Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more...: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:07, 1 August 2018

Revision as of 19:39, 19 August 2018

Line 12:

And any combination of the above.

There is never any suggestion of what the ideal situation should be - – How many chemists we should cover? Should we delete some of our coverage of Britney Spears? And of course never any offer to leap into the breach and help. (One early example says no-one will read it.)

Apart from the logical fallacy (assuming that because X is better covered than Y, Y is badly covered), these claims are often - as I like to say - ''plain wrong''.

Apart from the logical fallacy (assuming that because X is better covered than Y, Y is badly covered), these claims are often - – as I like to say - – ''plain wrong''.

==Wikipedia has more information on ''Pokémon'' than on the Bible==

Line 52 ⟶ 51:

"Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in ''The Simpsons''? "{{Break}}

Note the MFW's now number {{PAGESINCATEGORY|Mexican feminist writers}}, while the Simps are still at 45. And why not compare American feminist writers at {{PAGESINCATEGORY|American feminist writers}}. How many notable Mexican feminist writers are there? Who is capable of writing about them, without serious research? Why are those people not contributing - – how come we are (implicitly) blaming the people who ''are contributing''?

Pop quiz: name as many Mexican feminist writers as you can. Name as many ''Simpsons'' characters as you can.

Line 66 ⟶ 65:

"[T]he entry for "[[memes]]" is as long as the entry for [[Immanuel Kant]]. (Needless to say, there's no entry for [[Mary Midgley]]. We could go on, but you get the general idea)."

* Source: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/wiki_fiddlers_big_book/ Orlowski] at [[The Register]]. (Way back in 2004 - – he also explains that Wikipedians are the only people reading Wikipedia - – even then that was patently false.)

* Verdict: False then, and false now.

* Reason: Immanuel Kant at 122k is more than twice the size of [[Meme]] at 53k ([[memes]] has been a redirect since 2002). Moreover, we have 34 pages in the category Immanuel Kant, not counting 29 pages on Kantianism and 49 pages on Kantian philosophers. Even in July 2004 Immanuel Kant was a longer article, if not by as large a ratio - – and significantly many of the subsidiary articles existed. However, for a period of some weeks ending 9 June 2004, when a substantial chunk of text was deleted from the meme article, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meme&oldid=3999843 meme article] (19k prose size, 3,081 words) was indeed longer than the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant&oldid=4088905 Kant biography] (14k prose size, 2,222 words).

==More articles on female porn actresses than female poets==

Line 85 ⟶ 84:

* Source: Collida and Kolbe (29 April 2013) [http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias-culture-of-sexism-its-not-just-for-novelists/ Wikipedia's Culture of Sexism- It's Not Just for Novelists] Wikipediocracy

* Verdict: False then and false now.

* Reason: Collida and Kolbe only looked at the ''categories'' - – in an article covering the dispute about mainstream "female" subcategories - – and covering the early stage of populating them, the authors neglected to consider American female poets still (only) categorised in [[:Category:American poets]]. There are currently {{PAGESINCATEGORY|American women poets}} American women poets compared with {{PAGESINCATEGORY|American pornographic film actresses}} American female pornographic film actors.

==More articles on ''Lord of the Rings'' than on Sub-Saharan Africa==

Line 94 ⟶ 93:

* Verdict: False. Very very false. "The counts may be wrong" (Jimmy Wales 8 August 2014)

* Reason: Look it just is, OK?

* Real reason: At the time of writing there are 703 pages in the LOTR category according to Catscan with subcategories set to a depth of 7. On [[:Category:Sub-Saharan Africa]] the tool ''fails'' with <code>maximum number of objects exceeded</code> even with a depth of 4! With a depth of 3 there are 21,076 articles and 778 categories -&nbsp;– i.e. more ''categories'' on SSA then ''articles'' on LOTR.

* Even more: If you exclude [[WP:redirect]]s the LOTR list reduces to 191, the SSA to 21,050, outnumbering the LOTR by more than a factor of 100.

* Commentary: KingCantona says it best at [http://www.rollonfriday.com/Discussion/MainDiscussion/tabid/79/Id/10382711/currentPage/0/Default.aspx Rollonfriday.com] "[[One does not simply walk into Mordor|One does not simply]] write an article about Sub-Saharan Africa".

Line 100 ⟶ 99:

==A zillion times more articles on 21st century porn stars than on 21st century women writers==

"[R]ight now, I suspect articles on 21st century porn stars outnumber those on 21st century women writers by a factor of a zillion to one" {{Break}}

* Source: [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence]] -&nbsp;– [[User:Montanabw]]

* Verdict: False, assuming a "zillion" is greater than 1/8

* Reason: We have 822 members of [[:Category:21st-century women writers]] and 733 living or recently dead members of [[:Category:20th-century women writers]] (including 4 levels of sub-cats) -&nbsp;– so some 1555 entries -&nbsp;– these categories don't tell the whole story, though, taking out duplicates and adding in other women writers who lived past the year 2000 (for example [[Delia Sherman]]) and are not in these categories we get 11,620. [[List of pornographic actresses by decade]] lists 30 actresses in the 2000s and 18 in the 2010s, giving a total of 48 articles, however this list was eviscerated recently. The entire category [[:Category:Pornographic film actors]], including subcategories to a depth of 4 has only 1409 articles about actors (male and female), of whom at most 1353 were alive during the 21st century. Even ignoring the "zillion" and counting male pornographic actors (and not just "stars") we have eight times more 21st century women writers than 21st century porn stars

==See also==