Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Humanities

< Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

Humanities

edit
Nominated on 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC); needs 18 votes by 26 January.

I came across this as one of our "Core Topics" articles for Wikipedia 1.0, I was amazed to see so little on this key subject

Support:

  1. Walkerma 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gflores Talk 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Witty lama 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC) This DEFINATELY deserves to be a good article.[reply]
  4. Silence 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KingTT 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Woo, finally something to which I might be able to contribute significantly![reply]
  8. Jcmaco 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ragesoss 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dvyost 20:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Fenice 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --kralahome 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutralitytalk 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Magicmonster 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Aaronwinborn 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mikkerpikker 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Constantine Evans 08:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Senappp 14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AKConstant 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Would this really be a "stub or nonexistent article" as this page requires? If not, shouldnt it be at article improvement drive?--Urthogie
    • I accept that this is a fairly long stub, but I consider stub to be a relative term. A major topic like this should have a really long article – much, much longer than this. Also, it is comparable in length with many of the other candidates (and shorter than a couple of them). Walkerma 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that this article is absolutely, without a doubt, indisputably, in every sense of the word a stub. If you take out the three lists and the quote, which make up the bulk of the page, this entire article is only this long:
"The humanities are a group of academic subjects united by a commitment to studying aspects of the human condition and a qualitative approach that generally prevents a single paradigm from coming to define any discipline. In academia, the humanities are generally considered to be, along with the social sciences and the natural sciences, one of three major components of the liberal arts and sciences. While the precise definition of the humanities can be contentious, the following disciplines are generally recognized to form their core: History, while also considered at times a social science, is one of the most prominent humanities in the United States as measured by foundation contributions, National Endowment for the Humanities projects, and National Humanities Centers fellowships. Some expand the definition to include other studies of human life using qualitative description and analysis, including at large parts of the following fields: The 1980 United States Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities described the humanities in its report, The Humanities in American Life: Scholars working in the humanities are sometimes described as humanists, but this can be confusing, as it also describes a philosophical position (humanism) which some antihumanist scholars in the humanities reject."
  • If something that short doesn't qualify as a stub, most things listed on this page don't. Also, this article doesn't even have any references! Just because it's not a substub doesn't mean it's not a stub. -Silence 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's beyond obvious that it's a stub. Why waste time marking it, especially if that status will soon change when CotW deals with it? Putting things in stub categories one of the most wastefully time-consuming activities on Wikipedia, as there's no hard line between what is or isn't a "stub" and it's often purely a matter of how much somebody cares about an article getting beyond stub-level: if he cares little, he may not bother to put a stub tag on a stub; if he cares a fair amount, he may put a stub tag on; and if he cares a lot and has the capacity to, he won't bother putting the stub tag on because he'll improve it from stub to full-fledged article himself. It's all just overcategorization nonsense. Every Wikipedia article is a stub in one way or another: in that it needs expansion and improvement. Stubhood is a matter of degrees, not either/or, and this article just happens to be more stubby than many. Who cares? What matters is improving these articles, not debating exactly how much of a stub they are or aren't. In the time it takes to argue this out, we could simply put the work in and make the article a nonstub by anyone's standards ourselves! -Silence
Stubs help. For example, I often go to stub categories of subjects I understand. It encourage collaboration just like CotW does. By the way, dont assume it will get nominated. It should have it while its a stub, methinks.--Urthogie 08:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognizing that this is only the second posting I have made, (not knowing exactly what labeling this article as a stub does), I am a professional working at a "Humanities Council," and I have to agree that the Humanities article lacks the depth of content it deserves. I added a couple of paragraphs with links to other sources and agree that what matters is improving the article. -AKConstant 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/Humanities&oldid=749554760"