Wikipedia talk:The deadline is now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.

why is this confined to "important" articles?[edit]

If the reasoning differs between "important" and "unimportant" articles, it should be explained in this essay. I don't see such difference, so the "deadline is now" for any article, not just for the arbitrarily selected ones. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting!
I suppose my thinking was that most people would say some of Wikipedia's are about unimportant subjects. Therefore they are not receptive to the idea that false content constitutes an emergency in those articles. I deliberately left it open for the reader to decide what is important.
Speaking personally, I don't think it is a big deal if the plot summary for season 4 of House inaccurately describes the plot. But I do think it is a big deal if a corporation uses an article to puff up their brand. Risingrain (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic Another thing. The distinction between more and less important articles is something which already has currency on Wikpedia as described in that link. Risingrain (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand that this essay is written not as a thought experiment, but to actually be referred to. I guess that in the light of WP:ignore all rules you don't aim to write a step-by-step procedure for everyone to follow to the last letter, but just an essay. That is, the use case typical for 90% of uses is that someone says on a talk page or in an edit summary: "Here, I've fixed this-and-that per WP:NOW". Here, confinement only to the important article's becomes pretty much unwanted and confusing, because that person already implicitly asserted that the article is important (for that person): it is important because they care to work on it, and they care to point out that they want misinformation to be fixed "now". They are the Wikipedia, and they are the decisive importance indicator. Yes, maybe they are die-hard fans of Season 4 of House, and they prefer Wikipedia to spread less information, but verifiable, than to spread a large amount of misinformation on the subject - why on Earth should this essay question the very proper behavior?
PS. If you saw Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria you also need to see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that it would overcomplicate things if someone could say "WP:NOW only applies to important articles". I have changed it to eliminate that possibility. Risingrain (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thumbs up Looks great. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The deadline is now (for a different reason)[edit]

The deadline may also be now because Wikipedia may potentially it may be people's only source of unbiased information (through projects like Wikipedia Zero), it's seems to me to be important to give them as much useful information as possible. Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing articles[edit]

Every day we retard the creation of a Missing Article, is a day lost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC).