Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should All Days On Earth Get Their Own Wikipedia Page?

History Nature Politics Society Internet

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:27 PM

Can all days get their own Wikipedia or encyclopaedia page? Days are made up of thoughts, routine activities, internet discussions and internet browsing, business meetings, university lectures, watching television, cooking food, reading books, travelling to and fro, shopping, working, heated arguments, police investigations, political scandals, news coverage, parties, revisiting old memories, looking at the night sky, making scientific discoveries etc..

 

What if all of this was accounted for on Wikipedia - for every day of every year?


Edited by Mariel33, 27 February 2017 - 10:28 PM.


#2 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 07:29 PM

What if all of this was accounted for on Wikipedia - for every day of every year?

It is. Every day of the year, every year, and every day of every year all have their own Wikipedia pages. For example, see the Wikipedia articles January 1, 2017, and Portal:Current events/2017 January 1

#3 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:26 AM


But is this a good thing ?

#4 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 04:26 AM

But is this a good thing ?

 

Hypothetically, it would mean that anyone's woodland or forest experience in history would get documented - the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context.

In the past, I've visited woodlands and thought about ending all nations because of the power of the trees, green fields and the sun around me - so this could get documented.



#5 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 01:40 PM

Hypothetically, it would mean that anyone's woodland or forest experience in history would get documented - the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context.

That’s not a status quo, it’s Wikipedia’s notability guideline

It’s important to understand that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a weblog. Encyclopedias are ternary sources – that is, they refer to sources that refer to primary sources. An account of a walk in the woods is a primary source. An anthology or study of such accounts is secondary. An encyclopedia article about the subject of walks in the woods is ternary.
 

In the past, I've visited woodlands and thought about ending all nations because of the power of the trees, green fields and the sun around me - so this could get documented.

So share your experience by posting text or video on one of the many websites that allow this. That’s what they’re for, and Wikipedia is not.
 

… the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context

I’ve never seen an thing about a forest experience tied to a celebrity. Can you link to an example?

#6 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 09 September 2017 - 04:54 AM

...
What if all of this was accounted for on Wikipedia - for every day of every year?

.
Is that source an acceptable reference on this forum?

#7 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8885 posts

Posted 09 September 2017 - 01:54 PM

.
Is that source an acceptable reference on this forum?

 

No one considers Wikipedia definitive, but it is very useful for non-contentious topics. If you stray into things where the only thing you can find to support your concept is a post on Wikipedia, you may get into trouble.

 

Quite frankly if you do that and wait 24 hours, the page may say exactly the opposite of what it said when you posted the link, so it might be even worse for you.

 

 

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters, :phones:
Buffy


#8 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 09 September 2017 - 02:03 PM

...
No one considers Wikipedia definitive, but it is very useful for non-contentious topics. If you stray into things where the only thing you can find to support your concept is a post on Wikipedia, you may get into trouble.
...

.
The seems sensible.

I have not--yet--found myself in a situation where that site had the only thing I could find. I sure do hope that day never arrives.