This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Before we start assessing articles en-masse we should define the criteria for assessment. Joelito ( talk) 13:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How could Pedro del Valle be rated "Low" in importance? My questions in regard to the Military history of Puerto Rico and Agustin Ramos Calero have yet to be addressed. Look, the low importance ratings stick out like a sore thumb. The majority of the wikiprojects do not address the importance ratings, such as the Military project. If I'm going to work my butt off researching and writing a damn good article to only have this stated in its talk page: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.", then the hell with it, I don't want any part in this project. Tony the Marine 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I want you all to read and enjoy an inspirational article (at least I felt very inspired when I wrote it) I believe that this is a fantastic untold story. Read the story of Sylvia Mendez and enjoy. Tony the Marine 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have self-nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II for FA. The article passed FAC peer review and I believe that it is a story that needs to be told. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Ricans in World War II. I will keep my fingers crossed. Tony the Marine 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Gente, I need your honest reassessment. At the suggestion of Tony the Marine, I've almost given birth to a Betances clone... The article had a B rating before I put my hands on it. I want to improve the article's rating to Featured Article status, and have since submitted it to WikiProject peer review. However, since you're part of the concerned party, so to speak, feel free to fire away(!) Methinks it deserves an A, but I'm biased. Wink, wink... Of course, if this paragraph doesn't belong here, move it and let me know where it belongs. Demf 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, they're seems to be concerns about consensus on the subjectiveness of the importance scale. So let's talk about it here. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I started assessing articles based on the importance guidelines of the WP:1.0. However, these are very ambigous. I also browsed through other WikiProjects and found little additional guidance. So, I assessed articles based on my interpretation of the guidelines. I did also add a few words to the WP:1.0 importance scale suggestions, but these were minor.
I referred to this quotation from the WP:1.0 project:
“ | By "priority" or "importance" of topics for a static version of the encyclopedia, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia.
Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-Class" for the subject of history would probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-Class" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-Class" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. |
” |
Basically, I assessed articles based on a "tree of knowledge". For example:
Another example of my logic...
There are exceptions however, as I would assess Roberto Clemente as High (though not Top). The reason is because of his high notability in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level.
To give you an idea of how reserved the elevated important statuses are, take a look at these satistics:
WikiProject | Top | High | Total Articles |
---|---|---|---|
WikiProject Baseball | 44 (00.3%) | 309 (2.72%) | 11,355 (100%) |
WikiProject United States | 3 (00.7%) | 55 (12.01%) | 458 (100%) |
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (the entire assessment project) |
5,729 (00.8%) | 15,348 (2.10%) | 730,190 (100%) |
As you can see, these two elevated importance assessments are made for only the unique and core topics of a subject or area. As such, they should be conservatively awarded.
I'm short on time, but I'll respond to any messages left here when I get back tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion, especially to Joelito and Tony. I really hope we can make this assessment project work. Again, sorry for the trouble.
“ | Priority/importance can be a divisive issue in some subject areas, and may need to be handled carefully when established. Projects may choose to tailor their importance criteria to suit the specifics of their subject, to assess the priority of only a few articles, or to not assess importance at all. | ” |
I leave you all with a guideline from the WP:01 page. I think it summarizes the significance of discussing these issues here first. I erred in assessing articles before doing that. For that, I am deeply sorry. I have a belly button, you know. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Look I know that you are well intentioned. The reason that people such as Agustin Ramos Calero and Pedro Del Valle are not notable in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level is due to the injustices of our so called history books which have buried their contributions to society in general.
Many of us have made an effort to correct this injustice by making them and their contributions known internationly through Wikipedia. Take for example: Humbert Roque Versace, nobody, I mean nobody knew that he had Puerto Rican blood. He wasn't even known in Puerto Rico until I wrote about him. Thanks to Wikipedia, I'll be going to PR this Memorial Day on an invitation of the Puerto Rican Seante when his name is unvieled on "El Monumento de la Recordacion".
How do you think it looks when someone, be he Puerto Rican or not looks at the talk pages of these outstanding Boricuas and reads "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."? What do you think people will say when "We" of all people derate the articles of these poeple as unimportant? Just think about this. The terminalogy used makes it seem like that.
These people are "notable" or otherwise thier articles would have been deleted as NN. The only problem is that nobody ever gave them the credit that they deserved until now that we have taken it upon ourselves to write about them.
I suggest this: substitute the word "importance" with the word "priority". Therefore, it will not seem as if we are degrating the importance of the subject of the article "per say". As I have stated, my main concern here is how those that are not familiar with Wikipedias procedures and terminalogy will interpret the words "Low-importance". Tony the Marine 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote an article ( Elfin-woods Warbler) into which I put a lot of effort. It is rated as low by all Wikiprojects that have assessed it and they made the right assessment because the article is about a rather insignificant (in broad terms) species. We must step back and look at the big picture and maintain objectivity. Joelito ( talk) 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*cough* Ok, now that I've gotten a hold of myself, let me expand my views. I know they are long, but please read them:
Also, before continuing discussion in individual articles, I propose the following statements to be added to the convention section of assessments:
I think this is an important notice to all participating users, since some might not take the time to read through any consensus we achieve here. If we agree to include it, please feel free to do so. I might not be logged on when this is agreed.
I strongly agree with Joelito on this. I think his assessments have been the most accurate, even re-assessing some of my own assessments. Our judgements on importance must be dispassionate and unbiased; we must not take into account what we would like other people to read, but rather what other people will probably be looking for.
I also agree with Tony, in that the wording should be changed from Importance to Priority. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like consensus has been reached on the Priority vs. Importance issue, though I'd still wait for Joelito's opinion.
As for assessing individual articles, it looks like we're getting somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem classifying notable biographies as Mid, but not all. I think my Roberto Clemente vs. Hiram Bithorn vs. Luis Olmo point sums up my arguments when it comes to biographies. I'll agree with you Charleen, Olga Nolla can stay as Mid, but also take into account other important artists, such as Rene Marques or Julia de Burgos, which are more notable and more deserving of the High status (but this is just my opinion of course.)
Also, I take it you all agree with the new convention point above, so I'll include it. Feel free to edit it to sound more welcoming or add additional info later. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, a consensus is being reached here that Puerto Ricans who are very notable at an international level should get an elevated priority status, even if people in this country ignore them. The only thing users should do is provide information or sources that the person or subject is very notable in other countries, especially english-speaking ones.
However, I'm going to be bold myself and add a new convention to the assessment project about documenting the reasons for a users assessment either in the edit summary or in the talk page. This way, assessments can be clearer. Feel free to edit the convention once I post it, just in case you want to soften or harden the language. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit, anyone can assess. Are we to become the watchmen? If so Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Joelito ( talk) 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My argument was not based on converting the active participants of this assessment project into " owners" of the project. This project is open to anyone at anytime. I don't feel anons and newbies should not assess them, I just think their assessments should be monitored or reviewed against the project's guidelines by experienced editors. Like I said, if the reviewer or community agrees with the assessment, then the reviewer should leave the assessment “as is”, and advise the anon or newbie about the project and cordially invite them to register and join the project. That way, the project grows with each new assessment. It's not creating a watchmen's club, it's expanding a WikiProject. An assessment committee doesn't have to be created, however I do feel the project needs some sort of organization, otherwise we might have articles such as Calle 13 (band) being assessed as Top importance all the time. Maybe instead of creating a formal committee, we should just create a list of users willing to re-assess, similar to a list of volunteer peer reviewers and copy-editors.
The project's guidelines clearly state that anyone can assess and re-assess. If your concerns are that a power-drunk editor will overstep a user's right to WP:BB, WP:IGNORE, and WP:UCS, then your concerns have a very valid basis, but I think the project addresses that. Again, anyone can assess and anyone can re-assess. Period.
Oh, and to answer the latin question: We are all watchmen. Consequently, the watchmen watch the watchmen, and everyone has the power. That's what the watchlist is for. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By changing from importance to priority in {{ PuertoRicoproj}} you just unassessed every article's importance. Joelito ( talk) 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* I know. This is a work in progress. I'm just trying to abide to the consensus reached weeks ago. The problem is in the template's code. I can't seem to figure it out. The harm isn't that big: if you revert my edits to the template, the assessment will jump back to importance, and since that is included in the article talk pages, it will automatically restore itself.
But I can't seem to change it to priority. I was hoping that the importance= and priority= commands would both categorize the article on the Priority scale, but it doesn't categorize them at all. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Before we start assessing articles en-masse we should define the criteria for assessment. Joelito ( talk) 13:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How could Pedro del Valle be rated "Low" in importance? My questions in regard to the Military history of Puerto Rico and Agustin Ramos Calero have yet to be addressed. Look, the low importance ratings stick out like a sore thumb. The majority of the wikiprojects do not address the importance ratings, such as the Military project. If I'm going to work my butt off researching and writing a damn good article to only have this stated in its talk page: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.", then the hell with it, I don't want any part in this project. Tony the Marine 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I want you all to read and enjoy an inspirational article (at least I felt very inspired when I wrote it) I believe that this is a fantastic untold story. Read the story of Sylvia Mendez and enjoy. Tony the Marine 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have self-nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II for FA. The article passed FAC peer review and I believe that it is a story that needs to be told. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Ricans in World War II. I will keep my fingers crossed. Tony the Marine 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Gente, I need your honest reassessment. At the suggestion of Tony the Marine, I've almost given birth to a Betances clone... The article had a B rating before I put my hands on it. I want to improve the article's rating to Featured Article status, and have since submitted it to WikiProject peer review. However, since you're part of the concerned party, so to speak, feel free to fire away(!) Methinks it deserves an A, but I'm biased. Wink, wink... Of course, if this paragraph doesn't belong here, move it and let me know where it belongs. Demf 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, they're seems to be concerns about consensus on the subjectiveness of the importance scale. So let's talk about it here. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I started assessing articles based on the importance guidelines of the WP:1.0. However, these are very ambigous. I also browsed through other WikiProjects and found little additional guidance. So, I assessed articles based on my interpretation of the guidelines. I did also add a few words to the WP:1.0 importance scale suggestions, but these were minor.
I referred to this quotation from the WP:1.0 project:
“ | By "priority" or "importance" of topics for a static version of the encyclopedia, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia.
Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-Class" for the subject of history would probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-Class" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-Class" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. |
” |
Basically, I assessed articles based on a "tree of knowledge". For example:
Another example of my logic...
There are exceptions however, as I would assess Roberto Clemente as High (though not Top). The reason is because of his high notability in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level.
To give you an idea of how reserved the elevated important statuses are, take a look at these satistics:
WikiProject | Top | High | Total Articles |
---|---|---|---|
WikiProject Baseball | 44 (00.3%) | 309 (2.72%) | 11,355 (100%) |
WikiProject United States | 3 (00.7%) | 55 (12.01%) | 458 (100%) |
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (the entire assessment project) |
5,729 (00.8%) | 15,348 (2.10%) | 730,190 (100%) |
As you can see, these two elevated importance assessments are made for only the unique and core topics of a subject or area. As such, they should be conservatively awarded.
I'm short on time, but I'll respond to any messages left here when I get back tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion, especially to Joelito and Tony. I really hope we can make this assessment project work. Again, sorry for the trouble.
“ | Priority/importance can be a divisive issue in some subject areas, and may need to be handled carefully when established. Projects may choose to tailor their importance criteria to suit the specifics of their subject, to assess the priority of only a few articles, or to not assess importance at all. | ” |
I leave you all with a guideline from the WP:01 page. I think it summarizes the significance of discussing these issues here first. I erred in assessing articles before doing that. For that, I am deeply sorry. I have a belly button, you know. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Look I know that you are well intentioned. The reason that people such as Agustin Ramos Calero and Pedro Del Valle are not notable in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level is due to the injustices of our so called history books which have buried their contributions to society in general.
Many of us have made an effort to correct this injustice by making them and their contributions known internationly through Wikipedia. Take for example: Humbert Roque Versace, nobody, I mean nobody knew that he had Puerto Rican blood. He wasn't even known in Puerto Rico until I wrote about him. Thanks to Wikipedia, I'll be going to PR this Memorial Day on an invitation of the Puerto Rican Seante when his name is unvieled on "El Monumento de la Recordacion".
How do you think it looks when someone, be he Puerto Rican or not looks at the talk pages of these outstanding Boricuas and reads "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."? What do you think people will say when "We" of all people derate the articles of these poeple as unimportant? Just think about this. The terminalogy used makes it seem like that.
These people are "notable" or otherwise thier articles would have been deleted as NN. The only problem is that nobody ever gave them the credit that they deserved until now that we have taken it upon ourselves to write about them.
I suggest this: substitute the word "importance" with the word "priority". Therefore, it will not seem as if we are degrating the importance of the subject of the article "per say". As I have stated, my main concern here is how those that are not familiar with Wikipedias procedures and terminalogy will interpret the words "Low-importance". Tony the Marine 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote an article ( Elfin-woods Warbler) into which I put a lot of effort. It is rated as low by all Wikiprojects that have assessed it and they made the right assessment because the article is about a rather insignificant (in broad terms) species. We must step back and look at the big picture and maintain objectivity. Joelito ( talk) 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
*cough* Ok, now that I've gotten a hold of myself, let me expand my views. I know they are long, but please read them:
Also, before continuing discussion in individual articles, I propose the following statements to be added to the convention section of assessments:
I think this is an important notice to all participating users, since some might not take the time to read through any consensus we achieve here. If we agree to include it, please feel free to do so. I might not be logged on when this is agreed.
I strongly agree with Joelito on this. I think his assessments have been the most accurate, even re-assessing some of my own assessments. Our judgements on importance must be dispassionate and unbiased; we must not take into account what we would like other people to read, but rather what other people will probably be looking for.
I also agree with Tony, in that the wording should be changed from Importance to Priority. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like consensus has been reached on the Priority vs. Importance issue, though I'd still wait for Joelito's opinion.
As for assessing individual articles, it looks like we're getting somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem classifying notable biographies as Mid, but not all. I think my Roberto Clemente vs. Hiram Bithorn vs. Luis Olmo point sums up my arguments when it comes to biographies. I'll agree with you Charleen, Olga Nolla can stay as Mid, but also take into account other important artists, such as Rene Marques or Julia de Burgos, which are more notable and more deserving of the High status (but this is just my opinion of course.)
Also, I take it you all agree with the new convention point above, so I'll include it. Feel free to edit it to sound more welcoming or add additional info later. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, a consensus is being reached here that Puerto Ricans who are very notable at an international level should get an elevated priority status, even if people in this country ignore them. The only thing users should do is provide information or sources that the person or subject is very notable in other countries, especially english-speaking ones.
However, I'm going to be bold myself and add a new convention to the assessment project about documenting the reasons for a users assessment either in the edit summary or in the talk page. This way, assessments can be clearer. Feel free to edit the convention once I post it, just in case you want to soften or harden the language. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit, anyone can assess. Are we to become the watchmen? If so Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Joelito ( talk) 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My argument was not based on converting the active participants of this assessment project into " owners" of the project. This project is open to anyone at anytime. I don't feel anons and newbies should not assess them, I just think their assessments should be monitored or reviewed against the project's guidelines by experienced editors. Like I said, if the reviewer or community agrees with the assessment, then the reviewer should leave the assessment “as is”, and advise the anon or newbie about the project and cordially invite them to register and join the project. That way, the project grows with each new assessment. It's not creating a watchmen's club, it's expanding a WikiProject. An assessment committee doesn't have to be created, however I do feel the project needs some sort of organization, otherwise we might have articles such as Calle 13 (band) being assessed as Top importance all the time. Maybe instead of creating a formal committee, we should just create a list of users willing to re-assess, similar to a list of volunteer peer reviewers and copy-editors.
The project's guidelines clearly state that anyone can assess and re-assess. If your concerns are that a power-drunk editor will overstep a user's right to WP:BB, WP:IGNORE, and WP:UCS, then your concerns have a very valid basis, but I think the project addresses that. Again, anyone can assess and anyone can re-assess. Period.
Oh, and to answer the latin question: We are all watchmen. Consequently, the watchmen watch the watchmen, and everyone has the power. That's what the watchlist is for. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By changing from importance to priority in {{ PuertoRicoproj}} you just unassessed every article's importance. Joelito ( talk) 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* I know. This is a work in progress. I'm just trying to abide to the consensus reached weeks ago. The problem is in the template's code. I can't seem to figure it out. The harm isn't that big: if you revert my edits to the template, the assessment will jump back to importance, and since that is included in the article talk pages, it will automatically restore itself.
But I can't seem to change it to priority. I was hoping that the importance= and priority= commands would both categorize the article on the Priority scale, but it doesn't categorize them at all. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)