Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Announces Their 10 Longest Featured Articles (wikimedia.org)

The Wikimedia blog shared a list of their ten longest "featured" articles, highlighting their collection of more than 4,700 articles which have rigorously reviewed before being awarded a gold star icon certifying them as "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." The ed17 writes: Elvis Presley leads the list, coming in at 17,659 words. In today's strangest juxtaposition, 'History of Poland (1945 - 89)' features just behind. A pope, Michael Jackson, and the Maya civilization also land spots.
The third-longest featured article covers the Manhattan Project, with a majority of the article covering the development of the first nuclear weapons, as well as a discussion about their post-war impact. Among all of their featured articles, Wikimedia calls it "perhaps one of the more controversial."

6 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Change of opinion by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I want information on a free software project, Wikipedia is almost always a better source of information than the project's official website. Wikipedia will give an overview of the project, a short history, and list some applications. The project's home page will have the changelog, recent project news, and press releases, none of which is useful to a potential new user. Most software project websites are even worse than university websites.

  2. Re:Elvis? Seriously? by Rei · · Score: 2

    Maybe we should jazz up the titles of the other ones to get more people to read them. May I recommend "Harry Potter and the History of Poland (1945-89)"?

    --
    Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
  3. Other top tens... by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    I'm also pleased to announce that, in addition to there being 10 longest featured articles, there are also 10 shortest featured articles. There are 10 longest non-featured articles and 10 shortest non-featured articles too. There are 10 articles with the most pictures, and I would dare say there are at least 10 articles without any pictures at all! There are 10 articles containing the longest average word length, and 10 articles containing the shortest average word length. And, if you find all that fascinating, there are also 10 articles with the most edits, and 10 articles with the least edits.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Other top tens... by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      I'm also pleased to announce that, in addition to there being 10 longest featured articles, there are also 10 shortest featured articles. There are 10 longest non-featured articles and 10 shortest non-featured articles too. There are 10 articles with the most pictures, and I would dare say there are at least 10 articles without any pictures at all! There are 10 articles containing the longest average word length, and 10 articles containing the shortest average word length. And, if you find all that fascinating, there are also 10 articles with the most edits, and 10 articles with the least edits.

      I'm most interested in the shortest of the longest five of the shortest ten articles.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. "rigorously reviewed" ?! by sittingnut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    " 4,700 articles which have rigorously reviewed before being awarded a gold star icon certifying them as "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer."
    this includes english article on 'british empire', a poster child for bias among entrenched editors at wikimedia

    attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s), regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia .

    ironically some, not all, of the censored material in this article is accepted and available in wikipedia's specialized articles on the subjects like slavery, famines, war crimes, etc. however even parts of sentences with links to specialized articles are censored. contrast this treatment to inclusion of such details in main wikipedia articles about equally horrible actions by similarly brutish regimes like on ussr, communist china, nazi germany, etc. .

    even discussion page for british empire article is censored to prevent discussion of sources.

    careful examination of history pages, of both the article and discussion page, in date sequence changes will confirm this.

    1. Re:"rigorously reviewed" ?! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s), regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia .

      What part of "history is written by the victors" is so hard to understand?

      The United States has killed millions of people in its existence, and continues to do so to this day. This isn't even history, it is current events.

      https://youtu.be/K4NRJoCNHIs