165:
attacks, the recent
Chinese earthquake and such. My feelings are pro such articles and sections. Knowledge could be at its best if it shows the reactions from country leaders or pledges from nations (and those who did not), Wiki could show itself as being very useful in bringing together the pledges and reactions from numerous sources into one easily navigated article. I fully accept the problem with always showing that the Pope prayed for someone or George W Bush sent his deepest condolences, which is why I am here, really. I think we should have some standards set for these sections, when they can be used, and how to record the international bodies and nations in the aftermath of an event. But there will be claims of "recentism" which need to be looked at of course, which is why I am here! If anyone can help me draw up a policy on "international reactions" or direct me to an existing discussion on the matter, I think we can use consensus to move forward on this issue. Many thanks
31:
716:, which are vested long-term economic interests. All current figures with sufficient importance have nestlings just out of the eggshell that attempt to obtain nutrients by picking at their beeks. Also called yapping dog at heel syndrome to see if he/she drops something usefull, interesting, or nutricious. You can add something similar to animals in extinction to define the recentism of an article and the amount of yapping. (
390:
affects fiction articles a lot) get edited to reflect the "current status" of actors on a show, while ignoring the significance of who was there first and longest (e.g. An actor who was on a show for 7 years being moved to "former cast" in favor of a section of "Current Cast" that represents people are are new to the show that year...favors the new over the long standing).
312:
for newest-oldest besides your personal preference. This does not give you the right to simply edit the page to your choosing. Given that the context of the complementary articles and the fact that there's no reason to change the article, I find no reason to change the article and some reason to keep it the same, therefore I wish to keep it the same.
793:
Something I would like to add to this discussion is a section to draw people's attention to a particular category where recentism is happening on almost every page. That category is sports clubs, in particular
English Football League Clubs which I have been researching, but I have no reason to doubt
698:
Change your point of reference to a position far enough removed so that the topic in question appears to be placed in infinity. The emotional impact of the specific article becomes less and the significance of a multitude of articles and commentaries are conglomerated into one of several directions.
668:
At the same time, nothing in this essay suggests that recent events shouldn't be covered if they meet
Knowledge's content policies. Knowledge articles routinely cover a variety of notable events as soon as they are reliable sources are available. For example, articles routinely cover the deaths of
102:
so you can keep a better eye out on where it is used. The TfD nominator has also added some helpful documentation. This is a useful template, and recentism is a clear problem on
Knowledge, but unless the use of this template is not kept in check, then it is sure to be nominated for deletion again. -
801:
As you get closer to the present date, the roughly one section per one-or-two decades becomes one section per season, and nearly always culminates on the last 2 or 3 seasons that club played having a section each, often longer than sections on whole decades giving minute detail of ins and outs, key
741:
For those that did not grow up in an area with strict english/american linquistical tone and stress control, without internal dictionaries containing at least several similar sounding references, all three sound sufficiently the same to be somewhat indistinquisable. For those that parse, as learned
506:
This is something that separates
Knowledge from other reference works. Traditional encyclopedias perform this process "under the table", out of the public eye. Experienced editors of, say, Britannica must keep track of current events with an eye toward their historical value. And by the time the
465:
Is this actually being done? Are cited web articles being archived by
Knowledge? Or is another entity handling this for Knowledge? Is there perhaps a Wikiproject that does the archiving? If this is done and controlled well, it seems that it would be a tremendous boon to future historians! What
311:
The list you keep trying to invert into newest-oldest order is a list of civilian nuclear accients. It's meant to compliment lists of military nuclear and radiation accidents which are also in oldest-newest order. The reason you can't get me to agree with you is because I don't. You have no reason
674:
To me it reads as a non-controversial description of standard operating procedure that I might normally just BOLDLY insert, but since this is an essay, I think a certain amount of ownership does attach to essays, so I thought I'd ask people where-- should this be added to this essay, or does it
389:
I saw the guideline proposal tag, but could not find an actual discussion going on. If there is one, then maybe the section header should be made more clear. If not, then this can be it. I have no problem supporting the idea of making "RECENT" a guideline. I have seen a lot of articles (and this
805:
I mean in as little as 5 years' time no-one will care about the significance substituting player X for player Y in the Zth minute of a game against A, had on the outcome of B's season in the 2005 League K championship. Not unless we can say that one event had repercussions for decades to come.
164:
sections. There are some fundamental opinions on both sides - those who say it contravenes policy on lists and recentism, those who say it creates a "blog" style section to articles, those who feel it is Wiki's responsbility to record the after effects of world events such as the 11th
September
662:
I've encountered some people who interpret this essay as meaning that
Knowledge should avoid covering recent events at all until some time period has passed. And, hypothetically, one could make a good argument that any news under 24- or 72-hours old should be left to Wikinews and only later
347:
without discussion. Ignoring the obvious systemic bias here, guess what editors suggest we should do if she loses? Why move it back of course... Perhaps next time
Britney Spears has a melt down, we should redirect Spears to Britney's page. We can just move it back in a few days right?Ā :-P
840:
as an example, it would be nice for someone to synthesize the data there into a more readable article, but NOR says this is impossible until we have secondary sources providing this synthesis, which may never happen. So not only does the article remain as little more than a
669:
notable individuals, major natural disasters, outbreaks of war, election results, etc. Just as editors should not devote too much weight to event due to recentness, nor should they devote too little coverage to notable, verifiable events due to recentness either.
797:
Club
Histories start off usually with sections titled Pre-War, 1930s, 1945-1979 etc. dependent on the club's rise and fall, usually with more written about periods when they were winning more. This is to be expected, the problems start around the 1990s.
411:
I agree with you. Also, this talk page needs to have some serious clean-up and archival work. The actual discusion that the tag is talking about took place 3 and half years ago. Most people consider it a policy now, so I am going to remove the discusion
845:, it is not possible to improve it without violating NOR. The result is Knowledge may come to be dominated by timelines of recent-ish events without meaningful interpretation. Is there any way around this problem without resorting to deletionism? --
98:. The nomination has now been withdrawn, but the examples presented by the nominator clearly show that the template is subject to misuse. I have modified the template so that it now automatically places any articles containing the template in
460:"If temporary reference sources can thus be identified as important and put in a web archive for future reference before it is lost, this benefits the Knowledge community directly, as well as the larger community it is intended to serve."
542:
An encyclopedia is the result of an evolutionary process, current events into historical facts, recentism into history. And for the first time this process is visible thanks to Knowledge. Is this not an historical event itself?
707:
For any individual still living, with entities in relation that knew or reference that individual, recent can be as long as 200 years for personal involvement or a single moment if there is no personal involvement. Examples are
184:). For example, after a disaster group together offers of aid separate from messages of condolence, (2) avoid repetitive text. This often will mean being sparing with quotes, if a lot of leaders are saying similar things.
157:
860:
Interesting you cited an article that I have been following for many years. I believe the article has already been "synthesized" in sections 1, 2 and 3, although you might want to cut down the wordiness, perhaps. Anyway,
597:
I think this is quite a poor example. We should find something better, which doesn't compare apples to oranges like this example. I'll see if I come up with something better. Right now, I'm thinking about
507:
next publishing rolls around, the current events have evolved into historical articles suitable as encyclopedic content. In Knowledge this process is out in the open, continuous, ongoing.
204:
Please give some feedback on the follwing issue. Is a chronological list, which starts with the most recent events, and ends with the oldest events in a list a variant of recentism? See
865:
is not, to my way of thinking, an example of Recentism because it is now no longer Recent. The effect of the trial might be mentioned a little stronger both in this article and in the
95:
430:. Unless we have an official guideline proposal process (which there has not been one since the tag was put up in October), then this essay will never be taking seriously.
519:
Evidently the Britannica people think so. And yet, isn't it odd that inside this here Wikinews article Britannica at one and the same time shows its disgust for Knowledge
248:, the more important an article is, the more visible - more on top - it should be. I guess that a recent nuclear incident is more important than one fifty years ago? --
123:
99:
560:
591:
663:
integrated into Knowledge itself. But I don't think that's what this essay is suggesting. To clarify, I thought about adding text such as the following:
771:
862:
837:
762:
I've noticed a number of soap opera related articles have sections devoted to things like "Current main crew" or "Current cast members" (ex.
639:
Sometimes a quick edit can remove the most flagrant example of recentism, even if the fix is not of the most elegant nature. I submit to you
245:
368:
140:
813:
518:
205:
71:
59:
579:
It seems to me that an article on any serious war has every reason to be as long if not longer as an article on a single individual.
230:
where it starts with ancient China, proceeds to the spread into the west in the 1700s, and ends with the status in recent decades.
622:
375:
ends up being a guideline, it might be useful to incorporate some of this balancing viewpoint. Any feedback is appreciated.
273:
is far more important than anything which has happened since. But importance isn't really how we organize lists; see
767:
763:
38:
599:
552:
475:
134:
47:
17:
733:
Recentism - From re-cent, current affairs, to close in time to now. Something to do with a cent, not a nickle.
817:
367:
I don't think I've linked my essay about recentism here before, but it's come up in a few discussions; see
747:
721:
586:
742:
in highschool, to define the meaning and the usage of words in another language, that creates confusion.(
180:
I guess a few things which spring to mind are: (1) provide more than just a list of facts or quotes (per
874:
869:
article, but I can't see how Recentism applies here. Maybe you could elucidate? Sincerely, your friend,
680:
648:
603:
317:
502:, I enjoyed the article, and I love this subject! Here is why this subject must become a guideline...
313:
294:
850:
809:
610:
545:
468:
832:
The phenomenon of recentism is not especially bad in itself; also, I understand the reasons for the
614:
618:
417:
372:
353:
170:
128:
111:
270:
160:
I believe it is time for editors and administratiors to get together and discuss what to do with
88:
842:
694:
Use the scientific method to test the article. The test of time, the test of space (distance).
779:
743:
717:
580:
572:
440:
400:
282:
235:
189:
870:
866:
676:
644:
568:
302:
253:
213:
878:
854:
821:
783:
751:
725:
684:
652:
626:
483:
445:
421:
405:
379:
357:
321:
306:
286:
257:
239:
217:
193:
174:
146:
113:
846:
293:
new. LIST#Organization doesn't come up with a guideline, and I cant get to agreement with
735:
Resentism - From re-sent, an emtion dealing with dislike, Some form of come again smell.
413:
349:
274:
166:
104:
833:
376:
224:
181:
291:
I agree, but since it is a list, it needs some sort of ordering, and I find new: -->
775:
431:
391:
278:
231:
185:
566:
344:
298:
249:
223:
Oldest to newest generally strikes me as best (different from, say, a blog, per
209:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
836:
policy. However, the intersection of these is ugly. For example, taking the
709:
343:
which had been a disambiguation for a long while was changed to a redirect to
499:
700:
737:
Resendism - From re-send, to send again, and again, and again, and again.
643:, where a new Section title seemed to take care of the situation. Yours,
158:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_2008_Sichuan_earthquake
713:
789:
Recentism being particularly prevalent on pages for sports clubs/teams
340:
658:
Anti-recentism: separate essay or a good addition to this one?
25:
533:
Could it have anything to do with the fact that Knowledge
640:
427:
228:
426:
The proposal was three months ago (October 27, 2008),
246:Knowledge:WikiProject_Usability/Areas#Architecture
511:Perhaps the fact that anybody can edit Knowledge
156:Following the discussion at this deletion page
124:Knowledge:Notability does not degrade over time
100:Category:Articles slanted towards recent events
774:). Are these sections examples of recentism?
8:
764:The_Young_and_the_Restless#Current_main_crew
84:Can someone here please keep track of how
80:Be careful using the Recentism template
772:List of Days of our Lives cast members
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
863:Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004
838:Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004
675:better fit as being its own essay? --
7:
369:User:Dcoetzee/The value of recentism
794:the same would apply to any club.
336:Dumbest example of recentism ever?
206:List of civilian nuclear accidents
24:
200:Recentism in chronological lists?
227:). See for example the lede to
29:
768:The_Young_and_the_Restless#Cast
690:A small guidline for recentism.
635:A quick fix could be preferable
802:players, key games and so on.
758:"Current" sections in articles
685:00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
454:Benefits of recentist articles
94:is used? It's misuse led to a
1:
879:19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
855:19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
784:10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
627:13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
526:becoming more like Knowledge!
539:each day as Britannica does?
466:about the copyright issue?
446:02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
422:02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
406:19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
380:20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
147:09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
752:12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
726:13:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
358:02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
275:Knowledge:LIST#Organization
114:22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
895:
822:14:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
592:15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
562:09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
484:06:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
126:. For your consideration.
600:Tenerife airport disaster
653:23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
363:Value of recentism essay
322:22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
307:13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
292:old better than old: -->
287:01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
258:20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
240:19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
218:11:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
194:14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
175:18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
18:Knowledge talk:Recentism
731:Resentism and Recentism
537:four times as many hits
530:What's up with that?
498:I like this new word,
493:of:Ā recentism --: -->
162:international reaction
152:International Reaction
604:Air France Flight 447
42:of past discussions.
703:is always an issue.
373:Knowledge:Recentism
571:being longer than
567:What's wrong with
385:Guideline Proposal
271:Chernobyl disaster
225:Knowledge:NOT#NEWS
828:Recentism and NOR
812:comment added by
630:
613:comment added by
573:George Washington
559:
482:
443:
438:
403:
398:
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
886:
867:Pitcairn Islands
824:
629:
607:
589:
583:
569:2006 Lebanon War
557:
550:
544:
480:
473:
467:
441:
436:
432:
401:
396:
392:
295:User:Nailedtooth
145:
143:
137:
131:
109:
93:
87:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
830:
807:
791:
760:
692:
660:
637:
608:
587:
581:
577:
553:
546:
540:
523:expounds about
496:
476:
469:
456:
434:
394:
387:
365:
338:
202:
173:
154:
141:
135:
129:
127:
121:
105:
91:
85:
82:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
892:
890:
882:
881:
829:
826:
790:
787:
759:
756:
738:
736:
734:
732:
705:
704:
691:
688:
672:
671:
659:
656:
636:
633:
632:
631:
576:
565:
561:_history": -->
534:
532:
509:
508:
495:
487:
463:
462:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
386:
383:
364:
361:
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
263:
262:
261:
260:
201:
198:
197:
196:
169:
153:
150:
120:
117:
96:TfD nomination
81:
78:
75:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
891:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
844:
839:
835:
827:
825:
823:
819:
815:
814:86.148.34.114
811:
803:
799:
795:
788:
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
757:
755:
753:
749:
745:
739:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
702:
697:
696:
695:
689:
687:
686:
682:
678:
670:
666:
665:
664:
657:
655:
654:
650:
646:
642:
634:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
605:
601:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
584:
574:
570:
564:
563:
558:
556:
551:
548:
538:
531:
529:
528:
527:
522:
517:a drawback.
516:
515:
505:
504:
503:
501:
492:
488:
486:
485:
481:
479:
474:
471:
461:
458:
457:
453:
447:
444:
439:
437:
429:
428:See this edit
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
399:
397:
384:
382:
381:
378:
374:
370:
362:
360:
359:
355:
351:
346:
342:
335:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
163:
159:
151:
149:
148:
144:
138:
132:
125:
119:Related essay
118:
116:
115:
112:
110:
108:
101:
97:
90:
79:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
831:
804:
800:
796:
792:
761:
744:Fractalhints
740:
730:
718:Fractalhints
706:
693:
673:
667:
661:
641:this example
638:
582:sephia karta
578:
555:
547:
541:
536:
525:
524:
520:
513:
512:
510:
497:
490:
478:
470:
464:
459:
442:(Contact me)
433:
402:(Contact me)
393:
388:
366:
339:
203:
161:
155:
122:
106:
83:
65:
43:
37:
871:GeorgeLouis
808:āPreceding
677:Alecmconroy
645:GeorgeLouis
609:āPreceding
535:gets fully
500:"recentism"
345:Sarah Palin
314:Nailedtooth
36:This is an
847:Kevin Saff
710:Copyrights
182:WP:NOT#DIR
843:proseline
701:Economics
615:Cochonfou
491:"process"
414:Jojhutton
350:Nil Einne
107:52 Pickup
89:Recentism
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
810:unsigned
623:contribs
611:unsigned
549:^)Ā Paine
472:^)Ā Paine
435:BIGNOLE
395:BIGNOLE
377:Dcoetzee
130:Lawrence
776:Rocksey
714:Patents
494:history
279:Kingdon
244:As per
232:Kingdon
186:Kingdon
167:doktorb
39:archive
834:WP:NOR
770:, and
412:tag.--
299:Eiland
250:Eiland
210:Eiland
588:di mi
371:. If
341:Palin
297:. --
171:words
16:<
875:talk
851:talk
818:talk
780:talk
748:talk
722:talk
712:and
681:talk
649:talk
619:talk
489:The
418:talk
354:talk
318:talk
303:talk
283:talk
254:talk
236:talk
214:talk
190:talk
606:.
602:vs
521:AND
208:--
877:)
853:)
820:)
782:)
766:,
754:)
750:)
728:)
724:)
683:)
651:)
625:)
621:ā¢
585:|
554:(^
514:is
477:(^
420:)
356:)
320:)
305:)
285:)
277:.
256:)
238:)
216:)
192:)
133:Ā§
92:}}
86:{{
873:(
849:(
816:(
778:(
746:(
720:(
679:(
647:(
617:(
575:?
416:(
352:(
316:(
301:(
281:(
252:(
234:(
212:(
188:(
142:e
139:/
136:t
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.