for Feature Articles about the Simpsons? I doubt the boys at Britannica spend much time debating Sideshow Bob and the human condition.
A fair number of Wikipedians agree that Troy is not quite feature article material. Here are some highlights from the discussion:
I don’t know why it is a featured article at all, let alone on the main page, and am consider requesting a review. Matt (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Troy_McClure faithless (speak) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
the saddest thing is wikipedia deems unnotable several actual people that have contributed to the society, but no, Troy McClure is more important. –Leladax (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- What do you expect from an encyclopedia where the most educated editors are still working towards their undergraduate degree? –64.180.226.234 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Lee Brown (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Well I want to thank the wiki guys for this article which links to interesting stuff about Troy Donahue amonst others…makes me realise how important wiki is ,if only for stessing the vital part of trivia in our lives. I once had a heated discussion with a friend who works for Encyclopadia Britannica in London and argued that EB was inferior to Wiki mainly because it arrogantly ignored so much of ordinary everyday life and media,almost as it was ‘beneath it’. My friend answered that serious knowledge is not about trivia. I said I thought facts are facts,information is information from whatever source on whatever subject. Ignoring half the world because it does not seem to you ’serious’ or ‘relevent’ is a very dangerous road to travel.
.You might remember me from such Featuring Articles as today’s!” Haha, amazing work! Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, good one. It reminds me of the show when it was good. –Bobak (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- True, but I’m beginning to think some of the bitterness regarding Wikipedia’s Featured Article choices stems from the fact that the articles are so good - namely, that people would be more willing to spend time crafting articles on fictional characters extinct for a decade rather than actual important people. But that’s just who they know about more - you’re supposed to write about what you know. Brutannica (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I expect that each person complaining here is already doing the research to bring an article on a more important subject up to featured-article quality. Good luck! You’re right, we can use good articles on many different subjects. -FisherQueen (talk ยท contribs) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with FisherQuuen, complaining about how unfair it is that Troy McClure is now a featured article despite a large number of actual people’s articles given stub class ratings will do no good. I suggest you focus your energy towards bringing another page up to featured article status. Anyway, I’d say the Simpson’s WikiProject has been pretty succesful so far, after all this isn’t the only article the members have managed to bring to featured article status. Keep up the good work! 72.152.135.75 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Tags: wikipedia
Random Posts from the Wikinomics Archive
Comments RSS
| TrackBack URI
haha, thanks for the link. I always thought that featured articles aren’t necessarily chosen the importance of the subject, but for how good the article is - how well written, referenced, thorough, and so on.
Comment by andrew - May 30, 2008 11:06 am
[...] I’ve posted before about trouble that Wikipedia gets in when in features lame posts on the front page. See here and here. [...]
Pingback by Wikinomics » Blog Archive » Wikipedia front page gets it right…and a shameless plug - June 27, 2008 8:29 pm