Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment

Help and suggestions

Hello, I want to help in assessing articles in WP Law.

I do assessment in WP Tax, but since there are few unassessed articles left I want to move into another wikiproject where I have edited and created articles.

I noticed that this department is temporarily closed while some amendments are made. I want to help out with these amendments and suggest some of my own:

Tailor the importance table to WPLaw (of coursed derived from the common template standards). (Somewhat unnecessary since an explanation is included under the importance table. I suppose I was thinking of something like in Wikipedia: WikiProject Taxation/Assessment#Priority scale)
Tailor the classification table to WPLaw, but of course this would be somewhat limited. Rather than tailoring the standards, changing the examples and collateral cells in the table to fit the characteristics of WP Law would be beneficial. (Example in Wikipedia: WikiProject Taxation/Assessment#Quality scale)
Amendment the WikiProject Law page's section on assessment to include a link to this page. This would help corrall those interested in assessment to this department.

I will try to think of other suggestions. Let me know what you think. EECavazos (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your suggestions, and your enthusiasm is appreciated.

- We did have a link on the main page to this dept. to begin with but it's been removed until we're ready to run. I'll certainly let you know as soon as we're at that stage.
- The class (quality) criteria are going to stay as it appears on the page for this year, although the examples are going to be changed prior to the department re-opening. If you have suggestions to replace the current examples that are not confined to this project, please do submit them.
- At this point, I think it's better to keep the importance standards broad as it's generally self-explanatory for an area like law. But I'm open to suggestions that would substantially improve it (if any). If you have a specific suggestion in regards to the importance standards for this project assessment dept., please do submit it.

You're welcome to begin assessing the unassessed articles under the current criteria, even though the assessment department hasn't reopened just yet. It's a good trial to see if articles are being assessed in the way the criteria/standards are intended to be enforced, and if interpretation on current wording isn't encountering major problems. If you have any queries, concerns or suggestions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment scheme - quality

Continuing discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#WP:LAW assessment scheme. Currently, two editors support the C class while one is opposed.EECavazos (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality scale

In the list, the request for an assessment leads to WikiProject India. Among other changes, this should also be changed.EECavazos (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the WP India grading scheme and replaced it with the general grading scheme. Additional admendments should be discussed.EECavazos (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Law grading scheme has been restored - any changes should be discussed, and yes, I do object to imposing Editorial Team 1.0's scheme - some reasons noted at the main WikiProject talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any changes should be discussed. The assessment department was defunct, it did not exist. It has now been created. The quality scale posted in WP Law grading was not WP Law's because it was a cut and paste job of WP India's scheme. The general grading scheme is the base from which we may make the WP Law grading scheme. An old thing made from previous version of WP India is not the base, particularly since the assessment department was defunct and hidden. EECavazos (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted. It's mere wikilawyering to say that because it follows the WP India scheme, that you can override the consensus system. You were reverted, and I kept the changes you made which were productive - there may be a couple more things that can be worked on. Please stop revert warring and seek consensus and actually discuss signficant changes that others find unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should also consider ideal law articles that qualify as good examples of stub, start, B, GA, FL and FA classes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a very good idea. I would trust your judgment on this should you want to do it alone. If you want to bring it to consideration of others on the talk page, feel free, of course. EECavazos (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale/assessment

The two are now combined. I have the following suggestions to be implemented unless someone has an objection. They are outlined in the series of subheaders below. EECavazos (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low

Low importance, this part could be improved by giving broad examples that would automatically fit into this area. These could include persons and places such as lawyers, law firms, prisons, police forces. Further, it should include court cases unless the case is a well-known hallmark like Row v. Wade etc.EECavazos (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be ok; certain cases might become subject to unnecessary disputes as to whether they qualify as 'hallmark' or not. So, we should keep the wording to "includes persons (eg; lawyers, judges etc.) and places (eg; law firms, prisons, police forces) as well as most court cases." Certain legislation (codes, acts, etc.) might also fit in here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that parts of the already-added wording that can be problematic, so this might also need to be revised. Whether it's members of the assessment team or other editors, they need to try to show some level of understanding of the dynamics. The general guide should be considered as a matter of first priority. A general article on 'attorney general' for example would not fall under mid importance, but would be of high importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article on "attorney general" as an office or concept would be a high importance level and perhaps top, but that is not an article so much on a person but a concept important in a legal system. However, specific attorney generals (the person) should be low importance unless they are highly notable such as being highly controversial but that would just raise their importance level from low to mid. High importance should not apply to specific attorney generals (the person) because it strays too far from the core scope of WP Law. For example, an article on Harry Potter may be within the scope of WP Law should the article discuss particular legal controversies like copyright/trademark etc but it should not be high importance even though the article is about a highly popular topic because the legal aspects of the article are secondary and the reader is not searching Harry Potter for law topics. An article specifically on legal controversies surrounding Harry Potter could justify a mid to high importance rating particularly if national and international laws are integrated into the article. Therefore, a High importance rating for particular attorney generals should apply within other wikiprojects such as wikiprojects on specific governments/countries/states and WP Biography because they are within their respective core scopes but not WP Law because it strays too far from the core scope of the project. As for articles on a country's own office of attorney general, I am initially inclined to say "low importance" but your comment makes me think that instead mid to high should apply; mid if "attorney general" in general would be listed as high, and alternatively it should be high if "attorney general" in general should be classified as top. EECavazos (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was just an example of one of your assessments - I'm not blindly reassessing the articles you've looked at in assigning C-class - I do look at how well or poorly you've applied the quality/importance scheme. The general importance scheme is beneficial in that sense...I'll reply in more detail to this later today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlock

There is a deadlock. If anyone wants further change, they should be discussed on this talk page before they are implemented. EECavazos (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to seek a change that is different to the version that existed for 3 months, and you've been reverted, then you need to stop editing disruptively and discuss. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version that existed for these past three months were hidden from WP Law participants. Hiding the assessment department and then letting it fallow is being disruptive. Bringing the assessment department out into the light of actual WP Law participants and improving the page is not being disruptive . . . in fact it is quite the opposite. Therefore, you are disruptively reverting the proper WP Law Assessment department page. How about we both get some already listed WP Law participants, we both back away, and then let the other WP Law participants decide. EECavazos (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who compared pointing the dept. to the WP Law participants as disruptive? You. There has been no controversy for 3 months...then you begin disruptively editing by reverting reassessments, continually making substantial changes to the previous version, etc. Some parts are worthwhile, which is why they were not reverted. Other parts are problematic, which is why they were reverted and should be discussed until there's a consensus to change that part significantly from its previous version. Reverting again (a few times) is being disruptive, and given your recent contributions, gives you the appearance of a single purpose agenda-driven account, which is something I don't think you want to appear as. Non Curat Lex has approached the matter nicely and we're discussing it, however little or much we might disagree, we will resolve those differences - but not through revert warring. Your proposal appears to indicate that you will not be willing to refrain from edit-warring which is a problem, and that you're not willing to discuss this which I think is a sad way to resolve this at the moment. I therefore abstain on this for the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C class

A wikiproject may choose to reject the C classificiation or to adopt it. Rejecting the C classification means that the wikiproject deletes the category page for the c class and choose not to use the C class for the foreseeable future. Adoption means that the wikiproject will not discuss further the rejection to use the C class. Until rejection, C classification may be used. Should the C class be rejected then the C classed articles would become unassessed articles and may then be reassessed. Until then the C class is usuable to assess an article. Currently two editors support the adoption of the C classification while one editor wants to reject the C classification. That is not enough for a consensus for rejection of the C class. Further, the editor who wants to reject the C class is not even a participant of WP Law. The two editors who support the adoption of the C class are participants of WP Law. The consensus should be made by participants of WP Law. Two WP Law participants alone are not enough for a consensus. We probably need 10 WP Law participants for a consensus either way to reject or adopt the C class. Until then there is a deadlock with the C class continuing to be used. EECavazos (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-class was not adopted and the quality scale has remained this way for 3 months - please cease editing so disruptively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. C class has not been rejected. Further all participanting WP Law participants approved the C class. You are not a participant of WP Law. But you are still an editor so you still have a voice. Further, the reason the scale was that way was because you removed access to WP Assessment department, so WP Law participants could not provide input. See the talk page for the so-called WP Law grading scale. EECavazos (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. This will provide some edification. EECavazos (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an assessment section

This section requests assessments not peer reviews. Further, there is no peer review group. That's why there are all those red links. If someone wants to create the peer review group, feel free. Then create a section for requesting peer reviews. EECavazos (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality scale

The WP India derived quality scale was imposed on WP Law assessment without there being a consensus. Links to the WP Law assessment department was removed from the WP Law project page, which prevented WP Law participants from providing input to create a consensus. Therefore, the general quality scale belongs until changes to it have been made (with consensus). EECavazos (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no changes were made for 3 months so there was consensus. If you want to open a discussion on changing the existing version, you are welcome to do so - but it does not give you the right to edit-war. Please cease. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There was no consensus someone removed the link to the assessment department from the WP Law project page, which prevented a consensus since WP Law participants could not participate during those three months. EECavazos (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being disruptive with petty wikilawyering - this version has existed for 3 months and others have edited regarding this page on other people's talk pages, as well as editing these pages. What it shows is that others are aware. There is no requirement to be listed in order to be a participant - which I have been for quite some time, whether in a GA reviewer's capacity or even in editing! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus

until we get more editors to, uh, “vote” on this thing. Three editors do not a consensus make, even if they agree with each other! Bwrs (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment team/participants

There is no assessment team. Saying that there is a team and that there are main members imposes a false hierarchy. There is no team becuase anyone in WP Law may assess an article. In fact, there are editors who are not part of WP Law but who assess or reassess articles. EECavazos (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this version has existed for some 3 months - you've been reverted so you can again try to seek consensus for another version. I disagree - the assessment team spends a fair amount of time assessing articles and has a fair deal of experience to guide other editors who might have some trouble even assessing basic importance and quality parameters (including yourself). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There was no three month consensus. You withdrew the link to the assessment department from the WP Law project page, which prevented WP Law participants from providing input. EECavazos (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being disruptive with petty wikilawyering - this version has existed for 3 months and others have edited regarding this page on other people's talk pages, as well as editing these pages. What it shows is that others are aware. There is no requirement to be listed in order to be a participant - which I have been for quite some time, whether in a GA reviewer's capacity or even in editing! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong as noted above (hiding the dep't from WP Law participants). Please, check out the proposal I put above. This is just silly. EECavazos (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is - don't become a tendentious editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ section

Someone reverted the edit that took the wikilink to a right page. The reversion made it a redline, it didn't go to any wikipage. EECavazos (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment "team"/Hierarchy

Regardless of any other content on this page, I find the concept of an "assessment team" with a hierarchy to be completely inappropriate and non-wikiable. There should be a list identifying voluntary participants, nothing more. Ncmvocalist, you seem to be dedicated to protecting this content. I urge you to remove it, or allow it to be removed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...it's a mere list of experienced reviewers who voluntarily participate in assessing articles. The only 'authority' they have is determining whether an article is fit to be an A-class article - at present, given that we have no other formal process (like A-class review) the team determines if there is a consensus to pass, and obviously any objections raised would need to be considered, even if they are raised by team members. The purpose of a new members section is so that experienced reviewers can help them out, should they misapply the assessment scheme on articles. When they've gathered some experience, they become a member of the dept. too...I do think a collegial atmosphere where users work as a team rather than somehow seeming like enemies in a war (how it appears presently) is more ideal, and worth encouraging. What exactly is your problem? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that it is not a mere list. It is a list - plus. And that plus attempts to set an ex ante limitation on who can establish a "consensus" to classify an article as A-class. Sure, this would be nice - I've seen autistic editors repeatedly GA-nominate the same barely-B-class article over and over and waste a lot of editor time... and yes, that guy was a total pain. Sure it would have been nice to have rules that say only certain people count for a consensus. But it is against the basic principles of wikipedia editing. Other than COI rules, all editors are equal when it comes to content - even admins. A system that purports to reserve authority to certain editors, and exclude others from consensus, strikes me as out of touch.

It also strikes me as bad policy. If someone wrongly classifies an obvious stub article as A-class, it will be obvious, and it will cost little to correct it. If there's a genuine dispute over the class of an article, it will be very costly (to the prestige of the project and the encyclopedia) to have a person or group of people claiming exclusive authority to classify. It is also costly if the appearance of reserved authority chills people from wanting to policy.

Plus, who decides who is "listed, plus?" If I went and listed myself, and bolded myself, would you revert it? What if Famspear did? What if some newbie did? I don't like this idea that people are evaluating each others specialness as a qualification to do a certain kind of editing. In matters of content, all editors must be treated as equal. Judge the content of edit, not the editor who created it. This system doesn't work that way. That's why I'm disturbed.

I understand that you work on and are experienced with assessments. Tell me, do other assessments take such an approach that certain editors are "special" when it comes to assessments? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To bluntly answer the question at the end of your response, yes, except rather than determining it so much as a team, it's usually determined by a single editor - a coordinator. WP Milhist and WP Films are examples, and their method is clearly working or else their FA count wouldn't climb so frequently. FAC relies basically on 2 editors - either Raul654 and SandyGeorgia. I'd rather have it distributed in a way that experienced reviewers (as a group) make the determination, rather than as an individual determining it. (The reason for not letting any editors assign A-class is because there is an unfortunate problem on Wikipedia - some editors game the system, and this gives rise to grades being rewarded in a way that basically defeat the purpose of having grades in the first place.)

Going to the second last paragraph, you can bold yourself even as a new member. In fact, I prefer to think new members try and assess as much as they can, particularly for the requests. If there is any issues in the assessment of the new reviewer, any experienced reviewer can guide them on how to improve. If you were inexperienced in applying the criteria and put yourself as experienced, you might be setting yourself up for a big blow. Whether it's editors, administrators, experienced contributors or even experienced reviewers, you'll be open to a large amount of criticism. Mistakes are okay; egregrious or repeated mistakes are not, and uninvolved others will come to think you misplaced yourself and move you accordingly, in the same way they will unbold you if they feel you are inactive or away.

By no means does the grade, or the determination of the grade, decide the result of content disputes in an article. The grades just give a rough idea of where the article stands. If for example an editor disagreed with our decision on a grade, they are by all means welcome to advance to FAC (and waste everyone's time). Consensus is not determined by the count either, it takes a lot of factors into account, and given that a set of users (bureaucrats) determine if there's consensus for an editor to become an admin, this isn't so bad. To put it explicitly: any editor who objects to or supports the article being awarded A-grade will be heard (and forms part of that determination of consensus); if there is enough doubt that the criteria are not satisfied, the grade will not be rewarded because of the implications it can have on the project. I'm not sure if that puts your mind at ease, but nevertheless, I do hope it helps you better understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still curious about the works of other assessment teams and will do some furhter research. So here's my thinking, if that's how it really works, I don't have as much of a problem with it functionally speaking -- a lot of what you are saying makes sense, and shows that the organic proces of open editing is left intact. But I still have a concern about the presentation. If it is as egalitarian as you say, then, do we really need to have an appearance of authority distribution? Even if there is no attempt to reserve hard power and obstruct the organic editing process, we're still distinguishing between classifications of team members? And I ask, what purpose does it serve? Why not just go with a straight up list, and allow leadership to emerge and devolve organically? Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each will vary in their own way to some extent. The presentation is something I wouldn't strongly oppose - it was more of a new+novel idea that went in line with my second paragraph. If all editors are under the same umbrella of the dept., then it is possible we will encounter some editors who are less understanding when mistakes occur, and the heavy criticism could sting. That's the main purpose, but it's also more of a convenience for experienced reviewers who can then see who's new and monitor their assessments from time to time - particularly if and when the list begins to grow, it's not so much keeping track of editors who should be fine on their own already, rather, keeping track of editors who might need a little reassurance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm, you cite a legitimate interest against which I cannot argue. But isn't that interest also served by signing when you list yourself, or self-classifying on an inactive list (as I do on the mainpage for the project?) You can see how long someone's been in by seeing when they signed the guestbook. You can see how many edits they've made with an edit counter. These are not precise, but they aren't that much less precise than this method of classification. And they can be done without any appearance of wikirepugnance. Is that a good enough alternative?

I understand that you want to try something new. Wikipedia encourages experimentation. WP:Bold. But not everything is meant to last. Now that I'm satisfied that this is not an attempt to create new kinds of wikithority or manipulate the classification process, I'm no longer of the position that it must go. But I'm still against it. I'm willing to take a wait-and-see approach. Non Curat Lex (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I wouldn't strongly oppose the change to that presentation, and it's not something that I'd say should necessarily last forever. It might be subject to a change again sometime down the road. We can't do much about people who think they or others are less capable because they're on the 'new' list or whatever other assumptions they make...but we can (try to) promote the sort of environment I was talking about earlier (with respect to 'team'). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments by --- reviewers or simply editors?

The page says an assessment "[m]ay be assigned by any reviewer". Given the fact that WP now has WP:RVW Reviewers, I wonder if the term "reviewer" should be dropped in favor of "editor". E.g., does the Project want to limit assessments to Reviewers? Lacking comment to the contrary in the next days, I'll make the change. --S. Rich (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-starting assessment

I'm proposing restarting the assessment department. I would be interested in helping participate in this. in particular, I find the a great deal of the current grading and importance scales to be more than arbitrary. Often times it is almost as if the assessment is conducted by a non-lawyer. Of course, I think the great value of wikipedia is to allow everyone the opportunity to edit, but I do believe than the assessment/grading of pages and rating of their importance should be conducted by someone with at the very least ostensible experience in the field. That might not necessarily be a JD/LLB or being called to the bar - but I do think that if we are going to attach a (moderate) attempt at a objective quality scale, it should be done with some due care. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on whether how to place the assessment department back in operation - and whether there there are any additional changes to the structure that anyone feels is necessary to keep it running efficiently.

BNClawyer32 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived some of the assessments that were done. Ominae (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

assessment — Vidya Dhar Mahajan

Kindly assess Vidya Dhar Mahajan on the project's importance scale. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the status of an area of law in the US the comparator for the importance of laws in all other countries?

On the project page, it says: "For example, an article on criminal law in Canada, Germany, or China should receive the same importance rating as an article on criminal law in the US."

Why is the importance of the law in the US the determining factor for the importance of articles about laws in all other countries? Wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, not a US encyclopedia. There can be areas of law that have varying importance in different countries. Whether it's important in the US shouldn't determine if the law in the same area in another country carries the same importance. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From § Importance assessment: Generally, articles on the topic in one country should have the same importance rating as an equivalent topic in another country.

The intention there is that the US (and UK, etc) should receive no special treatment because of aby bias in the Wikipedia userbase; it does not mean that we should always gauge the importance of an article by the corollary US article. Maybe it isn’t the most ideal wording, but I think “generally” covers the fact that corollary articles within the domain of smaller countries won’t be as important (eg Judiciary of Kiribati may well be less important than Judiciary of Russia). If you want to swap out example countries to make it clearer that may not be a bad idea. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]