Proposal talk:30,000,000 English Wikipedia articles by the year 2029

From Strategic Planning

My thoughts on this

"We have to get 30,000,000 articles by January 1, 2029 so that Wikipedia can establish itself in future history" Wikipedia is already established in future history, switching off our critical faculties and allowing in any and every bit of crud is more likely to demote that place to a mere footnote.

"Trying to get people to create articles about stuff that is more future-oriented than acceptable in the past. For example, we need to start accepting more articles about hypothetical inventions/events" Allow any fiction, including stuff just made up? That would be a sure way to devalue what we already have.

"(in addition to future celebrities that are currently just the children of current celebrities) and more stuff involving dates in the future." Being the child of a celebrity doesn't quite guarantee that one becomes a celebrity, so this would breach en:WP:SPECULATION.

"English Wikipedia must keep growing at an exponential rate" - it isn't and probably shouldn't. "if it is to gather all the information needed about the upcoming Singularity" Que? "and solve the problems of global warming, overpopulation, and how to better prepare our people for space exploration and colonization." We are writing an encyclopaedia, not ruling the world.

"How do we get more people to sign up and remain active in the Wikipedia community?" Good question, but not I think solvable by this proposal.

"Do we need to reward people for every 100 non-trivial edits they make with an automated e-mail from Jimmy Wales himself?" Need to, hmm possibly not. Those who think that creating stubs for thousand of villages might quite like the idea of deterring this with Jimbo spam - I can think of a number of editors who would by now have received thousands of such messages. There have been suggestions in the past of an automated welcome to those who haven't been welcomed manually, if this was spun out as a separate suggestion for an automated welcome to editors who have made 100 edits and not yet been welcomed then I for one would be supportive. But I think this might be one for the individual projects, the English Wikipedia does not auto welcome and has rejected the idea in the past, but I believe some other projects do. Spamming people for every 100 edits they make would drive editors away.

"Is there a way to get school children involved in editing Wikipedia articles in their spare time?" What, as opposed to doing so at school? More seriously we could easily increase edits by school children, just unblock any school IPs that have been blocked for vandalism. WereSpielChequers 16:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a cynic, WereSpielChequers. I love Wikipedia and I use it 9 times out of 10 to get important information about 2012, Nostradamus, the Singularity, nanomedicines, nanorobotics, Japanese video games, and other things I need help understanding. There is a mantra that I have in my life: If something isn't on Wikipedia, chances are it doesn't exist it all. You should remember a quote that is similar to that in Star Wars: Episode II. GVnayR 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia currently has 3 million articles, this proposal is to expand that to 30 million in 2029 by broadening what we accept as an article. I think that there will be millions of articles written between now and 2029 under our current policies, many of the household names of 2029 in politics, sport and entertainment will currently be at school, some will not even be born yet. Astronomers are discovering new planets, biologists new species and architects designing new buildings. There is still much to do in subjects as diverse as African history, Pakistani geography and Victorian music hall. "If something isn't on Wikipedia, chances are it doesn't exist it all" is an argument for staying close to our existing 3 million articles. So I disagree with both your positions, Having 3 million articles so far is a great result for less than a decades work, but in my view it does not yet mean that "If something isn't on Wikipedia, chances are it doesn't exist it all". But I don't see a need to set targets for growth in our total number of articles, and if anyone was to set such a target it must be the English Wikipedia setting its own target not Wikimedia imposing a target on it.
I'm happy for individual wiki projects to set their own targets for creating articles for Albanian Olympians and international footballers, or extinct South American megafauna. Also I'm happy for other language pedias and projects within them to set targets for their growth. But this is the Wikimedia strategy forum, it isn't appropriate to discuss things here that only involve one project. WereSpielChequers 11:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably people my age (or older) that don't have Wikipedia articles about them yet. Everyone does at least one notable thing in their lifetime that's on a newspaper, magazine, or a legitimate web site. According to Chinese philosophy, everyone is an equal. That means actors are not more important then waiters, civil servants, or floor sweepers. Tom Cruise is not more important than the owner of the McDonald's in Glendive, Montana. If we find non-celebrities who have appeared on the local newspaper on a daily basis (like a municipal politician or a pillar of the local community), their article on Wikipedia would carry as much "notability weight" as the latest A-list Hollywood movie star. So what if the movie stars, intelligenstia, and athletes of the year 2029 are either in school or in their mother's womb? Let's find some regular folks (i.e., ham radio operators, local radio personalities, local chefs that don't already have a Wikipedia article) and have information about them spread throughout the world through this wonderful encyclopedia? GVnayR 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a lot like a (sophisticated) "I-want-an-article-too" plea. Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, and the general consensus™ is that we need to shift from quantity to quality. Setting such an advanced goal and a definite number of articles is impractical and imprudent. HereToHelp (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that quantity is more important than quality. We need as many places in the world covered by at least start-class articles on Wikipedia so they can be transfered on to cell phones that will provide tourists at least a small picture of the attraction that they are viewing. GVnayR 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GVnayR, en:Wikipedia:DEFACTO#De_facto_notability already covers tourist attractions and populated places. So if you want to create articles for places and tourist attractions that we don't already have just go ahead. I don't think that will get us to 30 million articles, but it certainly gives us room for growth. WereSpielChequers 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]