Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia/Assessment

Town and City Assessment

I would like everyone's opinion on what level to assess most town and city articles. Take Abingdon, I think this would definitely qualify as a Start level class. It has a short history, plus democraphics, etc. However, what about Wytheville, just a short bit of historical information in the intro, then the rest is entirely geographics. The question, I would raise, to what usefulness do the demographics offer? Stub or Start quality? I'm leaning towards Stub, but please, everyone's opinion! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rate Abingdon as Start or B, and Wytheville as Start....plange 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Importance?

I have been trying to locate some guidance on the standards for rating an entry's importance. Every link redirects to this page, but I don't see any explanation of what the different standards for importance mean at all. All I seem to find is the stuff about quality. Can someone please redicrect me to the right place?ProfReader (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Try this. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Counterproductive

I believe the focus on assessment "importance" grades is counterproductive for many reasons. One of my biggest concerns is the automatic downgrading of the importance of discussion of smaller communities, with the associated discouragement of individuals who otherwise would contribute information about smaller communities. Why are smaller communities seen as of less importance in such a large encyclopedia and what is the value of grading on such a basis? Shouldn't such contributions be encouraged? Isn't an entry that a reader is looking for the most important? Don't the reader's needs and interest lead the matter? Are we saying that readers more interested in reading about a small town than about Chicago are interested in less important articles? I also am concerned that individuals with no clear or cited and verifiable credentials make such judgements. I understand that the typical robust Wiki battle of the edits is one way to address matters at least along the edges. I also understand that joining the group setting the standards is a thing to do, but the effort seems to me to be a distraction to a fair extent from the overall effort to encourage contributions.

Thanks.

DBK (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Importance" isn't, to use the phrase, "that important" to Wikipedia overall. It only applies within the WikiProject in question. That said, the "Importance" assessment is a rather (though not completely) universal measure across projects, though sadly the name has long had problems; it is best understood as a term of art, it is more accurately characterized as "priority" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#"Importance" for an overview of the problem and long-held dispute).

As for its usage, this priority ("importance") is designed not for people who already have thoughts on what they want to work on, it is for general members of the project (here, folks who are interested in Virginia articles) who are trying to figure out what to work on first; what is the most immediate need. Anyone can work on anything they want; it will *all* have value for the encyclopedia. But if a person can only do a little bit to help, say, 200 or 500 articles get a bit better, which ones should they work on first (assuming that Wikipedia will gradually progress over many years)? What is most expected of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to provide, and what are people looking for? As for credentials, Wikipedia doesn't deal with those, nor is it really needed here. Instead, that's why tentative neutral criteria have been placed here on this page, to remove some of the subjective nature of those judgments. Yes, there are gray fuzzy areas, but the better established the criteria, the fewer and easier those become. And of course, while perhaps a waste of time, those who disagree can give their reasons and change it. As for someone who wants to work on the "low" importance articles, more power to them--it still needs doing. And hopefully their hard work in specialized topics will be recognized by the community.Morgan Riley (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Morgan! What you are describing makes sense to me, but the way the assessments show up with the pages for all to see (as opposed to being a tool for priorities for additions, corrections, edits, etc. within the assessment project) is misleading and counterproductive to general users, and perhaps comes across even as a bit arrogant. Readers and researchers should decide what is "important."

Maybe over (unfortunately a long period of) time, the assessment project participants will consider moving to a system of identifying priorities for edits (substantive and style) within smaller categories. That way, perhaps we could improve to a point of not coming across as diminishing the "importance" of categories or articles within such categories (such as small communities and niche subjects) or as impugning article "quality" on such a highly subjective basis.

DBK (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My take is that the assessments are designed to assist the readers of Wikipedia. In theory, we would want the encyclopedia to have good articles on subjects that are most likely to be read, and the subjects that are likely to educate and help our readers. The assessments help guide that effort and find the gaps. That being said, I agree with your point that the wording leaves something to be desired. Certainly the last thing we want to do is discourage our volunteer editors by suggesting that the articles they choose to work on are unimportant. Perhaps it would be better to use a "priority" scale rather than an "importance" scale? However, I don't think this is something the project can do on its own. I believe the essential parameters are created by the 1.0 editorial team. Perhaps you should advance this argument at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment? I personally think it's a valid issue.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)