Talk:Speaking of Research
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Tryptofish in topic Importance assessment
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Importance assessment
editI notice that another editor has just made an article importance assessment. Question: are there any guidelines in place to aid in making sure that importance is not assessed on the basis of which "side" of the animal use in research controversy the subject is on? In other words, is there a risk of pro-animal rights or animal welfare subjects being rated higher than pro-research subjects? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I put the assessment project together and started assessing and Akhran (talk · contribs) has been very helpfully continuing where I left off. In short, the answer is yes, the guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights/Assessment. How one interprets those for each article is of course sensitive to POV. Be aware, though, that this is WikiProject Animal rights, so articles on AR-centric subjects are going to be deemed more important by definition, and pro-research groups are likely to be of more minor importance to this particular project's scope. That notwithstanding, I think Akhran has done a pretty decent job. But if you dispute any particular rating, then please do feel free to discuss. Rockpocket 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for that thoughtful reply. Please let me hasten to add that I was not finding fault with Ahkran's rating, which seems to me to be not unreasonable; rather, seeing it made me wonder about the question that I asked. What is still on my mind (albeit not a huge issue) is what I get when I unpack "so articles on AR-centric subjects are going to be deemed more important by definition," which is that the page here is AR-centric, in that it is about a group formed to rebut some aspects of the AR movement. That, then, leads me to question whether what is really happening is that the project may, "by definition," be pushing a POV of favoring pro-AR pages over pages that are about AR, but critical of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Its an interesting consideration; how do you define 'importance' in that context? I note, for example, that Brights movement is not part of WP:WikiProject Religion, despite it being a formed to rebut some aspects of the religious movement. Similar examples can be found all through Wikipedia. Personally, I think our Wikiproject is remarkably inclusive for this sort of thing (perhaps because many of its members, myself included, don't hold a pro-AR POV ourselves. That said, I noticed that Pro-Test is not currently listed, an oversight which should be rectified). Since Wikiprojects serve a managerial or editorial function, rather than part of the encyclopaedia proper, institutional pro- or anti-POV isn't something that is deemed particularly important in the wider scheme of things. Nevertheless, I take your point and it might be something worth looking at. Rockpocket 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those are good points all around. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Its an interesting consideration; how do you define 'importance' in that context? I note, for example, that Brights movement is not part of WP:WikiProject Religion, despite it being a formed to rebut some aspects of the religious movement. Similar examples can be found all through Wikipedia. Personally, I think our Wikiproject is remarkably inclusive for this sort of thing (perhaps because many of its members, myself included, don't hold a pro-AR POV ourselves. That said, I noticed that Pro-Test is not currently listed, an oversight which should be rectified). Since Wikiprojects serve a managerial or editorial function, rather than part of the encyclopaedia proper, institutional pro- or anti-POV isn't something that is deemed particularly important in the wider scheme of things. Nevertheless, I take your point and it might be something worth looking at. Rockpocket 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for that thoughtful reply. Please let me hasten to add that I was not finding fault with Ahkran's rating, which seems to me to be not unreasonable; rather, seeing it made me wonder about the question that I asked. What is still on my mind (albeit not a huge issue) is what I get when I unpack "so articles on AR-centric subjects are going to be deemed more important by definition," which is that the page here is AR-centric, in that it is about a group formed to rebut some aspects of the AR movement. That, then, leads me to question whether what is really happening is that the project may, "by definition," be pushing a POV of favoring pro-AR pages over pages that are about AR, but critical of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)