Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, that's a start. Please make changes as you see fit. Maurreen 04:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Importance

I saw in passing a brief discussion about a possible change of name from "importance" to "priority" - I'm not sure where that discussion was - but would very much support such a change as it is a far less loaded term. We have had severe problems with assessment, due to the language of the "Grading scheme" template and the term "importance". People get the idea that it is an overall statement of subject importance which is obviously loaded with WP:NPOV issues. How do we get a change of legend agreed organised. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have improved it here. But the issues is not enough of a priority for me that I am going to track down our many uses of the words "importance" and "important". Maurreen 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to agree with the first posting. I think that we should remove all instances of "importance" and replace it by "priority" (including within the assessment charts). Next, I would like to remove this sentence from the text:
"Importance or Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another."
I have also had people complain about this, as they feel like "we" are telling them that their contribution is not important. Lunokhod 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics has discovered that "importance" is an inherently inflammatory label that rubs noses the wrong way. "Priority" or "need" would indeed be better and clearer. linas 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we have included "Priority" in all the official guidelines now as a useful alternative term. Sorry to hear that you've had problems in Physics. Walkerma 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Vital articles but got no reply, so I'll try here. Is it intended that all Vital Articles are to be tagged at importance=Top in cases where importance is assigned? I can't think of why anything less would be justified, but perhaps I've got the cart-before-horse reversal. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost always, yes, they should be Top. Strictly speaking, the importance should be assigned by a WikiProject, and the ranking is Top-Class with respect to that. The only time I can think that it would not be Top is in cases where someone has randomly added to VA something (say, a religion or a pop star) that THEY consider "vital", without first garnering a consensus for inclusion. It is intended that the next release version (0.7) includes all VAs, as long as they are not in an appalling state; the {{WP1.0}} template has a parameter "VA=yes" which was added to all VAs (I think) as of last year. Walkerma (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mid ?

Is this a typo for the Medium priority ? Or refers to a Midget priority maybe ? Not to state the obvious but Medium starts with Med.--Mancini 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It stands for "Middle"... Titoxd(?!?) 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or the only logic and defacto standard scale is Low-Medium-High , with middle being Start-Middle-End ? --Mancini 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V 0.7

I see from the Wikipedia:Community Portal that we are now working on V0.7. Should this page be updated to reflect that? --Salix alba (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about FAs

Hi,

My understanding was that top-importance FA's would be nominated automatically, so that we didn't need to nominate them. I'm confused because I see that photon is not included in WP:V0.5 and bacteria is nominated explicitly here. The FA review link is also red and struck through there. Can someone explain what should be done? Thanks! Willow 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Top importance FAs will indeed be included. Our original coordinator for this project has become inactive on WP, so I am trying to get things going again - but it's a lot of work for one person! (I have also promised to do some other WP1.0 work elsewhere first!) I think the FA review page on V0.7 may well be redundant, because we are testing out a bot that will automate this process. So as you can see, things are in a state of flux for the next few weeks - but I hope by late May we will have everything nicely organized. Regarding the discrepancy - from our V0.5 FA list we did get pretty much all the important FAs, but that was written last summer - many FAs have come and gone since then. Please help us out if you have the time! Thanks, Walkerma 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope for Version 0.7?

Things have been a bit up in the air for Version 0.7, but I am beginning to see serious work being done by several people. However one thing is clear to me - the criteria on importance are unclear! This is because it has been somewhat uncertain whether the next release would be 4000 articles or 40,000. This makes a difference - see the discussion here, for example. But things are gradually coming together, and this is how I see things at present:

  • We are likely to have help from MartinBotII, starting in June if things go as planned for the toolserver upgrade. That is good news - it means that we can expect to have 10,000+ articles in the collection. That in turn means that we can include a lot more, and we only need hold (on importance) relatively trivial topics, IMHO.
  • MartinBotII will probably be using quite a sophisticated algorithm to assess importance, once we refine it. That will help to judge borderline cases.
  • Manual reviewers will be crucial at this time, because we will need experienced reviewers to help with the development and testing of MartinBot's criteria.

Regarding the general scope, this was mentioned in my original proposal for V0.7 - this proposal seemed to be generally accepted at the time (Nov 2006). Note that we were predicting only 4000 articles for V0.7, so this may be seen now as conservative:

Let's do the following:
  • Have general nominations and set nominations as with Version 0.5, reviewed as before.
  • Set up review pages for WP:GAs, WP:VAs, the core supplement, plus a cities page listing all cities listed at List of cities by population, List of metropolitan areas by population and all capital cities of the world (as listed here, but limited just to sovereign nations). I'd also like to see a states & provinces page covering Australia, Canada, USA, India, South Africa, China and perhaps Germany and some Anglophone countries I've missed (but UK counties, French departments etc are a bit small for this release, IMHO). If someone has the time, we should probably also set up an FA review page for FAs not covered by V0.5 (new or not reviewed).

Note that we are continuing with our emphasis on places - something also found in print encyclopedias, this has proved useful in Version 0.5.

[edit] Discussion

I think we can have a fairly broad scope for Version 0.7, because we can expect it to be much larger than 0.5 (my guess would be 20,000). We can include all the major topics such as VAs, and continue the emphasis on places by including all capital cities and a selection of major states/provinces. Other suggestions and comments? Walkerma 03:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of thinking what we should include, if it is going to be a broad release, what should we hold? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A good thought, that may be a constructive way to look at things. Walkerma 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Determining importance should come after the initial pass/fail criteria and be open to commenting and debate rather than having it rest on the shoulder of one person. As a collective we can get a better idea of where a subject falls, maybe through an argument and debate method, or by vote. --Ozgod 04:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Along the lines of what to hold back, would an article length minimum be somewhat helpful, or is this method too crass? JoeSmack Talk 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Quality criteria (including length) obviously affect things, but we've already had a working practice of failing anything below B except where it's high in importance or a needed part of a set. It's easy to reject things on quality grounds. What I'd like to establish is where to draw the line for importance, since it is inherently subjective. What about Ozgod's suggestion? One problem with it is that it is more time-consuming, but it is what we did successfully for FAs at Version 0.5 - should we do the same for all nominations? In practice this would mean that any reviewer could pass any article on importance, but any "fail on importance" would get listed for comment. (This still doesn't avoid the basic question, though, on "what is considered too unimportant for Version 0.7?") Walkerma 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can trust any editor to add or remove contributions based on policies and guidelines for Wikipedia it should be fine if any editor could pass or fail an article based on criteria and standards of importance for 0.7. Both a fail and pass comment page would be fine - kind of like a big talk page if people disagree and want to draw consensus for inclusion or exclusion. JoeSmack Talk 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with Ozgod here, and we've seen the successes of the XfD debates, the RfA debates, and the FAC debates, so we know that a discussion will not hinder progress. It might slow things down a little, but since when has anything on Wikipedia happened quickly, except for anti-vandalism? This place has a good-size backlog, and discussion will only help to keep things moving, rather than staying put for 3+ months. Now, the discussion does have to have certain (but broad) guidelines. I'm going to suggest using the ones found here, because they are generally broad criteria and can be interpreted in different ways. In other words, this criteria is flexible. Diez2 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, things stayed put for 3+ months while work was being finished on Version 0.5. I don't like the commenting idea because there are not as many editors around these places, and even in the FAs, where holds required only three users agreeing, there were times at which the page was not touched for days. It's better to keep things moving fluidly with one reviewer, in my opinion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I can see both sides here, so how about if we have a compromise where we revamp the "hold" page? If a reviewer wants to hold an article because of importance, it goes to a "recently held" section. If it stays there for a month without objection, OR receives two other "support hold" comments, then it is held. If a reviewer objects to the "hold" then it can go into the selection after any discussion has died down. This sounds more complicated than it is - I think as long as it is administered by someone (any volunteers?) it should be straightforward IMHO. Thus we can rest assured that the process won't get held up awaiting comments, but at the same time there is plenty of opportunity for comment and discussion. If people like this idea, I can set up the held page in the new format.

Meanwhile, I think I'd like to propose a solution for the problem of defining scope. I'd like to describe what we expect in terms of importance in each of the 10 subject areas. There would be a general description, then some specific examples of pass/fail. For example for Geography/places we might say that Rochester, New York is OK to be included, but Potsdam, New York is not (shame!!!), that sort of idea. Walkerma 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. Basically, a reviewer can place any article on hold. As long as no objection is raised, the article will stay there for a month. If some objection is raised, then 2 other "support hold" votes can keep it in the "hold" page, or it can be moved into a passing status, whatever consensus decides. I can help administer this, if you need help.
Also, as for the scope, I agree with Walkerma, but I do think that we need to let the appropriate WikiProjects know of our importance proposals, that way they can set their 0.7 article proposals around this. We probably should also let them have some limited say in deciding the importance criteria for their category. It's just a modification to Walkerma's proposal. Diez2 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem in that scheme is that it gives more power to a hypothetical obstinate user who opposes every single hold, in which case the reviewers' options would essentially become pass or fail on quality. Who would close the discussions? How much time would the discussions run for? Would they be open-ended? There's a lot of process-based questions to be answered... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. We can modify the "objection" plan to say that it would take a minimum of 3 users (chosen arbitrarily, can change) to formally object a "hold" placement, and thus move it to the pass/fail discussion. This way, no single user can object to every "hold" placement without some support. As for closing the discussions, Walkerma said that he would need some volunteers to help administer this next step of the project, and I suppose these "administrators" (not necessarily sysops) would close the discussions. From the looks of the backlog, we can probably run the discussions for 5 days-1 week. Finally, what do you mean by open-ended? Diez2 15:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising Version 0.7

I really hate to break away from the main discussion here, but how exactly are we going to advertise this release? I'm thinking we should do more advertising on other websites, because a lot of people still do not know of Wikipedia, and visit sites like Yahoo, Google, etc. almost all of the time. If everyone agrees, I may be able to contact some of these companies with proposals, because of the Foundation. If this is breaking any policies or guidelines, let me know, I just want to see VER. 0.7 heavily advertised, so that VER 1.0 will be just as great, and maybe more people will learn that Wikipedia is not what they think it is. Tails0600 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation publicised Version 0.5 for us, and did a great job - see the list at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Some_more_good_news. This DID include Yahoo. This was classed as a "low level" press release, since V0.5 was only a test release - if making the Washington Post, USA Today and the BBC is "low level" I think advertising will be easy! Seriously, though, V0.7 is expected to go into shops (W H Smiths, Best Buy, etc) so we need to think about how that will be marketed. This is something we should probably raise with Linterweb, a little closer to publication - they are using Cinram for distribution. Cheers, Walkerma 05:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of distribution, can we have it sold on Amazon like the popular German release? I think it makes people more comfortable buying it online when they know the seller and have bought things before from them. JoeSmack Talk 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically, you COULD get it sold on Amazon without ever having to contact them. You create an account there and sell the CD as a third-party product. However, it looks a lot more professional when Amazon sells it from their warehouses. Diez2 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe bookstores as well, because this is an encyclopedia. The only reason I am bringing this up now is because I want to make sure that people know about this project, and the whole scope of it. If you want, I could always contact other web sites for advertising (promoting, which ever is better), and retail store for selling. See, we should take certain matters into our own hands, because we are the ones working on the project, and we will ultimately know more, plus, Wikipedia is community based, so why not get the community involved in the marketing, etc. Just let me know, and I'll see what I can do. Tails0600 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And what happened to the idea of a paper release? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the bookstore idea as well. Of course people will want to download it, from all of the attention from advertising...I know the slashdot entry got a lot of attention...we have over 1000 downloads through Bittorrent and ed2k networks combined, anything works. And what about Costco and Walmart? Everyone likes Costco and Walmart. Nominaladversary 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if everyone agrees, I can contact several stores in my area, and see what they will do for us, I'm pretty sure the foundation wouldn't mind, because then people may want to make Wikipedia larger. Tails0600 02:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Once we have Version 0.7 ready, it would be great if you can contact your local stores. As for Walmart, I would expect every WalMart in the US to have a copy of V0.7 for sale - or failing that, V1.0 when that comes out. For people who are active on the team for a good amount of time, we need people to do press interviews on local newspapers as well - that helps a lot. It wouldn't be good to do any of this too early, though, we are several months away from having a product at the moment, and things are still quite hazy. I expect the pace to pick up a lot over the summer, though - hopefully we can have something to put in people's Christmas stockings? Walkerma 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing about WalMart is that you will have to fly off to Bentonville, Arkansas (where Wal-Mart headquarters is) and actually show them the product before they will agree to stock it. I saw this on a docmentary... they have to accept the product before stocking it. I'm sure Wal-Mart will agree to stock it, but only after they see it first. Diez2 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely press releases will help. And, with the WalMart thing, instead of actually flying out to Arkansas, can't we just e-mail them a link to the download page? I mean, they surely have heard of Wikipedia, and know how it works, so it may not take to much for them to stock it. Now, when the time comes closer, and I start contacting several stores, Linterweb may have to consider bulk packaging prices, and if they do, we'll need to know what they are. THAT will make a company say yes to stocking it. We also need to make sure that retailers know that ALL profits coming from the project are helping to fund the WikiMedia foundation, not going into people's pockets. Let's see if we can come up with more ideas, because since this is a test release, we should come up with a plan for what will be the 1.0 release. Tails0600 15:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd want to make it as painless as possible for them (no matter how painful for us), which may include someone close by traveling and showing 0.7. Bulk prices seem warranted. Maybe a sticker saying all profits coming from the project are helping to fund the WikiMedia foundation (with a big non-profit next to the name)? JoeSmack Talk 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And no, I'm not trying to push development, if anyone thinks that, just merely trying to come up with a plan now, so that it doesn't go nuts later. And the paper edition, that went down the drain a little while ago. Tails0600 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we are all trying to make sure this runs smoothly as possible too. :) JoeSmack Talk 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Scope

Going back to the scope 2 sections up, are we going to formally vote, or at least gather consensus on the new proposals? Diez2 20:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your post, I was preparing for a final exam at the time! Anyway, let's summarize and vote. If I got anybody's suggestion wrong, don't change it after people have voted - instead, either add a comment or an amendment proposal. Walkerma 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1

Create a set of examples of articles from each of our ten categories, to illustrate what type of article will pass on importance, and what will be held for Version 0.7. Members of the review team will have a chance to debate the examples used. The examples will be displayed prominently to allow WikiProjects and nominators to get the "flavor" of the scope for V0.7.

Comments
Votes
Since there appears to be clear support for this idea, I have started a page here. I am using the 30,000 figure suggested by our publisher as a guideline, and breaking that down into how many articles we need in each. Comparing this with the number of topics available in each (if I can get that), I'm attempting to judge the cutoff point for each category. I strongly suspect the articles will often self-select; an unimportant person or place will tend not to have an article of suitable quality, but the majority (not all!) of articles B or above are probably important enough to include. I will make the new page's talk page redirect here. Walkerma 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 2

This involves the creation of a discussion area, where we decide if an article from the main nomination page is to be held on importance. If we agree to create such an area, we can later vote on the time and number of votes for/against that are needed.

Option 2a: Create a debate area for all articles passed on quality. Option 2b: Create a debate area only for articles that passed on quality but were held on importance.

Comments

Since consensus seems to be leaning toward supporting this proposal, I have taken the initiative and created a page located at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held Article Discussions. Diez2 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we move over everything at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Nominations/Held_nominations that were 0.5 specific? JoeSmack Talk 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Titoxd has suggested that we merge the page I created with Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations, so I think that we should leave the 0.5 Nomination page alone. Diez2 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to keep the contents from the held nominations page, and develop the new format there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Merged. How does it look? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks a lot! Now we just need to add our comments/votes. Walkerma 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Votes
  • Support Option 2b but I'd be happy to work with 2a as well if that's the consensus. Walkerma 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support option 2b seems a lot simpler. JoeSmack Talk 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 2b only, as 2a adds an unnecessary delay. That doesn't mean that we can't make guidelines for ourselves, as option 1 states. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 2b - Option 2a would slow the reviewing down significantly, but Option 2b probably would just make articles be held more slowly, which doesn't usually happen anyway. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I was just looking at some of WikiProject Comics's importance categories, and I noticed a glut in the top categories of things that really didn't belong there, but were clearly put in there by fans with, shall we say, unique perspectives. I am wondering if, from both a 1.0 standpoint and from a general editorial standpoint, it would not be preferable to have some caps or quotas on various article types. For instance, that there can only be 50/75/100 top importance articles in a category, and only 100/200/250 high importance articles, etc. I think this would encourage more holistic thought on the subject of article rating - particularly when WikiProjects hit the cap and have to start saying "OK, if this goes on, what comes out?" Phil Sandifer 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)