6 millionth article

[Jans Hammer]

So the 6m article happens to be a well written article by a woman about a woman:

link

Chris Troutman of Signpost asks if this was "political". Immediately repudiated by the finder of the 6m article.
link

Thoughts?

[Eric Corbett]

So the 6m article happens to be a well written article by a woman about a woman:

link

Chris Troutman of Signpost asks if this was "political". Immediately repudiated by the finder of the 6m article.
link

Thoughts?

Sheer luck if the six millionth article is even half decent. But no doubt it'll soon turn into the gray goo that almost all of the other 5,999,999 articles already have.

Having taken the trouble to read the article, it's very poorly written, so an appropriate flagship for a project that has no concept of, or regard for, quality.

[Midsize Jake]

Having taken the trouble to read the article, it's very poorly written, so an appropriate flagship for a project that has no concept of, or regard for, quality.

Maria Elise Turner Lauder (T-H-L)

User:Rosiestep (T-C-L) is a co-founder of the Women in Red, so presumably this article is part of that effort, which might explain why they've chosen it — the specific number is fuzzy enough (due to deletions and page-moves) that they probably had a choice of at least two or three dozen that they could have named as the 6 millionth article.

But as for how well-written it is, to me it's a good example the now well-established WiR style that puts the need to establish notability over all other priorities, one of which would be clear, smoothly-flowing prose. So I wouldn't say it's poorly written; it's just not well-written in the conventional sense, since the WiR style tends to be highly utilitarian and "matter-of-fact." It nearly always translates into a series of essentialist statements that are all directly cited and organized under a fairly standard structural blueprint, and very little else. But it isn't necessarily bad, especially if the sources being cited are worth anything (and also given that one is interested in the subject to begin with).

At least there are no glaring spelling or grammatical errors — I might make a few punctuation adjustments, but those problems are barely noticeable to the average reader.

Beyond that, I guess we could always argue as to whether or not the people writing these articles could, or would, do a better job of it if they didn't feel the constraint of having to prioritize notability-establishment. I'd assume they would, personally, but that's just me.

[Eric Corbett]

At least there are no glaring spelling or grammatical errors — I might make a few punctuation adjustments, but those problems are barely noticeable to the average reader.

Really? So you don't see any problem with "... and the Queen presented Lauder her royal portrait and autograph"?

[Midsize Jake]

Really? So you don't see any problem with "... and the Queen presented Lauder her royal portrait and autograph"?

Sure I do, and I would agree that the word "with" should be added, but it isn't glaring because it's so easy to correctly assume who the determining pronoun ("her") refers to.

IMO that's a case where the writer is probably making a minor error for the sake of avoiding the passive voice — it would be clearer to write "Lauder was presented with the Queen's royal portrait and autograph," but unfortunately people are taught to avoid such constructions. (It's also possible that this is closer to what the source says, perhaps to emphasize that the Queen made the presentation personally.)

[Eric Corbett]

Really? So you don't see any problem with "... and the Queen presented Lauder her royal portrait and autograph"?

Sure I do, and I would agree that the word "with" should be added, but it isn't glaring because it's so easy to correctly assume who the determining pronoun ("her") refers to.

IMO that's a case where the writer is probably making a minor error for the sake of avoiding the passive voice — it would be clearer to write "Lauder was presented with the Queen's royal portrait and autograph," but unfortunately people are taught to avoid such constructions. (It's also possible that this is closer to what the source says, perhaps to emphasize that the Queen made the presentation personally.)

Glaring =/= Easy to correct.

[MrErnie]

As noted in the linked discussion, that may not actually be the 6 millionth article. The actual 6 millionth article was created 18:59 UTC January 23, 2020. A check at that timestep shows 15 actual articles created at the moment. Since the software apparently doesn't tell you exactly which one it was, there was a discussion among editors here to "decide."

Of the Rosiestep article, Wake Up Drink says "I found it to be one of the five potential candidates in my review... and all things considered it would look good for the project (it's decently sourced and lengthy), make the Foundation happy, make a good media story, and potentially cause more women to join the project. So, from where I'm standing, I think Rosiestep got this one! — Coffee."

Captain Eek agrees "Not only do I find it very likely to have been the 6 millionth, within 3 articles by my count, I agree that it is the best sourced and written of the possibilities, and I think that its focus on an underrepresented Woman in Red, written by Rosiestep no less, makes it the perfect choice. CaptainEek "

[arthur]

Hmm, 6 × 106, probably warrants a T-shirt or a DYK, or something.

[Ritchie333]

Glaring =/= Easy to correct.

So write your unblock request / appeal to arbcom, get unblocked, and fix it. Chop, chop!

[Osborne]

So the 6m article happens to be a well written article by a woman about a woman:

link

Chris Troutman of Signpost asks if this was "political". Immediately repudiated by the finder of the 6m article.
link

Thoughts?

Some philosophers and theological doctrines say that nothing is by accident. Well, those are "just" theories probably for most wikipedians, so let's approach this from the perspective of the academically canon probability theory.

So the 6 millionth article is written by the well-known Rosiestep... co-founder of Women In Red... when the Foundation's primary message is addressing the gender gap. As an extra Maria Elise Turner Lauder (T-H-L) was a philanthropist. Very good choice, I would say.

The chance of this happening by accident is tiny, but why should it happen by accident? It's a milestone and Wikipedia has every right to paint that milestone with its own colors, not some random graffiti. If I were one of the operators who organized this, I would have done the same. The choice of the 6 millionth article matters.

[MrErnie]

So the 6m article happens to be a well written article by a woman about a woman:

link

Chris Troutman of Signpost asks if this was "political". Immediately repudiated by the finder of the 6m article.
link

Thoughts?

Some philosophers and theological doctrines say that nothing is by accident. Well, those are "just" theories probably for most wikipedians, so let's approach this from the perspective of the academically canon probability theory.

So the 6 millionth article is written by the well-known Rosiestep... co-founder of Women In Red... when the Foundation's primary message is addressing the gender gap. As an extra Maria Elise Turner Lauder (T-H-L) was a philanthropist. Very good choice, I would say.

The chance of this happening by accident is tiny, but why should it happen by accident? It's a milestone and Wikipedia has every right to paint that milestone with its own colors, not some random graffiti. If I were one of the operators who organized this, I would have done the same. The choice of the 6 millionth article matters.

Note in my comment above that it may not be the actual 6 millionth article. It was determined by editors at that talk page to make this one officially the 6 millionth for reasons, and note that other articles were created at the same time.

[Poetlister]

My favourite quote from the Signpost discussion is "Casliber spent the hours leading up to it doing nothing but writing bunches of new articles on sea snakes to get the counter up to 6 million. Esoteric yes, but it's helping to build an encyclopedia." Casliber is, as admins go, sane and a good content contributor. But what on Earth was the hurry in getting to 6,000,000?

[Jans Hammer]

My favourite quote from the Signpost discussion is "Casliber spent the hours leading up to it doing nothing but writing bunches of new articles on sea snakes to get the counter up to 6 million. Esoteric yes, but it's helping to build an encyclopedia." Casliber is, as admins go, sane and a good content contributor. But what on Earth was the hurry in getting to 6,000,000?

IIRC, I think he claimed the 5m article creation.

[Eric Corbett]

Glaring =/= Easy to correct.

So write your unblock request / appeal to arbcom, get unblocked, and fix it. Chop, chop!

You're having a laugh!

I never have, and I never will, appeal against any block. But ArbCom could always apologise, and I might consider going back.

[Eric Corbett]

My favourite quote from the Signpost discussion is "Casliber spent the hours leading up to it doing nothing but writing bunches of new articles on sea snakes to get the counter up to 6 million. Esoteric yes, but it's helping to build an encyclopedia." Casliber is, as admins go, sane and a good content contributor. But what on Earth was the hurry in getting to 6,000,000?

IIRC, I think he claimed the 5m article creation.

And there's your answer. Fame, of a sort.

[Eric Corbett]

Captain Eek agrees "Not only do I find it very likely to have been the 6 millionth, within 3 articles by my count, I agree that it is the best sourced and written of the possibilities, and I think that its focus on an underrepresented Woman in Red, written by Rosiestep no less, makes it the perfect choice. CaptainEek "

It would have been better had it not been full of plagiarism, but in that respect it probably makes a fitting tribute to the dishonest waste of effort that is Wikipedia.

[Osborne]

I never have, and I never will, appeal against any block. But ArbCom could always apologise, and I might consider going back.

I've heard that appeal from - you might remember - Kumioko. Ask him, how it's working out for him

But what on Earth was the hurry in getting to 6,000,000?

Yeah, I've had the same thought.

[Jans Hammer]

I never have, and I never will, appeal against any block. But ArbCom could always apologise, and I might consider going back.

I've heard that appeal from - you might remember - Kumioko. Ask him, how it's working out for him

But what on Earth was the hurry in getting to 6,000,000?

Yeah, I've had the same thought.

Imminent Signpost publication deadline?

[Eric Corbett]

I never have, and I never will, appeal against any block. But ArbCom could always apologise, and I might consider going back.

I've heard that appeal from - you might remember - Kumioko. Ask him, how it's working out for him

That wasn't an appeal.

[Jans Hammer]

So yeah, bottom line, political as hell and borderline shady.

link

[Earthy Astringent]

So the 6m article happens to be a well written article by a woman about a woman:

link

Chris Troutman of Signpost asks if this was "political". Immediately repudiated by the finder of the 6m article.
link

Thoughts?

Some philosophers and theological doctrines say that nothing is by accident. Well, those are "just" theories probably for most wikipedians, so let's approach this from the perspective of the academically canon probability theory.

So the 6 millionth article is written by the well-known Rosiestep... co-founder of Women In Red... when the Foundation's primary message is addressing the gender gap. As an extra Maria Elise Turner Lauder (T-H-L) was a philanthropist. Very good choice, I would say.

The chance of this happening by accident is tiny, but why should it happen by accident? It's a milestone and Wikipedia has every right to paint that milestone with its own colors, not some random graffiti. If I were one of the operators who organized this, I would have done the same. The choice of the 6 millionth article matters.

It’s just as much an accident as is every Wikipedia contest and award. Like Wikipedian of the Year.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia Crosses Major Milestone, Now Has Over 6 Million Articles in English
Following the English version, Wikipedia has about 2.3 million articles in German and 2.1 million articles in French.

News18.com