In some areas the list is certainly not accurate. E.g. in computational linguistics:<p>- <i>Realization of Natural-Language Interfaces Using Lazy Functional Programming</i>, Frost, 2006. I never ever heard of this article, with only 17 citations overall (in 5 years) it can hardly be considered important.<p>- In the entry of <i>Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing</i>, Brill, 1995 (which is an important publication) it is stated that it <i>"Describes a now commonly-used POS tagger based on transformation-based learning."</i> Which is not true, since nearly everyone uses HMM, maxent, or SVM taggers these days because they give far higher accuracies.<p>Although it is far from perfect, the number of citations is probably one of the best manners to count importance. Someone actually did this per year for ACL conferences:<p><a href="http://www.phontron.com/blog/?p=29" rel="nofollow">http://www.phontron.com/blog/?p=29</a><p>Obviously, there are other conferences, journals, etc. But it gives a pretty good overview of papers that are recommended. Also, there's the ACL top-10 rankings:<p><a href="http://clair.si.umich.edu/clair/anthology/rankings.cgi" rel="nofollow">http://clair.si.umich.edu/clair/anthology/rankings.cgi</a>