Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| NA | This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
[edit] Not again
I'm strongly against this Assessment scheme. It's spreading like a cancer through the encyclopedia. It should be obvious what damage it is doing. --WikiCats 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask you this. Do you intend putting these judgments on Talk pages? Or keep them within the project space? [1]--WikiCats 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be rather pointless if the "judgements", as you call them, were only added to project space pages, wouldn't it?. Also, you may be interested in a similar discussion that has been occurring here. —Mira 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is pretty pointless as well. Dominick (TALK) 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
At this point disscusions about this issue are happening in a number of projects. --WikiCats 14:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This same issue is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Let_me_ask_one_question with a possible solution at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#A_possible_solution. It is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment#What_is_the_purpose_of_these_Assessment_tags. --WikiCats 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not opposed to assessment per se. But if I may steal from the ideas of educational assessment, the ideas of validity and reliability are critical. One should establish a set of criteria (a rubric) which defines clearly what the levels of importance are. This should enable any person assessing an article to establish the importance of it and any other person based on the criteria should reach the same conclusion. This occurs if the rubric is reliable. In respect of validity, the rubric should measure what it puports to and not its creators biases.
What are the elements which may be considered of top importance. Are they theological, historical, ethical etc. To say "Key" articles, considered indispensable" creates a very subjective element as one person may consider Megjugorge to be just that, where as another considers it a fraud. An exampe of perceptual conflict would be the rating of International Commission on English in the Liturgy as high and Second Vatican Council as top while Denis Hurley who was on the Central Preparatory Commission for Vatican II and led the ICEL for 17 years is rated mid. Let me confess at this point I started the article on Hurley, but I consider this to be an onjective assessment as his involvement and contributions to the Church and it's reform in the 20th century were more than many with the red hat.
Diatribe over Loyola 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Importance Rating Criteria
I don't want to be overly bureaucratic, but I think it would be helpful to set some general criteria for assigning importance ratings in the Project Catholocism template.
From cursory examination, it appears that living Cardinals have been generally given a Mid-importance ranking, while Bede, a Doctor of the Church, is currently given a Low-importance ranking. It seems to me that all the Doctors of the Church should default to a Mid to High ranking, depending on their individual significance (that's what is presently assigned to a few that I checked who have been ranked). I'm upgrading Bede to Mid-importance. But then I'm a historian and consider recent events unimportant until proven by the test of time :-) --SteveMcCluskey 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think some of it is arbitrary and may be down to personal bias. Traditionalist Catholic is rated "high importance", whereas it probably should be lower than that given its low objective significance, but there are several trads who are very vocal. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
