User talk:Morphh: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 1: Prior to Jun. 14th, 2006 Archive 2: Jun. 2006 to Dec. 2006

Article Priority

My only concern with the assessment is I think it would be difficult to justify the FairTax as important in the US. There is virtually no support in Congress for it, it's never been voted on in committee. It has had little, if any, effect on the tax system and it's not widely talked about or written about. Certainly much less so than a flat tax and even that doesn't get a whole lot of coverage. I would rate it at low priority, but that's certainly no offense to people working on it. It looks like a good article on a subject I'd never heard of. In other words I'd say we'd need more evidence of impact and importance to justify a mid priority. - Taxman ^Talk 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to rework the priority assessment scale a bit. We want to look at the importance of an article from users, linkage, search factor, impact, etc. For example, Tax incidence may be a national term that effects everyone but not many people go looking for this article. Other articles such as Taxation in the United States are a much higher priority in my view but would currently be rated as "Mid". As far as the FairTax, it is the top tax reform plan in the U.S. and has almost 10 times as many sponsors as any Flat tax bill and has a NYTimes bestselling book. It is the fastest growing grassroots taxation movement with many people looking for information. The fact that it is a GA shows that this topic has interest and attention and therefore, I believe, not suitable for the lowest priority. However, I am biased with this one as it is my pet article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't reallize that would show up in the worklist, I just thought that was the place set up for commenting on the rating. It being a GA doesn't actually demonstrate importance (we have FA's on incredibly arcane things), just that someone (you in this case) has done a great job moving the article forward along with others helping. You have a good point on some other factors that should be considered in rating the priority. The scale of national importance was an attempt to reduce systemic bias by having all US tax concepts rated as important. I think that's important because US (or any other one country's) tax topics only directly affect a fraction of the world's people so we have to be careful not to elevate them too much in priority. Objectively they aren't high priority to most people. Having a low priority rating isn't a bad thing of course. In the end the priority rating of one specific article isn't too critical, but how we go about deciding the scale is somewhat important. The problem with linkage and search factors as criteria is to some extent those mirror the biases of the internet in general, being heavily US dominated. Impact is certainly important, for example the 401(k) plan has influenced legislation in other countries, so that elevates it's priority a bit beyond being a one country issue. But the impact criteria is also where I see FairTax on the lower side. It hasn't had much observable impact yet. If it does in the future, then of course that would change things. Perhaps we could seek some input from other project members. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what your saying with GA/FA, though to some degree, I think you can see (in general) that a stub article is probably of low importance as nobody has taken the time and interest - same thought for the GA/FA. However, I understand your point. I expressed my thoughts on the WikiProject talk in regard to systemic bias and priority. I think we have to be careful with lumping to many things into low priority. The FairTax is a large article with two sub-articles, good U.S. public interest, one of two major tax reform concepts (the one with the most sponsorship), growing movement, etc. Do you put this into the same priority as a stub with very little public interest (such as 1231 property or Rabbi trust)? I'm not suggesting it is Top or High priority.. I just don't think it is Low. I'm thinking we assess articles as if we lived in the specified country and not as if we lived in no country. If I lived in that country, what would the priority of that article be? Morphh ^(talk) 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Peer reviews

Looks like you've already installed the script – it would probably be easiest to run the script and paste the output somewhere on the wikiproject PR page, or on a subpage.

Alternatively, User:MartinBotII transcludes wikiProject peer reviews onto WP:PR automatically (more information about that here). When I semi-automatically review the articles, I also review those that are transcluded by MartinBotII. The output would then be pasted onto Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/June 2025.

Good luck with your new WikiProject, AZ _t 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's weird: there seems to be a whole range of different problems with the script being used on Firefox. I read into the topic a bit more and tried making some changes, and hopefully something will happen. If it still doesn't work, could you do me the favor of trying the method at User:AndyZ/PR#Anons/lazy users? AZ _t 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

I award this Barnstar to Morphh for leadership and excellent work in tax-related subjects. —Quarl 2006-12-29

Adminship

BTW, I think you would make a great administrator, although an RFA wouldn't go smoothly until you have a lot of experience in areas such as AfD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 23:24Z

Thanks

Dunno if this is the place for it (I'm a newbie) but thanks for the copyedits to my Stossel edits. Except I don't like the comma after "apology". Unnecessary, I think. I understand from your comment that I need to bone up on proper usage of... ref and citation tags? Whazzat??? I wanted to make the last sentence of "Pesticides..." a footnote and in an edit I did to David_Horowitz there was a page number in a referenced pdf file that I wanted to preserve and had to keep inline because I didn't know how to make it a footnote either. Could probably understand the instructions if I could only find time to look at them... But the text was so bad, and there's only so much time. Andyvphil 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)