Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Priority scale
Per the reasons I left on Morphh's talk page I think how widespread the effect of a tax topic is and what it's impact has been should be the primary factors. Thus international and general tax topics would be higher priority than single country issues. I believe that's the best way to avoid systemic bias, and is where our priority should be. Otherwise having single country issues as top or high priority would put way too many topics in that category which should be reserved for only the most important. I think the only single country issues that should reach high priority are the Taxation in Canada type articles. The additional factor should be how likely are people that aren't accountants would want to see the article, that factor would tend to reduce the priority assigned to conceptual articles in favor of practical ones. The factors need to be balanced certainly. So in summary the three factors I propose for priority are 1) how widespread the effect is, 2) impact, and 3) the likelihood non specialists would read it. But of course, I'm open to other reasoning. - Taxman Talk 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I think we should be conscious of systemic bias, I don't think this should be a large focus in the basis for priority. I think #3 is the most important as Wikipedia's first focus is for the normal reader and our efforts should be to make the best quality articles for those readers. Since readers will likely migrate to major #1 & #2 articles, such will already be top priority. However, other widespread effects may get little attention from users and thus should not be Top priority. For example, Marginal tax rate & Effective tax rate are global concepts that are widespread but I don't think they should be Top priority. I think the way it is currently specified provides the best distribution. I thought it would be overly bottom heavy the way it was. This is not the same as a search engine or wikilink count, where all U.S. articles might get more attention. I think we can evenly state the type of article regardless of country. Taxation in Canada and Taxation in the United States have equal importance as readers from those countries would treat such as a priority. I think such addresses systemic bias without prioritizing notable global articles higher then significant country articles. I think we should look at it from the perspective of "each country" as appose to "no country". So if I'm looking at "Taxation in Canada", I prioritize as if I'm a Canadian (what is the importance of this article to a Canadian reader?) instead of the idea that I'm not a Canadian (what is the importance of this article to the non-Canadian reader?). Most readers are probably interested in their own country and major global concepts - I think we need to keep this in mind in our prioritization. Morphh (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok.. Since it was in some hybrid, I updated it so it made some sense (Scheme 2 listed below). I'll list the two thoughts below on how the priority should be defined.
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
| Top | High probability that non-accountants would look this up. Limited to the most central tax concepts. Must have an impact on nearly all taxpayers, and in the majority of the world. For instance, income taxes are levied in a very large number of jurisdictions around the world and affect almost everyone. | Income tax |
| High | Must affect a large number of taxpayers accross a number of different countries, if not most. | Retirement plan • Taxation in the United Kingdom |
| Mid | Important tax concepts in an individual country. | 401(k) plan • Income taxes in the United States |
| Low | Subject is notable within an individual country. | Rabbi trust |
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
| Top | Very high probability that non-accountants would look this up. Limited to the most central tax concepts and the primary tax article for english speaking countries. | Income tax • Taxation in the United Kingdom |
| High | High probability that non-accountants would look this up. Important international tax concepts or a significant concept for a single country. | Retirement plan • Income taxes in the United States |
| Mid | Medium probability that non-accountants would look this up. Important tax concepts in an individual country, significant tax legislation, or notable international concepts. | 401(k) plan • Tax incidence |
| Low | Low probability that non-accountants would look this up. Subject is notable within an individual country, minor tax legislation, court cases, tax forms, biographies. | Rabbi trust • Murphy v. IRS |
[edit] What links here
While not the basis for priority, I thought this may be helpful in the assessment process. A bot ran through the What links here and this What links here count lists all WikiProject Taxation articles with the What links here count (minus talk space, wikipedia space, etc). Helpful for linking too - I didn't even know we had an article on Income tax in Iran (0 link count) - I'll be fixing that. Morphh (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Multiple WikiProjects
While applying priority and class levels to articles I noticed that several of these articles were under multiple wikiprojects. Of these sorts of articles the ones on cases like US Supreme Court decisions or Australian decisions stuck out. Giving such articles low priority was obvious because the articles were on the case rather than the law/tax. This also followed the instructions in the assessment scale. However, the class/quality assessment scale seemed a bit awkward because they were under multiple wikiprojects. These other wikiprojects focused on the precise topic of the article such as when a wikiproject concentrating on US Supreme Court decisions applied a class assessment on an article that is on a decision by the US Supreme Court.
- Provided that the article sufficiently discussed the tax aspects of case, should the article's class level under WP Tax match the other wikiprojects since they focus on the precise topic of the article? (preemption)
- Yes, the class level is a global quality criteria that should apply across the board to any wikipedia article. The quality is based on the article topic and has no additional weight with regard to a subject classification. We're working to move these articles to GA and FA. Morphh (talk) 1:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Otherwise, should the article have an independent assessment as to class for WP Tax? (independent jurisdiction, limited to assessing the tax content)
- Should the NA class be applied?EECavazos (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
