![]() | Australia Project‑class | ||||||
|
Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing. I see there are guidelines for schools and places. I came to comment in respect of seeing AWB Limited (an S&P/ASX 200 company) and Angus & Robertson both rated "Mid", but 1997 Thredbo landslide rated high importance. Of the three, to me, AWB is the most important. This is just some I noticed flying through my watchlist. Do I have to justify changing either of these, or just boldly alter them? There does not appear to generally be explanantions of the choices made. -- Scott Davis Talk 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I rated all of those, I think. The problem is, all ratings are very subjective. I don't think AWB is a 'high' importance issue - certainly a mid. I would base this on being a major company in Australia. (I did actually consider it for a High, because of the bribery scandal, but that article doesn't include information on it.) However, there are so many ways people can make valid judgements on the importance of an article. One I took from the Hurricane wikiproject was the level of the article in a sort of descending tree of knowledge, for example;
Top Australia, Australian electoral system, Australian Economy
I've been using that, but modified it to include the subjective importance of a subject to Australia, and slightly to the times, because of this in the Assessment description page; "Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." In that respect, James Packer would be higher, because he is currently the Head of PBL rather than the past leader, and because he is a major subject of debate in Australia, unlike the head of another company in Australia. I don't know if Threadbo was the right article to make high, but it was a big deal in Australia, and so I rated it higher than I would consider its importance in the 'knowledge tree' above.
On the subject of making changes, I don't mind at all that someone would disagree with me. However, I think it would be faster and more accurate for us not to singlehandedly change ratings that have already been made. I think we should all be free to give an article a rating, but if you want to change another editors rating, mainly in importance (class ratings are much easier and will change) you list it for assessment, and we can all discuss it together and then give a final consensus rating. That way, any controversial changes will have the support of all the editors and there won't be any edit-warring of people changing them back and forth, or long talkpage discussions about them. Quick and easy. What do you think? -- Iorek85 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The proportions are currently running at about 10-18-40-32. But with only 484 out of 3695 rated, I'm sure there would be a bias toward rating the more important articles first.
I propose to tag as Top-importance the overview article for each category linked in Portal:Australia. These categories have already been identified as the important aspects of Australia. I'd guess that major subarticles of those would then be of high or perhaps medium importance. -- Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How do these tags assist anybody? -- WikiCats 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these tags has any place in the talkspace and should be restricted to the project space. They are not useful to anyone outside the project.-- Peta 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
These are soul destroying assessments that help nobody. --
WikiCats
12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Only if you take things too personally. No one is diminishing or belittling the work of others, only categorising the obvious. A 'low importance' article doesn't mean you shouldn't bother, or your work doesn't matter; thats like saying the guy who makes the brake pads on a sportscar shouldn't bother. All the parts add up to make one hell of an encyclopaedia, and all of them are just as vital as another. -- Iorek85 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Peta. Further to that, the assessment scale makes no sense. It starts out talking about Featured articles and Good articles, which is a quality assessment. Then it ends talking about stubs and start articles which is about size. And who has the right to decide whether an article is High importance, Middle importance or Low importance?
This Assessment project should be sent to whence it came! -- WikiCats 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been said quite clearly by Peta and myself.
This project will do immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia.
You have explained that the assessment is about quality. It is a scale from excellence to rubbish. With only a handful of Featured articles and Good articles, which have already had honours heaped upon them, and the thousands of other articles that will now be classed as rubbish.
This a a scheme that has never existed in the encyclopedia before this.
How do you know how new editors will react to a low grading? Iorek has said that if you are discouraged by these ratings then it's your fault.
Any good you expect to come out of these ratings is out weighed by the risked of disheartening editors. -- WikiCats 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think both Iorek and I joined this activity, we didn't start it, and Longhair's out of contact at the moment. I think he is the one who arranged the templates and pages. As I understand it, the assessment tagging provides keys in the talk space (not the article space) that allow bots to generate summaries, statistics etc. I expect to eventually be able to find a matrix of importance vs quality, with the count a link to a list. We can then use those lists to identify articles suitable for ACOTF or other targeted activities, new wikiprojects based on Category:Australia articles without a WikiProject, whatever. The "simple overview of the subjects that are most important" is Category:Top-importance Australia articles. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
All I need to say is to point out a statement that was put by your side of the argument:
Would you like me to go it to detail about my reaction when one of these "dam" tags turned up on one the pages I'm working on? --
WikiCats
05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Bingo! I support moving the ratings to the project space. -- WikiCats 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My origional felling was to send the WikiProject Australia/Assessment to speedy delete. At this stage I'm happy with the compromise of moving the ratings to the project space.
At this point Iorek, Peta and myself seem to support the proposal with Scott curtailing some of his editing until the matter is decided. -- WikiCats 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about this problem. Iorek said that he believes that this is only causing a problem with 2 in 100 editors. I believe it to be more common. But let's use Iorek estimate. There are
1,812,314 editors in Wikipedia. At 2%, that's over 36,000 editors getting "upset" or discouraged.
You are creating a huge problem. People respond more positively to encouragement.
Who will volunteer to repair this damage (as Iorek and Scott are having to do right now)? -- WikiCats 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While WikiCats might be right about more than 2% of people getting offended, only 300,000 or so of those million plus user accounts have edits, and fewer still put in significant work. Say 5% of all editors get annoyed, or ask for reratings, theres only 3700 articles left to rate - 185 complaints. As I've said, any person doing the ratings is happy to explain why an article was rated the way it is. If you want to make it even easier, we could have some sort of reply template that explains what the assessments mean and why they were given, to save us more time. I don't think it's that much of an issue. One simpler option is to hide the importance rating on the talkpage, so bots can find it, but general editors and readers can't. Anyway, I've stopped rating articles until we decide what to do (theres also the option of renaming them, see below.) -- Iorek85 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No one has the right to make a unilateral judgement about the quality of others work. We have mechanisms to ensure quality without passing judgment in colourful templates. The scale should be about to what degree the article has been completed. Whether it is a stub or half-finished or completed. I would not be offended by that.
Talking about what's important and what's totally unimportant is subjective to the extreme. How can you determine what is important to another person. You have to come up with something else. You could talk about levels rather than importance. Top level, Mid-level or Base level.
These ratings have been put together without regard to how people would take them. There should have been more thought put into this. -- WikiCats 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No one is making a judgement about any one editor's work - please review WP:OWN-- A Y Arktos\ talk 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If these judgements are going to say that they are low class and totally unimportant to the vast majority of articles, as they will, then what is the point of working on them? --
WikiCats
12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Completeness. This is an encyclopaedia, first and foremost. If something can be done that helps it improve, we should do it. If we can do it without offending anyone, great. If some people who shouldn't get upset do, then we should explain to them that no offense is intended. But in no way should that stop us from trying to make Wikipedia better. As for 'rights', any contested ratings come here for people to discuss. After that, consensus decides what to rate an article, not one person. As for renaming, I've made some name suggestions below, and I've not a problem with it. However, it would make us different to all the other projects, and would most likely take away the point. -- Iorek85 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of consensus I am prepared to concede on these points:
What I would like to see is Iorek's suggestion of a change in the terminology (or "renaming the rankings to prevent offense").
The terms importance, quality and class are where the problem is.
Rather than people misunderstanding these terms, we need to change them now to what is more suitable for the purpose. -- WikiCats 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Foundation, High, General, Detail, Specific" those are the terms I suggested below. The only problem with these is that they rank only on the amount of information and the generality of the article, rather than the 'importance' of the subject matter. (Don Bradman, for instance, would be the same importance as Damien Martyn, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge the same as a causeway that crosses a creek.) I don't mind changing them, but I fear it will affect standardisation with other groups and the 1.0 project.-- Iorek85 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For your information, this debate has been taken up at
Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment where these assessments originated. --
WikiCats
07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A really simple soulution, would be to have two templates. One with assessments that is only used on top and high importance articles - since presumably they are the articles that this project wants to improve, and a second assessment-less template that goes on anything else of interest to the project that isn't a high priority.--
Peta
00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Contact with WP Mountains | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Article | Date | Assessment | Comments | ||||
Mount St. Helens | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Mount Everest | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
Former FA | ||||
Mount Rainier | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Pikes Peak | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
FA in Project Colorado | ||||
Stone Mountain | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Arklay Mountains | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
Cheyenne Mountain | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
Haleakala | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
List of peaks by prominence | April 13, 2006 | B |
I think that would be better, but I don't know if it would be difficult to implement non-manually. -- Iorek85 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've started the table in Top Importance articles. I don't know if it's the right place for it, and it should probably be sorted by class, not alphabetically, but you get the idea. -- Iorek85 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Platypus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a problem with dropping the template on "any" article and self-assessing as importance:low, quality:stub (if appropriate) - I DO want to encourage others to visit/view/improve the articles in question. The articles are all related to suburbs of the City of Blacktown, most of which are stubs, most of which are low importance but a few are mid importance and could/should/hopefully will become better (if they ever become FA quality I'll be amazed though!)
Although now I think of it I do work on electoral districts, MP's etc. also.
-- Ga rr ie 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's Australian, not at all! In fact, it would be great help - theres thousands that need assessing, and still more that are Australian articles that haven't been tagged as such. The debate over the terminology seems to have ended, from what I can gather. I'm going to start assessing articles again. -- Iorek85 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've upgraded the WikiProject Australia template to now accept comments when assessing articles. The process of adding comments is pretty straight forward (an explanation is on the template itself). If there's any hiccups, further tweaks needed, or questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. -- Longhair 11:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How do others view the usage of A-class? A-class articles in my opinion are articles that have reached Good article status and been confirmed as such, but have not yet been selected or submitted as a Featured Article. They could quite possibly make the FA grade with very little work. Could an article be rated as A-class without first going through the Good article process? I'd like to see some standards delevop here on A-class usage thanks. -- Longhair 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the assessment is over, could someone please blank or move the discussion elsewhere. The header for the talk page is quite long and I want it cut down to size. Thanks. - Roy Boy 800 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This Assessment process is a monumental waste of time and highly offensive to boot.
The assessment process was started for purposes of the Version 1.0 project. Outside that project assessments serve no purpose at all. It will take one and a half million edits to tag all the articles and another one and a half million edits just to update them once. This will involve millions and millions of edits to place these judgmental comments. Time wasted on Talk pages that could be used to actually improve articles.
Now these judgments can apparently be made by inexperienced people who don't even have the wherewithal to log in. Then this will initiate an extended debate about the merits of decisions made by people who are confused about how to create a log on. More effort wasted that could be put to improving articles.
There seems to be some dream that if lists are created somewhere of articles that need help people will refer to them when they have run out of things to do. The reality is people edit subjects that they have an interest in or some degree of knowledge about.
We already have a stub tag which is placed when the article is created. We have a process for Good articles. And we have peer review for GA.
Beyond the Version 1.0 project, the assessment process serves no purpose other than the cheap thrill someone might get by running down the work of others and wasting hundreds of hours that could be spent improving articles.
The testament to how judgmental these tags are is the use of the words class, quality and importance. -- WikiCats 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of the benefit of this scheme. But I'm prepared to make a concession for the sake of consensus.
I propose that the link name on the Talk page template be changed to Assessment scale with the link still going to Quality in the Project and the other link name changed to Priority scale with its link still going to Importance in the Project.
I'd like to see the word class removed and the word importance changed to priority.
This will only affect the wording that appears on the Talk pages. I make no proposal to change anything that would affect how the project operates.
This is how they do in it Computer games: Talk:Half-Life_2:_Lost_Coast -- WikiCats 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Let’s talk about importance. Who has the audacity to determine what is important and what is unimportant. Importance is subjective. There are as many views as to what is important as there are people in the world. Who as you to say to me what I think is important? -- WikiCats 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What if the majority disagree with the changes, it was changed without consultation with the others. I think the template should've been left as is unless if a fair amount of authors agree, because as I read so far (as a contributor) to the assessment project for WP Australia, basically only one author has complained about it, which to his credit had brought up some good points to the debate. -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There's still been no explanation how this monumental waste of time benefits Wikipedia. It provides not benefit and uses offencive language to do that. In short, people respond more positively to encouragement that to the attitude that you have taken. -- WikiCats 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I had two posts in a row indicating a rejection of my compromise. -- WikiCats 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The assessment in its present form is jumping on the contributions of newbies. It just not right. What happens within the project I not care. What I do care about is what newbies read on the Talk pages. Most people have got to go to work tomorrow so maybe we could call it a night. By the way thank you for a vigorous debate, it's what I thrive on. -- WikiCats 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Only a very few people have a problem with this (mostly you, Wikicats). The system is a great way of assessing the quality of the encyclopaedia, and the importance (yes, importance) of articles. I like it the way it is, instead of changing it to suit one person. If more people are offended by 'importance', I wouldn't mind (I think I've said this before, the first time you complained) changing the name, but it would still mean the same thing. Some articles, as people have been trying to tell you, are more important than others. I've no problem grading my own article Cleveland, Queensland low importance, because it is. If suddenly Cleveland became the state capital, then it would be more important. I don't see how this fundamental and obvious distinction in any way harms the encylopaedia. And 1.5 million edits? Wikipedia would get through that in what, a couple of weeks? Iorek85 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's a problem with my computer, but all of a sudden I can't access the list with all the unassessed articles. Has somebody removed the link? If so, why? Atlantis Hawk 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
09:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Outrigger has created a tool that alters the article heading colour to that of its rating and the sentence underneath from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "xxx class article, from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia". I've been running this for just over a week without any problems, I've found it useful as an aid of the current article. I recommend to anyone who is assessing articles. Follow the instructions on this page User talk:Outriggr/metadata.js. Gnan garra 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better way of saying 'low importance' - it doesnt look good for any article to be labelled low importance - perhaps mid class should be the bottom? -- Astrokey 44 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Should there be so many top importance horse racing articles? These may be top importance to punters, but I don't see that they are top importance to Wikpedia or even WP Aus.-- Grahamec 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have recently been assessing some Melbourne articles. In the heading to Category:Low-importance Melbourne articles it states: "Articles are automatically placed in this category when the corresponding rating is given using the WP Australia template;". This is not happening. It seems that the only way that an article appears in this category is if the parameter Melbourne-importance=Low is added. The WP Australia template does not have a parameter of "Melbourne-importance=". There are several thousand articles which do not have a City specific importance parameter included. Could someone with knowledge of Assessments please clarify if it is necessary to include a "City specific importance parameter" and a "City specific class parameter" and where I can find this information. - Cuddy Wifter 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Importance raised from mid to high. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Scottish Islands we had a bug with our assessment comments created by Template:WPSI, our equivalent of Template:WP Australia. The talk page of an article without a comment on the template worked fine. However, for an article with a pre-existing comment clicking on the "edit" button in the WPSI template on the relevant Talk page took you to a "Server not found" error page. The only way to edit the comment was to go to the 'by quality' listings. Thanks to The Transhumanist this has just been fixed using this diff. Not sure how or why, but it seems to work now. I mention it as in looking into the issue you seem to have the same problem at e.g. Talk:Canberra, Talk:Platypus. Regards, Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - at Military History they can rate articles against criteria and leave a record using Template:WPMILHIST For example see this assessment of P-38 can opener. I think the assessment against dimensions (for B-class such as
1. Referencing and citation: criterion met 2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met 3. Structure: criterion not met 4. Grammar: criterion met 5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Could be really informative. Do others agree? Can we have the same capacity copied to our Template:WP Australia as at WPMILHIST ? -- Matilda talk 00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. As this project was cited as an example of a big project that does use C-class, could someone from this project weigh in on the debate at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? Input from users who've spent some time assessing articles would be appreciated. We'd like to know
Eagerly awaiting feedback. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have done some tweaking of the list of top class articles in the Australia project. I've downgraded the ones that appeared most anomalous in terms of the assessment criteria, but there are still some dodgy ones in there. I would suggest we:
Other suggestions? hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you rate an article like the 2005 Cronulla riots as being more important than the article on the Australian Army Cadets. Think about it, do people want to find out about the good things of Australia or about the stupid and idiot things of Australia. I must also ask, is there anyone who assess articles been involved in the ADF at all. Pattav2 ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Typhoon Elsie in the examples column links to Usain Bolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.76.41 ( talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been ongoing work on the Long Range Desert Group article, which is currently rated as start class; any takers for further assesment? TIA Minorhistorian ( talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Is the a chance you could re-assess the
Urrbrae Agricultural High School page as it is much more higher quality.
Regards,
Trustt-noo-1 (
talk)
08:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last few days, the internet "address" of all of the digitized newspapers, etc. that are held by the National Library of Australia have changed their "address". Whilst the identification number of the passage remains the same, the "address" of the entire holding has changed. Is there someone available who has the skill and the time to create a BOT that changes the http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ segment of all of these now obsolete addresses that are stored within Wikipedia articles to the correct http://trove.nla.gov.au/ ? Lindsay658 ( talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Announcing Smoke night an article on the 19th and early 20th century male only habit when Australian men would sit around in large groups and smoke tobacco. They also might wear dinner suits, eat dinner together, watch a revue, or attend an Annual General Meeting. I've exhausted my sources to hand, so if someone would like to add to the article (I'm aware that the Vic = NSW railway meeting had something of the sort, and that white collar unions in the 00s and 10s did these too. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Change the STUB CLASS EXAMPLE, the current example is now START rated
Change the STUB CLASS EXAMPLE, the current example is now START rated NickGibson3900 ( talk) 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Australia Project‑class | ||||||
|
Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing. I see there are guidelines for schools and places. I came to comment in respect of seeing AWB Limited (an S&P/ASX 200 company) and Angus & Robertson both rated "Mid", but 1997 Thredbo landslide rated high importance. Of the three, to me, AWB is the most important. This is just some I noticed flying through my watchlist. Do I have to justify changing either of these, or just boldly alter them? There does not appear to generally be explanantions of the choices made. -- Scott Davis Talk 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I rated all of those, I think. The problem is, all ratings are very subjective. I don't think AWB is a 'high' importance issue - certainly a mid. I would base this on being a major company in Australia. (I did actually consider it for a High, because of the bribery scandal, but that article doesn't include information on it.) However, there are so many ways people can make valid judgements on the importance of an article. One I took from the Hurricane wikiproject was the level of the article in a sort of descending tree of knowledge, for example;
Top Australia, Australian electoral system, Australian Economy
I've been using that, but modified it to include the subjective importance of a subject to Australia, and slightly to the times, because of this in the Assessment description page; "Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." In that respect, James Packer would be higher, because he is currently the Head of PBL rather than the past leader, and because he is a major subject of debate in Australia, unlike the head of another company in Australia. I don't know if Threadbo was the right article to make high, but it was a big deal in Australia, and so I rated it higher than I would consider its importance in the 'knowledge tree' above.
On the subject of making changes, I don't mind at all that someone would disagree with me. However, I think it would be faster and more accurate for us not to singlehandedly change ratings that have already been made. I think we should all be free to give an article a rating, but if you want to change another editors rating, mainly in importance (class ratings are much easier and will change) you list it for assessment, and we can all discuss it together and then give a final consensus rating. That way, any controversial changes will have the support of all the editors and there won't be any edit-warring of people changing them back and forth, or long talkpage discussions about them. Quick and easy. What do you think? -- Iorek85 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The proportions are currently running at about 10-18-40-32. But with only 484 out of 3695 rated, I'm sure there would be a bias toward rating the more important articles first.
I propose to tag as Top-importance the overview article for each category linked in Portal:Australia. These categories have already been identified as the important aspects of Australia. I'd guess that major subarticles of those would then be of high or perhaps medium importance. -- Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How do these tags assist anybody? -- WikiCats 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these tags has any place in the talkspace and should be restricted to the project space. They are not useful to anyone outside the project.-- Peta 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
These are soul destroying assessments that help nobody. --
WikiCats
12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Only if you take things too personally. No one is diminishing or belittling the work of others, only categorising the obvious. A 'low importance' article doesn't mean you shouldn't bother, or your work doesn't matter; thats like saying the guy who makes the brake pads on a sportscar shouldn't bother. All the parts add up to make one hell of an encyclopaedia, and all of them are just as vital as another. -- Iorek85 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Peta. Further to that, the assessment scale makes no sense. It starts out talking about Featured articles and Good articles, which is a quality assessment. Then it ends talking about stubs and start articles which is about size. And who has the right to decide whether an article is High importance, Middle importance or Low importance?
This Assessment project should be sent to whence it came! -- WikiCats 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been said quite clearly by Peta and myself.
This project will do immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia.
You have explained that the assessment is about quality. It is a scale from excellence to rubbish. With only a handful of Featured articles and Good articles, which have already had honours heaped upon them, and the thousands of other articles that will now be classed as rubbish.
This a a scheme that has never existed in the encyclopedia before this.
How do you know how new editors will react to a low grading? Iorek has said that if you are discouraged by these ratings then it's your fault.
Any good you expect to come out of these ratings is out weighed by the risked of disheartening editors. -- WikiCats 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think both Iorek and I joined this activity, we didn't start it, and Longhair's out of contact at the moment. I think he is the one who arranged the templates and pages. As I understand it, the assessment tagging provides keys in the talk space (not the article space) that allow bots to generate summaries, statistics etc. I expect to eventually be able to find a matrix of importance vs quality, with the count a link to a list. We can then use those lists to identify articles suitable for ACOTF or other targeted activities, new wikiprojects based on Category:Australia articles without a WikiProject, whatever. The "simple overview of the subjects that are most important" is Category:Top-importance Australia articles. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
All I need to say is to point out a statement that was put by your side of the argument:
Would you like me to go it to detail about my reaction when one of these "dam" tags turned up on one the pages I'm working on? --
WikiCats
05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Bingo! I support moving the ratings to the project space. -- WikiCats 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My origional felling was to send the WikiProject Australia/Assessment to speedy delete. At this stage I'm happy with the compromise of moving the ratings to the project space.
At this point Iorek, Peta and myself seem to support the proposal with Scott curtailing some of his editing until the matter is decided. -- WikiCats 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about this problem. Iorek said that he believes that this is only causing a problem with 2 in 100 editors. I believe it to be more common. But let's use Iorek estimate. There are
1,812,314 editors in Wikipedia. At 2%, that's over 36,000 editors getting "upset" or discouraged.
You are creating a huge problem. People respond more positively to encouragement.
Who will volunteer to repair this damage (as Iorek and Scott are having to do right now)? -- WikiCats 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While WikiCats might be right about more than 2% of people getting offended, only 300,000 or so of those million plus user accounts have edits, and fewer still put in significant work. Say 5% of all editors get annoyed, or ask for reratings, theres only 3700 articles left to rate - 185 complaints. As I've said, any person doing the ratings is happy to explain why an article was rated the way it is. If you want to make it even easier, we could have some sort of reply template that explains what the assessments mean and why they were given, to save us more time. I don't think it's that much of an issue. One simpler option is to hide the importance rating on the talkpage, so bots can find it, but general editors and readers can't. Anyway, I've stopped rating articles until we decide what to do (theres also the option of renaming them, see below.) -- Iorek85 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No one has the right to make a unilateral judgement about the quality of others work. We have mechanisms to ensure quality without passing judgment in colourful templates. The scale should be about to what degree the article has been completed. Whether it is a stub or half-finished or completed. I would not be offended by that.
Talking about what's important and what's totally unimportant is subjective to the extreme. How can you determine what is important to another person. You have to come up with something else. You could talk about levels rather than importance. Top level, Mid-level or Base level.
These ratings have been put together without regard to how people would take them. There should have been more thought put into this. -- WikiCats 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No one is making a judgement about any one editor's work - please review WP:OWN-- A Y Arktos\ talk 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If these judgements are going to say that they are low class and totally unimportant to the vast majority of articles, as they will, then what is the point of working on them? --
WikiCats
12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Completeness. This is an encyclopaedia, first and foremost. If something can be done that helps it improve, we should do it. If we can do it without offending anyone, great. If some people who shouldn't get upset do, then we should explain to them that no offense is intended. But in no way should that stop us from trying to make Wikipedia better. As for 'rights', any contested ratings come here for people to discuss. After that, consensus decides what to rate an article, not one person. As for renaming, I've made some name suggestions below, and I've not a problem with it. However, it would make us different to all the other projects, and would most likely take away the point. -- Iorek85 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of consensus I am prepared to concede on these points:
What I would like to see is Iorek's suggestion of a change in the terminology (or "renaming the rankings to prevent offense").
The terms importance, quality and class are where the problem is.
Rather than people misunderstanding these terms, we need to change them now to what is more suitable for the purpose. -- WikiCats 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Foundation, High, General, Detail, Specific" those are the terms I suggested below. The only problem with these is that they rank only on the amount of information and the generality of the article, rather than the 'importance' of the subject matter. (Don Bradman, for instance, would be the same importance as Damien Martyn, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge the same as a causeway that crosses a creek.) I don't mind changing them, but I fear it will affect standardisation with other groups and the 1.0 project.-- Iorek85 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For your information, this debate has been taken up at
Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment where these assessments originated. --
WikiCats
07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A really simple soulution, would be to have two templates. One with assessments that is only used on top and high importance articles - since presumably they are the articles that this project wants to improve, and a second assessment-less template that goes on anything else of interest to the project that isn't a high priority.--
Peta
00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Contact with WP Mountains | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Article | Date | Assessment | Comments | ||||
Mount St. Helens | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Mount Everest | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
Former FA | ||||
Mount Rainier | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Pikes Peak | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
FA in Project Colorado | ||||
Stone Mountain | April 13, 2006 |
![]() |
|||||
Arklay Mountains | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
Cheyenne Mountain | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
Haleakala | April 13, 2006 | B | |||||
List of peaks by prominence | April 13, 2006 | B |
I think that would be better, but I don't know if it would be difficult to implement non-manually. -- Iorek85 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've started the table in Top Importance articles. I don't know if it's the right place for it, and it should probably be sorted by class, not alphabetically, but you get the idea. -- Iorek85 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Platypus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a problem with dropping the template on "any" article and self-assessing as importance:low, quality:stub (if appropriate) - I DO want to encourage others to visit/view/improve the articles in question. The articles are all related to suburbs of the City of Blacktown, most of which are stubs, most of which are low importance but a few are mid importance and could/should/hopefully will become better (if they ever become FA quality I'll be amazed though!)
Although now I think of it I do work on electoral districts, MP's etc. also.
-- Ga rr ie 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's Australian, not at all! In fact, it would be great help - theres thousands that need assessing, and still more that are Australian articles that haven't been tagged as such. The debate over the terminology seems to have ended, from what I can gather. I'm going to start assessing articles again. -- Iorek85 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've upgraded the WikiProject Australia template to now accept comments when assessing articles. The process of adding comments is pretty straight forward (an explanation is on the template itself). If there's any hiccups, further tweaks needed, or questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. -- Longhair 11:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How do others view the usage of A-class? A-class articles in my opinion are articles that have reached Good article status and been confirmed as such, but have not yet been selected or submitted as a Featured Article. They could quite possibly make the FA grade with very little work. Could an article be rated as A-class without first going through the Good article process? I'd like to see some standards delevop here on A-class usage thanks. -- Longhair 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the assessment is over, could someone please blank or move the discussion elsewhere. The header for the talk page is quite long and I want it cut down to size. Thanks. - Roy Boy 800 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This Assessment process is a monumental waste of time and highly offensive to boot.
The assessment process was started for purposes of the Version 1.0 project. Outside that project assessments serve no purpose at all. It will take one and a half million edits to tag all the articles and another one and a half million edits just to update them once. This will involve millions and millions of edits to place these judgmental comments. Time wasted on Talk pages that could be used to actually improve articles.
Now these judgments can apparently be made by inexperienced people who don't even have the wherewithal to log in. Then this will initiate an extended debate about the merits of decisions made by people who are confused about how to create a log on. More effort wasted that could be put to improving articles.
There seems to be some dream that if lists are created somewhere of articles that need help people will refer to them when they have run out of things to do. The reality is people edit subjects that they have an interest in or some degree of knowledge about.
We already have a stub tag which is placed when the article is created. We have a process for Good articles. And we have peer review for GA.
Beyond the Version 1.0 project, the assessment process serves no purpose other than the cheap thrill someone might get by running down the work of others and wasting hundreds of hours that could be spent improving articles.
The testament to how judgmental these tags are is the use of the words class, quality and importance. -- WikiCats 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of the benefit of this scheme. But I'm prepared to make a concession for the sake of consensus.
I propose that the link name on the Talk page template be changed to Assessment scale with the link still going to Quality in the Project and the other link name changed to Priority scale with its link still going to Importance in the Project.
I'd like to see the word class removed and the word importance changed to priority.
This will only affect the wording that appears on the Talk pages. I make no proposal to change anything that would affect how the project operates.
This is how they do in it Computer games: Talk:Half-Life_2:_Lost_Coast -- WikiCats 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Let’s talk about importance. Who has the audacity to determine what is important and what is unimportant. Importance is subjective. There are as many views as to what is important as there are people in the world. Who as you to say to me what I think is important? -- WikiCats 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What if the majority disagree with the changes, it was changed without consultation with the others. I think the template should've been left as is unless if a fair amount of authors agree, because as I read so far (as a contributor) to the assessment project for WP Australia, basically only one author has complained about it, which to his credit had brought up some good points to the debate. -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There's still been no explanation how this monumental waste of time benefits Wikipedia. It provides not benefit and uses offencive language to do that. In short, people respond more positively to encouragement that to the attitude that you have taken. -- WikiCats 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I had two posts in a row indicating a rejection of my compromise. -- WikiCats 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The assessment in its present form is jumping on the contributions of newbies. It just not right. What happens within the project I not care. What I do care about is what newbies read on the Talk pages. Most people have got to go to work tomorrow so maybe we could call it a night. By the way thank you for a vigorous debate, it's what I thrive on. -- WikiCats 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Only a very few people have a problem with this (mostly you, Wikicats). The system is a great way of assessing the quality of the encyclopaedia, and the importance (yes, importance) of articles. I like it the way it is, instead of changing it to suit one person. If more people are offended by 'importance', I wouldn't mind (I think I've said this before, the first time you complained) changing the name, but it would still mean the same thing. Some articles, as people have been trying to tell you, are more important than others. I've no problem grading my own article Cleveland, Queensland low importance, because it is. If suddenly Cleveland became the state capital, then it would be more important. I don't see how this fundamental and obvious distinction in any way harms the encylopaedia. And 1.5 million edits? Wikipedia would get through that in what, a couple of weeks? Iorek85 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's a problem with my computer, but all of a sudden I can't access the list with all the unassessed articles. Has somebody removed the link? If so, why? Atlantis Hawk 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
09:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Outrigger has created a tool that alters the article heading colour to that of its rating and the sentence underneath from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "xxx class article, from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia". I've been running this for just over a week without any problems, I've found it useful as an aid of the current article. I recommend to anyone who is assessing articles. Follow the instructions on this page User talk:Outriggr/metadata.js. Gnan garra 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better way of saying 'low importance' - it doesnt look good for any article to be labelled low importance - perhaps mid class should be the bottom? -- Astrokey 44 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Should there be so many top importance horse racing articles? These may be top importance to punters, but I don't see that they are top importance to Wikpedia or even WP Aus.-- Grahamec 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have recently been assessing some Melbourne articles. In the heading to Category:Low-importance Melbourne articles it states: "Articles are automatically placed in this category when the corresponding rating is given using the WP Australia template;". This is not happening. It seems that the only way that an article appears in this category is if the parameter Melbourne-importance=Low is added. The WP Australia template does not have a parameter of "Melbourne-importance=". There are several thousand articles which do not have a City specific importance parameter included. Could someone with knowledge of Assessments please clarify if it is necessary to include a "City specific importance parameter" and a "City specific class parameter" and where I can find this information. - Cuddy Wifter 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Importance raised from mid to high. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Scottish Islands we had a bug with our assessment comments created by Template:WPSI, our equivalent of Template:WP Australia. The talk page of an article without a comment on the template worked fine. However, for an article with a pre-existing comment clicking on the "edit" button in the WPSI template on the relevant Talk page took you to a "Server not found" error page. The only way to edit the comment was to go to the 'by quality' listings. Thanks to The Transhumanist this has just been fixed using this diff. Not sure how or why, but it seems to work now. I mention it as in looking into the issue you seem to have the same problem at e.g. Talk:Canberra, Talk:Platypus. Regards, Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - at Military History they can rate articles against criteria and leave a record using Template:WPMILHIST For example see this assessment of P-38 can opener. I think the assessment against dimensions (for B-class such as
1. Referencing and citation: criterion met 2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met 3. Structure: criterion not met 4. Grammar: criterion met 5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Could be really informative. Do others agree? Can we have the same capacity copied to our Template:WP Australia as at WPMILHIST ? -- Matilda talk 00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. As this project was cited as an example of a big project that does use C-class, could someone from this project weigh in on the debate at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? Input from users who've spent some time assessing articles would be appreciated. We'd like to know
Eagerly awaiting feedback. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have done some tweaking of the list of top class articles in the Australia project. I've downgraded the ones that appeared most anomalous in terms of the assessment criteria, but there are still some dodgy ones in there. I would suggest we:
Other suggestions? hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you rate an article like the 2005 Cronulla riots as being more important than the article on the Australian Army Cadets. Think about it, do people want to find out about the good things of Australia or about the stupid and idiot things of Australia. I must also ask, is there anyone who assess articles been involved in the ADF at all. Pattav2 ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Typhoon Elsie in the examples column links to Usain Bolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.76.41 ( talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been ongoing work on the Long Range Desert Group article, which is currently rated as start class; any takers for further assesment? TIA Minorhistorian ( talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Is the a chance you could re-assess the
Urrbrae Agricultural High School page as it is much more higher quality.
Regards,
Trustt-noo-1 (
talk)
08:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last few days, the internet "address" of all of the digitized newspapers, etc. that are held by the National Library of Australia have changed their "address". Whilst the identification number of the passage remains the same, the "address" of the entire holding has changed. Is there someone available who has the skill and the time to create a BOT that changes the http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ segment of all of these now obsolete addresses that are stored within Wikipedia articles to the correct http://trove.nla.gov.au/ ? Lindsay658 ( talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Announcing Smoke night an article on the 19th and early 20th century male only habit when Australian men would sit around in large groups and smoke tobacco. They also might wear dinner suits, eat dinner together, watch a revue, or attend an Annual General Meeting. I've exhausted my sources to hand, so if someone would like to add to the article (I'm aware that the Vic = NSW railway meeting had something of the sort, and that white collar unions in the 00s and 10s did these too. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Change the STUB CLASS EXAMPLE, the current example is now START rated
Change the STUB CLASS EXAMPLE, the current example is now START rated NickGibson3900 ( talk) 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)