User:Psb777/assessments

Article assessments (as usually done at WP) are counterproductive.

And as ANYONE can assess an article we end up with the ridiculous situation where one editor goes around placing his own PERSONAL assessment on articles - usually without any constructive criticism. These assessments, embedded in a neatly crafted template, then look official, not just the opinion of one editor.

Let's please stop this bad-mark / gold-star nonsense. Don't assess an article, improve it. If you assess an article you are already asked to "please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.". But often / mostly this does not occur. And you know why? Because it is often just as easy to improve the article as it is to critique it properly. What you assessors are doing more than anything is demotivating contributors to the encyclopedia. I spend considerable time working on many articles to find that some lazy sod has come along and given them ratings without giving a reason or suggestion for improvement. This is demotivating.

You lazy assessors: Stop! Article assessment: No more, thanks!

It is often just as easy to improve the article as it is to critique it properly. Ratings without a REASONED assessment and SUGGESTIONS for improvement are a waste of time. Most article assessment ratings do not have reasons or suggestions. I am close to saying I will not contribute to an improperly assessed article. Others must be similarly irritated by the critics around here.

Assessments are not necessarily a bad idea! The problem we have is the unreasoned assessment. Assessing an article as somewhat lacking in quality is USELESS unless you make suggestions for improvement. Also, who are you (or any other single person or any self appointed group) to set themselves up as capable of assessing the quality or even importance of an article? Quality of prose? Quality of facts? Importance in monetary terms, number of bombs dropped, innovations? No. If you're going to assess without specifying reasons and improvement suggestions, then that's a nonsense.

As I happen across article assessments made without providing cogent reasons I will place before it. I encourage all of you to do the same, in the interests of a better Wikipedia.

WP guideline: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment

Assessment of article assessments: Template:Poor_article_assessment

See:
 * Talk:Rate_of_return
 * Talk:2009_Bank_of_Ireland_robbery

False impression given of official status of assessments
I have no objection to any person or any body of self-appointed group of people keeping track of articles they like, don't like or which (in their opinion) need improvement or a gold star. That it is convenient to do so by prominently placing their official-looking, bold, big, brightly-coloured real-estate grabbing posters at the top of the Talk page is what is objectionable. If they, or anyone, what to add a section (to the then bottom!) of the Talk page saying, simply, "Hey! I like this page" (or whatever), that's fine by me.

But why wouldn't those who plaster their unreasoned opinions at the top of article Talk pages rather keep lists of articles grouped into their own peculiar categories on their own Talk pages? Or on the club page of the "WikiProject"? Because they are not merely keeping a list. No, their opinion matters more than mine or yours and therefore it requires pride of place. Why else would they exhibit their opinions in the way that they do? Effectively they are creating a false impression about the importance of their assessments by the way they present them. And, now, by complaining about the assessments of their assessments!

Who do these assessors think they are, prominently screaming their unreasoned opinions about the quality/importance of an article at the rest of us. Casual visitors to WP cannot help but gain the impression that these assessment templates are more than I know and you know they are. I think assessors should be uncomfortable with the impression being made, but they seem not to be.

Article assessments are said to be "constructive"
It is a mistake to think that any assessment of any body of work (not just that of a WP article) is constructive if the reasoning behind the assessment is not apparent. It seems obvious to me that a (proper) assessment of an article against the guidelines must take a non-trivial amount of time. If so it would be hardly any extra work to make notes during the assessment and make these available with the assessment. What a waste of time if this is not done. The assessor has determined what is wrong with the article but (s)he denies this info to the editors of the article! As that is patently a ridiculous behaviour it is more likely true that the assessor is not taking enough time to assess the article! A shoddy and unreasoned job is being done on the great majority of assessments. Nothing particularly constructive is actually going on.