Today’s featured article on Wikipedia is about a song. Fine, you might say. “What world-changing song has gained such a position in the hall of fame of one of the internet’s greatest achievements, the collaborative encyclopedia,” you ask?
Gwen Stefani — Cool. A sub-standard pop song if ever there was one. Such a disappointment after Hollaback Girl.
I don’t mean to detract from the article, which actually seems good enough. But the question is, what has this song — a single released only a few months ago — done to deserve ‘featured article’ status?
“Cool” peaked at number thirteen in the U.S., and reached number one in Canada.
Ah, it reached number one in Canada!!
Openpedia.org
5 December 2005 21:17
#1
Running out of featured articles? rn [IMG http://www.doctorvee.co.uk [ doctorvee ] TodayÂ’s featured article on Wikipedia is about a song. Fine, you might say. “What world-changing song has gained… Posted at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)
Jon
23 November 2005 14:42
#2
I fail to see what the problem is. It just seems you’re being pretty damn snobbish over something insignificant.
doctorvee
23 November 2005 15:09
#3
I always get called a snob! But I don’t see why it merits featured-article status. I mean, what’s special about the song? Nothing, as far as I can make out.
Alan
23 November 2005 15:14
#4
“I don’t see why it merits featured-article status.” Why not? It’s all a matter of opinion.
doctorvee
23 November 2005 17:07
#5
Obviously it’s a matter of opinion, but there is no sense at all if the song will have any significant long-term cultural impact. As far as I can tell there hasn’t even been much of a short-term cultural impact. How many songs are more important than this? How many things in general are more important than this? All I’m saying is that it seems a pretty banal and odd choice.
The blurb itself even seems to confirm this:
In other words, it is a pop single that hasn’t actually achieved very much in the grand scheme of things, and there has been no time to tell if it will do in the long-term either. Just another pop single. So why ‘Cool’?
Jon
23 November 2005 22:12
#6
The thing is, this article could just be as important to say some 13 yeard old US girl than the F1 article was to you. It’s just you don’t give a monkey’s arse about this, so it’s no good in your book. Well maybe a lot of people think the F1 article isn’t worth featured article status. The only difference is, you have an interest in it – so it’s all good.
doctorvee
23 November 2005 23:29
#7
I don’t have an issue with the fact that a pop song is a featured article, if that’s what you’re driving at. But, as I keep on saying, why ‘Cool’? Nobody has explained this yet? I get called a snob for suggesting that Cool might not be that important a song? When you compare it with other recent featured articles, it looks kinda silly. There are subjects that have immense amounts of history behind them and a great deal of interesting facts that you learn. But today we get a song that is less than a year old AFAIK, and the most enlightening thing we learn is that she’s cool with her ex-boyfriend and that the single reached number 11 in the UK. Great.
All I’m trying to say is that, if somebody looks back at Wikipedia’s featured articles in a few years’ time, and they see ‘Cool (song)’ sandwiched in between ‘Ta-Yuan’ and ‘Military history of Canada’, they might think it looks a little bit strange. As far as I’m concerned it looks strange enough today.
How many “13-year-old US girls” visit Wikipedia anyway?
Update: To put it further into perspective, if you look at all the featured articles listed under Music, ‘Cool’ is the fourth pop song that wasn’t by The Beatles to be featured. All I’m saying is that it’s a little weird for ‘Cool’ to be placed in this group.
Jon
24 November 2005 10:08
#8
“I don’t have an issue with the fact that a pop song is a featured article, if that’s what you’re driving at. But, as I keep on saying, why ‘Cool’? Nobody has explained this yet? I get called a snob for suggesting that Cool might not be that important a song? When you compare it with other recent featured articles, it looks kinda silly. There are subjects that have immense amounts of history behind them and a great deal of interesting facts that you learn. But today we get a song that is less than a year old AFAIK, and the most enlightening thing we learn is that she’s cool with her ex-boyfriend and that the single reached number 11 in the UK. Great.”
Do you know entirely what method they use to choose the featured article? Is it done by hand, or is it done by an algorithm?
“All I’m trying to say is that, if somebody looks back at Wikipedia’s featured articles in a few years’ time, and they see ‘Cool (song)’ sandwiched in between ‘Ta-Yuan’ and ‘Military history of Canada’, they might think it looks a little bit strange. As far as I’m concerned it looks strange enough today.”
To YOUR eyes. The article does that have the possibility of being interesting to some people, but obviously not you.
“How many “13-year-old US girls†visit Wikipedia anyway?”
Not a lot I’d imagine, but my point was that different demographics aren’t going to be interested in the same thing. That article may have more relevance to someone than the F1 article did.
Alan
24 November 2005 16:21
#9
Calm down lads!
Jon
24 November 2005 18:49
#10
Haha. I didn’t actually mean for this to get heated at all. Apologies on my part for that, duncman
doctorvee
24 November 2005 19:20
#11
Articles are nominated, usually by one of the main writers / editors. People then either approve or object, usually offerring reasons why they object and suggestions as to how the article can improve. I’ve not read the discussion for ‘Cool’, so it could be that a viewpoint similar to mine was put forward, and then somehow resolved.
Dweebenheimer
5 December 2005 04:28
#12
Your “objection” would be ignored. Featured articles are passed based on quality of writing and such.