Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

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

Importance

Change Name To Priority

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)

Remove Importance Scales

Importance scales should be removed all together - they are misleading and run against the wikipedia philosophy of neutral point of view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For example, writing about a species. Unless the article is about a species that is Red-listed by the IUCN it most often receives a low grade on the importance scale, which is redundant and even more misleading. This runs against the philosophy, spirit, and aims of biodiversity research. Describing species in detail, learning from all corners of nature is one of the top priorities - sounds of great importance to me! We know little about so few species that such descriptors are of invaluable importance. Moreover, the IUCN Red-listing of 'Least Concern' for non-endemic species has also been criticized by many prominent biologists/scientists because it is also somewhat misleading to the untrained eye. It is only somewhat misleading, because once you understand what it means it is actually a correct statement - there is less concern that a non-endemic species will go extinct, but it doesn't mean that there is no concern for the species or that it is unimportant. Reading through the rationale of the importance scale - it seems more like this is about a nesting hierarchy - much like the taxonomic ranks (Kingdom, Order, Family, Genus, Species). Similar sort of nesting has been described for other literary sorts of analysis (e.g. [1],[2],[3]). Indeed, the very foundation of biological taxonomy has its roots from textual hierarchy and classification - so the principals are transferable. The metaphor that is being conveyed through 'importance' is sending out the wrong message - it is the incorrect term, nonfactual, and distorting the message.

If an administrator or Wikipedia staff member catches this - please see that this matter is addressed. It is frustrating as an author to have worked so hard on an article to then have it listed as low importance when I know otherwise. This discourages motivation for people to write about things they know and care about. If someone knows and cares about something and takes the time to write about it, then this is important. It is important to me and it is important to Wikipedia. Thompsma (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this completely and even indiginous red list species are rated as low importance. I think some reliable knowledge on wikipedia about a species as the natterjack toad (in my case) is important, especialy since non specialists will rely on it for some idea about the animal when they hear about it, encounter it or have to deal with it concerning their profession.

Furthermore the species is still the most important unit in taxonomy. Discussions about genera superfamilies are more of a specialist matter then adequate species information. So I think especialy indigenous species are of high importance to wikipedia (in the english wikipedia the case is different maybe because it is used worldwide). Also pictures are important because of different stage in the development, sex differences etc..Viridiflavus (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Differences of opinion about importance need to be resolved by polite discussion, as is the case with all "judgement calls" on Wikipedia. If this is not possible, the WikiProject can make a choice not to use importance - this is the case with WP:MILHIST, where importance assessments might be controversial. At WP:Chem, where I work, we've never had a problem. I should mention that the 1.0 project can select articles without this, and we correct score to allow for it, but having an importance assessment option does allow WikiProjects to have some input in the selection process. This is usually better than relying on a bot to make all of the importance assessments for you. If you want to look at how a specific article was scored by the bot in September, see this list. Walkerma (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The way I understand the use of the Importance parameter is that it is a ranking from the within the confines of the specific project group. If there is some kind of frog article, about a toad that can be found in Chicago (I'm on the ChicagoWikiProject ), I would give the article a low Importance rating because I don't believe the article would get a lot of hits from people wanting to know about Chicago. However, those people who are on biological teams who are knowledgeable about frogs and toads, may give the same article a High or maybe Top Importance rank because from within their project group's perspective the article would get a lot of hits. The Importance parameter does not make a statement about the quality of the written article (that I believe is the Class parameter), nor does it reflect on the effort taken and put into writting the article (from what I've seen, barnstars are used for that). So, to me the Importance parameter seems to work and should be kept. My issue is with the implication that "importance" and "priority", which to me is workload related, are synonymous (I'll take that up in other areas of discussion). Pknkly (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Setting Caps

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)

Oppose - To me, the Importance rank is intrinsic to the article and set as perceived by the members of a project group. Therefore, it should not be artificially set by some quota or criteria based on anything outside of the value that the article brings to the users. If a project group decides that a whole lot of articles, which fall within the scope of their project, are of Top Importance rank, then so be it. People who disagree with their selection can join the project group and pick up the argument from within the project group's assessment area. I believe that is the way the process was designed. Pknkly (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be fairly easy to arrange automatically - rank the articles in order of tagged importance and then give all a bonus based on the average. If you had half top-class articles and half B-class articles, they'd each be awarded 75 and 25 respectively. If they were all top-class, they'd get 50 each. Alternatively, the concept of key articles could be used - WikiProjects would have to specifically apply for these to be included if not initially chosen. If they don't care enough to do so, it's probably not that important a topic.

Technically it is possible, but because it is easy doesn't mean we should. Please see my opposition stated above. Pknkly (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, just having the bot run through and give us stats on page counts and the like has encouraged us to reassess the importance of certain articles relative to others. GreenReaper (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll be looking at a lot of different approaches to these problems. Glad the stats are helpful - we found the same in chemistry. Walkerma (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

These are good stats and a valuable tool for project group members to use as they consider their Importance ranking.

Decouple from Priority

In several areas of the article the two terms, importance and priority are treated as though they are synonymous. To me, they are not. Priority seems to me to be a kind of workload based term that ranks how quickly or in what order articles are to be focused upon by a project team. I do believe the Importance parameter (or priority if that is what it will be) is reserved for use by project team members. The Importance parameter is clearly documented in several articles as being based on an articles intrinsic value, judged by members of the project group, to the users of Wikipedia. Does the article get a lot of hits from users,? Is it heavily linked to? Is the article recognized by the users as a must have? It asks nothing about how many articles the project team has, how many the project team already ranked as Top Importance, or in what order the article is placed for rework by the project team. It is all about the article, not the workload of the project team. Therefore, I suggest that all official looking articles, such as this one, refrain from implying that the Importance parameter is the same as a pseudo Priority parameter. Also, I hope we never put any kind of work group priority tools within talk pages of user articles. Project team workload tools should be kept within the confines of project group specific articles within the background. BTW - If a project team wants a priority tool for managing their workload they can create subpages for priority articles (e.g., Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#How you can help under the "Improve important articles".]] Pknkly (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Represents Importance Toward the Wikiproject

I have been having a discussion regarding meaning of implementation at WT:ANIME/ASSESS, as we are now going to take into account importance during the assessment of articles.

• He says that importance should not be based on what is important to the project but as being what the project assess as important towards a complete encyclopedia,
• I rather that importance represents importance towards the Wikiproject, as WP:1.0/Criteria leads me to believe, and as some of the Wikiprojects applies it.

Please clarify!

Regards,

G.A.S 05:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We have always maintained that importance should be judged WITHIN the WikiProject. It's very difficult to judge the importance of a specialised topic for an entire encyclopedia. What we want to know in this case is, "Which are the more important Anime articles? Our bot corrects for the importance rating based on the scope of the WikiProject - a "High" in a broader scope project (such as "History") will count higher than a "High" within a narrower scope project like "History of Poland". Walkerma (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

About Importance Rating

I have a few questions, thanks in advance if someone cares to respond. So, the purpose of importance rating is so that people within a project can focus on these articles, right? How exactly are these ratings generated? I am working in WikiProject Music Theory, in which there aren't many active participants, and most of those aren't regular. Can individuals change article importance? Is there a process for this?BassHistory (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

• Support Walkerma 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - absolutely. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Diez2 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Andrewjd 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

a proposal

I move to amend the fourth criterion for inclusion in release 0.7 to read as follows:

• Start-Class C-Class articles, only if they are part of a set or are essential.

Thanks, 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's where we'd like to be, but right now that would mean us missing out a lot of really important topics. Definitely a goal, though! Walkerma (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

B-class assessment

I'm sorry to tell you, but what most projects have as B-class material hasn't been checked against the new B-class criteria. So you are including material that is not up to the standards. WP:MILHIST had a B-class assessment drive and all material that is B, is up to the standard. Perhaps you might want other projects to undertake a similar effort to ensure the quality of your effort. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware of that. That's one reason this is still Version 0.7, not 1.0; by the time we release 1.0, projects should have reviewed everything. Walkerma (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Top?

Where has the Top column gone? WikiProject Orienteering no longer has a Top column in its assessments table. --Una Smith (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because Category:Top-importance_Orienteering_articles is not placed in the right categories. I've hopefully fixed it, and in a few days you should see the Top-importance column reappear. Walkerma (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

I think it's funny how Wiki calls itself an Encyclopedia. That is so far from the truth it is ridiculous. So much for NPOV. 76.180.55.81 (talk)

Article Edit

Section - WikiProject importance assessments

Within the"WikiProject importance assessments" section, since the section is about the Importance parameter and not the Class parameter, I believe the sentence - An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Low-Class" in another - was meant to be - "Top-Importance" in one context may be only "Low-Importance in another".

I would also clarify by rewording the entire sentence. I suggest that it be - An article judged to be "Top-Importance" in one project group's context may be only "Low-Importance" in another project group's context. As it is, to me it reads as though it is OK to have the two ranks within the context of the same project. Pknkly (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point - sorry I missed seeing this at the time! I've tweaked the wording a bit, though I'm keen to keep it "short and sweet" - hope it's clearer now.

Thanks for the edit. I think it is clearer. Pknkly (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Republic of China article

The article has recently been upgraded to Good Article status, but it hasn't received an importance rating by the v1.0 team yet. Please could someone take a look at it and add the rating? Since it's part of the 1000 vital articles, I would think his importance is "Top" - is that correct? Link to the talk page: Talk:Republic_of_China. Thank! Laurent (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we almost never assign importance now directly from the 1.0 team; that is a relic of the "early days" when we only had a few thousand articles assessed by WikiProjects (now it's approaching 2 million!). I could tag this article as "Top" but we don't actually read importance criteria into the bot, and I think we will probably make the 1.0 team's importance assessment obsolete in the next update. We DO use the WikiProject importance assessments, so the "Top" rating by the two projects there are tracked. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Page update

Could someone familiar with the task update the entire page please? Particularly, it still states, that we plan to close manual nominations in October 2008. Brand[t] 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

C-class high-importance shouldn't be included - only top importance

Is see the criteria right now is:

• GA+ articles of mid importance or higher
• B-Class articles of high importance or higher
• C-Class articles of high importance or higher

I think that should be changed to:

• GA+ articles of mid importance or higher
• B-Class articles of high importance or higher
• C-Class articles of top importance

C-class articles are intentionally not B. B is like "okay for publishing, i guess, if it's important", and C is like "not ok for publishing, unless maybe it's really important" and we have no shortage of articles to be included if we just disregard the C class altogether. So I say only top importance C-class articles should be considered. Kevin Baas^talk 19:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a poor choice, based on how some projects define Top priority. WP:MED, for example, has restricted top-priority to really critical subjects, amounting to maybe one-third of one percent of the 21,000+ articles currently within its scope. High-priority articles amount to less than 5% of these articles. I'd be sorry to have a system that eliminates all "maybe decent enough" articles unless they were among the most important one-half of one percent of all medicine-related articles.

Looking at the list of C/High articles, your system would exclude articles like Back pain, Rabies, and Headache. Do you think that excluding these high-importance topics would be helpful to readers?

Also, given the confusion that some editors have about C-class (I saw one editor claim a few months ago that C-class requires, at minimum, an inline citation for every single paragraph in an article), some "C-class" articles might be actually meet WP:Good Article criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential, but my preference is to give less weight to importance defined by individual wikiprojects (which have a big range of importance themselves). Instead, importance should generally be considered based on WP as a whole, such as through the levels at Vital Articles. Maurreen (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Floating priority?

WPMED has what might be an unusual situation: Half the articles are low-importance to the project. A good deal of those "low" ratings aren't really firmly within the scope of the project; it's just that a really appropriate project, e.g., WP:WikiProject Human physiology doesn't exist, so we're tagging and assessing it as the closest available project.

I need to give every article a priority rating to get it out of my worklist (Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles), but sometimes I'd rather have a "just don't care" option.

I know that some projects don't assign importance ratings, and instead substitute page hits for manually assigned importance. Can we create a similar priority level that explicitly assigns a page to "whatever the page hits say"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Abolishing Importance

Let me ask a bold question. Do we need article importance anymore? I'm with the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, and from time to time, we have debates regarding the importance of articles, and for what? We know what articles people read, but the majority are pretty much ignored. Despite that, we know the ignored articles can be important (like storms affecting non-English speaking areas). At least, I don't see the need in article importance. If it's a matter if selecting which articles to include in 1.0, then surely there's another way than pigeonholing a few thousand hurricane articles into four categories. Couldn't we just do "1.0=yes", for articles that would ordinarily fit into Mid, High, or Top importance? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that if you don't assign a priority to any given article, that the 1.0 selection bot automatically applies a formula (mostly about page views) to estimate one for you. Some projects don't assign importance ratings to any articles at all.

There doesn't appear to be a system for identifying which unrated articles are deliberately unrated (vs unrated because of limitations on our volunteers' time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Other Countries

America is a world power so, we have fine luxuries, but what about the other wiki countries is there an editorial team for them?Defector1234 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

2019 update proposed

Over at the WP:editing guideline for WP:Content assessment there is a short mention of rating an article's "importance". That link brings you here, and so that section is essentially a WP:editing guideline by incorporation. But this page isn't documenting current content guidelines, its reporting out the criteria for future releases, and also giving a short summary of what happened with past releases. This is all very confusing and suggests the following udpates would help the next person instantly understand all this at one reading

• Split out the Importance/Priority assessment section and merge it into WP:Content assessment
• Say something about current activity
• Say something and the status of the next release... (the last I guess was 0.8, right?) if I understand correctly this an inactive effort and there are no plans at this time. If so, just say so, then an ed new to all this (like me) won't be confused.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am confused too. I arrived here via this page ,Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial_Team/Index. I don't understand why there are so many pages that are quite current (i.e. updated within the past year) that pertain to Wikipedia Version 1.0, yet there is no Wikipedia 1.0 described or linked to in this article. As NewsAndEventsGuy suggested, it would be helpful to know about the status of the next release, or even if there will be a 1.0 release, or if 0.8 was the most recent, and not to expect a new one anytime soon.--FeralOink (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This page WP:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team and the associated talk page are even better examples than the one I provided above. Both reference a Wikipedia 1.0 but it is not clear when or if it will be produced.--FeralOink (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)