Philosophy Project‑class | |||||||
|
I'm going through and making initial assessments. I'm not throughly reading the articles, so most of the assessments are based on rather shallow criteria, like length and sectioning. I am, of course, not committed to any of these assessments so you are welcome to change them if you see fit. Also, I've been spending some time putting the philosophy template on the talk page of anything with philo-stub (without paying too much attention to whether the article actually deserves it). Many of these "articles" shouldn't exist at all and/or shouldn't have either philosophy template on them. I encourage you to remove the philosophy templates and/or propose that the articles be deleted as you see fit. KSchutte 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am having problems rating the importance of articles because the criteria seem to conflict. Topics that are generally very well known about by non-philosophers may not play a particularly vital role in philosophy (e.g. Global justice. Topics that are vital to philosophy may be virtually unknown outside of philosophy (e.g. empiricism). People who are very well known and internationally important may be of comparatively little philosophical interest, and vice versa. I have been trying to kind of amalgamate the various criteria, but it leaves me feeling unsure about the importance ratings I am giving the articles. Anarchia 09:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Consider Top importance articles. The assessment page says:
But there is no 'philosophy of science' or 'mind-body dualism' (etc.) section in the philosophy article, and there is a phenomenology section. And the assessment page also says:
Readers uninvolved with philosophy are unlikely to know anything about phenomenology, but may well know something about the philosophy of Karl Popper or mind-body dualism.
Any suggestions? Am I just trying to read the assessment criteria too literally? Could they be clarified? Anarchia 06:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For Top Importance,
For High Importance,
For Mid Importance,
For Low Importance,
Heh, this is just off the top of my head. Feel free to add or debate some points! Poor Yorick 08:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Importance Scale is a VERY bad concept. Human knowledge processes most from seemingly unrelated fields. Kin dof like "disruptive technologies". Today the best scientists are scientists have a specialists from several fields so they can further the fields. What else is Wikipedia that creating ties between various fields? This is why internet is so powerful because the speed of information moves faster from seemingly unrelated fields. So scaling information because they seem "The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy" is really silly. Beside: "philosophy" means the love of knowledge. There is no required knowloedge to love knowledge. Aristotle is not required to be a philisopher. Ask Aristotle himself ;-) Fabrice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.247.158 ( talk) 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The article Talk:Qualia is rated "C-Class" and links to this page. However, the Philosophy/Assessment does not say what "C-Class" means. Contributions/80.203.72.122 ( talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Anti-consumerism warrants a High importance rating, on par with free will, dualism, and Socrates? That strikes me as more than a tad ridiculous, and this has nothing to do with any opposition I might have to the idea itself. Lupusrex ( talk) 20:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no grade for assessing articles that are clearly no longer stubs, but that are totally impenetrable. A case in point is the article Multiplicity (philosophy). It is linked to from nearly 100 other articles, the comprehension of some of which requires understanding the philosophical concept of multiplicity. For example, Rhizome (philosophy) is defined as "an 'image of thought' ... that apprehends multiplicities". -- Lambiam 08:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The article on Richard J. Bernstein is rated "stub-class," yet appears (to me, at least) to be quite complete and detailed. Could someone from the assessment team take a look at it? I am no expert, but it seems to me the article in its present form is at least at the "C" or "B" class level. PDGPA ( talk) 16:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey all, I've been working through the assessment backlog of unrated pages in the past week - almost all of the "philosopher" articles have been assessed for importance now. Following the guidelines here and on the main content assessment page, I've rated almost all of them as "Low" - with the exception of more famous philosophers. Following the guidelines here, no one who has done their most important work after 1950 was assessed as "high" - car chasm ( talk) 04:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of pages on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Popular_pages have little to do with philosophy - while this usually wouldn't matter, it's preventing the most popular pages in philosophy from pulling into this monthly report. I'm going to run down the list and remove any that don't seem directly related to philosophy: e.g. while Abortion is certainly an ethics topic, something more specific like Abortion law in the United States is probably not. I think a lot of pages get tagged as philosophy as a sort of catch-all so if there's a more appropriate project template that isn't there I will add it. If anyone feels strongly that any of these articles should be tracked as philosophy articles for the purposes of this report please reply to this comment or tag me on the relevant talk page. - car chasm ( talk) 04:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Given that the current assessment standards say The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Philosophy article.
and the current list of articles marked as "Top" importance weren't all listed as sections in the
Philosophy article, I've reassessed pages as necessary to make that true. All of the pages that had previously been marked "Top" are now marked "high." I think overall this new list is also better, though I wanted to explain my rationale here in case anyone has any concerns with these changes.
Psychastes (
talk)
01:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)