
This is a personal tool that I use myself. Others are free to use it if they like. I do not propose its use in any sort of policy. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ---- BEEFSTEW
Basic Education Evaluation Form and Standardized Test for Evaluating Worthiness For use on articles on high schools, particularly those listed on VfD. This scoring system represents my personal opinion and nothing more. I will be using it in future in order to make sure that my own evaluations of high school articles are as objective and consistent as possible Each "yes" answer counts one point. A) Is the article more than two sentences long?
B) Does the article contain at least one coherent paragraph of text (other than list items)?
C) Is the article more than 2000 bytes long?
D) Does the article contain at least three facts that are ''not'' on the following list:
::The school's name, address, telephone number, website. ::The school's current enrollment ::The name of the school's principal. ::The school district or athletic conference/league to which it belongs. ::The school colors, school mascot, and name of one athletic team. E) Does the article include a photograph of the school?
F) Does the article list at least one alumnus notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article?
G) Does the article mention a regional or national news story that mentions the school? (''Not'' descriptions of athletic events in ''local'' media)
H) Besides F and G, does the article make a serious effort to establish the school's notability and describe some distinct things about it that distinguish it from other schools?
I) Would an alumnus of the school, reading the article, be pleased at how knowledgeable the article was?
J) Could a teacher learn anything relevant to a job search by reading this article (other than basic contact information)?
Scoring examples: Westview High School is a large high school of 2,300 students, located in Beaverton, Oregon, a suburb of Portland, Oregon.
''External link:'' [http://www.beavton.k12.or.us/westview Westview High School] :Score 0 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dr._Michael_M._Krop_High_School&oldid=6113637 Early version of ''Dr. Michael H. Krop High School''] :Score 3 (items A, B, D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dr._Michael_M._Krop_High_School&oldid=6161214 Improved version of ''Dr. Michael H. Krop High School''] :Score 7 (items A, B, C, D, H, I, J) Montgomery Bell Academy
Specific revision: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Montgomery_Bell_Academy&oldid=5436200 ''Montgomery Bell Academy'']
:'''Score 8 (items A, B, C, D, G ("Dead Poets Society"), H, I, J) Moanalua High School
Specific revision: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moanalua_High_School&oldid=6146843 ''Moanalua High School'']
:'''Score 9 (items A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J) ==NOTES== *The lighthearted acronym is intended to suggest that this should ''not'' be taken too seriously. *The scoring system is related to my ''own personal agenda,'' as follows: **Stubs have no value unless they grow into articles. The contributor of a stub is issuing an open invitation to others to jump in and work on the article before the contributor gets around to working on it. But the contributor of a stub has a responsibility to work on the stub and expand it if nobody else does. **High schools have such limited interest that stubs are not likely to grow. **Stubby high school articles are useless because a simple Google search on the web almost always provides better and more up-to-date information. *Stubby high school articles do not provide a headstart on future articles. Someone who wants to write a decent article about a high school is just as well off starting from zero as starting from a stubby article. *I am personally willing to tolerate good articles about non-notable high schools. *This scoring system tries to define what I think is "good enough." *The bar is set deliberately low. *I'm trying for a quick, easy discrimination between bad articles and acceptable articles, not a way of distinguishing fair, good and superb articles. I don't believe elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, etc. belong in Wikipedia unless they are truly, genuinely, notable on a level of national importance. I would not expect more than a handful of schools to be this notable. Froebel's own kindergarten would meet this standard; so would the first Montessori school in the United States; things like that. If I were going to formalize BEEFSTEW I suppose I would deduct three points for a junior high or middle school, six points for an elementary school, or something like that... ==Comments by other Wikipedians== *I copied several comments about BEEFSTEW, in hopes of making it better.--User:AAAAA 03:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) **I like those criteria, and I think I'll use them. I'm changing my vote to keep. Cool Hand Luke 17:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) **I agree, BEEFSTEW is a good system for this. – Quadell (talk) (help) 22:45, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) **It's a good start as a system, but if it gives this article a 7 while Montgomery Bell Academy gets an 8, then it seems apparent that this tool is inadequate. There seems to me to be an obvious gap in both quality and notability between the two articles that's far bigger than the numbers indicate. Gamaliel 23:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) ***Gamaliel is probably right, but how could you improve BEEFSTEW? Improving scoring systems might serve to improve articles about high schools--AAAAA 23:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) **On BEEFSTEW: ***The criteria 'A'-'E' are poor indicators of whether an article (on high schools or otherwise) should be kept or deleted. ***'F' promotes "notability by association", which I believe is a poor guideline (and is generally rejected on VfD). ***'G' -- the "notability by national media mention" principle is sometimes used to bolster an article's case on VfD, but usually only if the media attention is due to notability, and not the other way around. ***'H' is an excellent measure. ***'I' is a little nebulous, and probably points mostly back to 'A'-'E'. ***'J' is good, I think, but will be more significant if and when Wikipedia is large and mature enough for a teacher to think it a good resource for finding well-maintained, unbiased, non-trivial information about high schools. **Notice that a stub about a very notable school might only score 1/10, whereas a mass of trivial information about an entirely unnotable school might score a 7/10 or 8/10 -- WOT 18:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) **(For what it's worth, I am trying to evaluate the quality of the article, not the notability of the school, because my own opinion is that good articles about non-notable schools are tolerable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) *Comments on improving. Why is the score only limited to 0-9? Do all of the selected items really have the same importance or value? How about adding national awards? Say ratings in national surveys or if a US school 2 National Merit scholarship awards in a year or 3 students in a 5 year period. Does the fact that a school did well 30 years ago mean it should be included today if it is not doing as well? Are all magnet schools automatically listed? Does a district that has a lot of magnet schools make it harder for other schools in the district to get listed? Does the fact that a notable resident created and helps fund the school affect the BEEFSTEW score? Should it? Should notable teachers affect the score? The presence of a completed info box should add to the score. User:Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC) *Comment on US/western centric comments. While many of the comments may reflect this, I think it's because schools of interest to others would actually be placed in the WP for their language. I would not expect that everyone speaks English so it would be easier for them to add schools to other WP projects. User:Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ===Will school articles be kept up to date?=== * We shall ask another question: ** If anything changes, will the article be updated in time? * This is a vital question. What if the school changes its principal? Something as bad as false information is outdated information. I don't think many high school articles, despite of frequent edits, will be updated in time. Most of us will not check the name of principal once it's in Wikipedia. This is not a good idea. If that article contains some other information known by insiders only (such as a science project, or a scandal ...), how do we update it if anything changes? Except for some magnet schools, I against nearly all high school articles. -- User:Toytoy 04:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) ** Reply: If concerned about contributing information which may become dated in years time, simply date the statement in preface. For example, "As of 2005, Mr. Daniel Smith is the senior principal of BEEFSTEW County High School." --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *** I'm sorry, but I don't think that's adequate or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be relatively timeless. The content should still be relevant in 100 years. Ephemeral information should be edited out. Slapping a date on the content and then failing to update the article does more harm than good to the credibility and usefulness of the encyclopedia as a whole. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 21:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***** A lot of information on WP is both in flux and unlikely to be updated, but that is a common feature of all encyclopedias — I recently came across a WP article on a city that said something like "As of 1870, the population is 5000". "As of 1870"!! I think that the article's source was EB1911, and that encyclopedia had been unable to find more recent information... User:VivaEmilyDavies 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) **** I'm sorry you disagree. While Toytoy's concerns are valid, "as of" dates are frequently used on Wikipedia to mark content which may be subject to change in the future. A cursory scan of articles about recent U.S. presidents validates this. If these marks are good enough for the President of the United States, why not a high school principal? --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 22:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***** The average number of editors and completely-up-to-date sources available for a US President is several thousand. The average number of editors and up-to-date sources available for Woop-Woop Lutheran Primary School is bound to be somewhat smaller. And for good reason. User:Lacrimosus User talk:Lacrimosus 22:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****** So, if I understand you correctly, the number of editors dedicated to a certain subject validates or invalidates this as a resolution? As Wikipedia grows, so will the number of editors available for each "Woop Woop" school, as you put it. --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 23:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *******Firstly, the number of available editors and sources is an excellent indication of the ''utility'' of a given article. If it's exceedingly low, the article will be information-poor and (as discussed above) out-of-date/unverifiable, rendering it useless. Secondly, the number of editors on Wikipedia is not and never will be infinite. Wikipedia will always have scarce resources - so it's best to allocate these to the topics that are most worthwhile (and not in a way that reinforces systemic bias). My point is that number of editors/sources *in this case* ''reinforces'' (not determines) the subject's lack of noteworthiness. Wouldn't it be better if all the effort devoted to the Schoolwatch were devoted towards, say, the Culture of Azerbaijan article, an area where there is a genuine and pressing dearth that affects Wikipedia's repute as a source? It's a matter of what readers expect to find in an encyclopedia. They don't need to reference it to check up on class timetables. *******On a side note, it's interesting to see that you respond to me when I post in another user's namespace, but not in your own. User:Lacrimosus User talk:Lacrimosus 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ********Suggesting an alternate documentary subject, such as Culture of Azerbaijan, seems more appropriate to discuss with authors of fictional subjects rather than non. --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *********I dunno. I think the idea of the Wikipedia is to be consensus-driven. While editors may choose to contribute to articles where Wikipedia is lacking, when there are other articles they may prefer, they're under no obligation to do so. If people want to make articles on schools, let them (but try and keep the quality up). *********On the side note: It is very interesting to see GRider engaging in discussion. I hope it's something we'll see more of :) --User:Kierano 06:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ******* Yes, I do believe that the number of editors ought to be a factor in the decision. There is a certain critical mass necessary to be reasonably sure that the article is on enough watchlists to be protected in the long-term from subtle vandalism and/or from the inclusion of unverified or biased content. Very small or obscure topics are very difficult to protect. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 14:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ******** I beleive that someone made a request for a feature that shows the number of users watching a particular article somewhere (but I can't remember where). Does anyone know any more about it? User:Thryduulf 15:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ********* I vaguely recall that it was shouted down largely on the basis that it would be a powerful tool for vandals - they'd be able to confine vandalism to articles that they ''know'' no one's watching, and thus go undetected longer. —User:Korath (User talk:Korath) 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) The examples listed are sooo egocentred on schools in the United States or western schools. Won't you represent schools (on this page) from the East out of accurate reflection? -- User:Natalinasmpf 22:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ==Combining issues== I think this approach actually collapses 2 issues into one. Very short stubs aren't always helful, but they are hardly combined to schools. In general (not just with schools) then we have to assume that if a subject is inherently notable then the stub will probably grow. I can see these guidelines being the subject of endless arguments. Although I am not always a drastic inclusionist, I propose to treat all secondary schools as inherently notable, as this encourages young people to get involved in Wikipedia. User:PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
*COMMENT: This is a GREAT tool. I will work on the missing "points".--User:AAAAA 15:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) *I agree. I've been voting on these high schools a lot recently, so this helps me keep my votes more uniform. I'll strongly consider voting "keep" on articles scoring ''better than'' 5. Cool_Hand_Luke">User:Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) Just a suggestion: does the age of a school make it notable enough to warrant an article even if it's only one sentence? I happen to think that Aylesbury Grammar School is fairly notable because it was founded in 1598. Unfortunately I don't happen to know a great deal more about it. It is at least as notable, if not more so than Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe which has just two short paragraphs. The point is both these schools were founded in the 16th century: should age be a BEEFSTEW indicator of notability? Great system by the way. -- User:Francs2000 | User talk:Francs2000 12:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I like the system! I agree that it would be worth adding a question about age ("Is the school over 100 years old?"), but I also wonder if it'd be worth adding a weighting system? So, F, G and H could all score 2 points. Actually I'd be tempted to split G into three parts: regoinal (1 point), national (2 points), international (4 points). The thinking behind 4 points is that if a school's internationally mentioned it really should have an article! --User:Grutter 08:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) *Do you want to explain that? If a school is mentioned on here then it is by proxy internationally mentioned. -- User:Francs2000 | User talk:Francs2000 11:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::I meant mentioned in the international news media (TV, radio, newspaper). --User:Grutter 08:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) See my notes at User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW for what my intentions were. I'm gratified that people see some value in the scoring system. I don't want to fuss too much about refining or tuning it. I don't want people to take it too seriously. Do note that I'm trying to evaluate the quality of the article, not the notability of the school, and that I'm trying to make a rough-and-ready distinction between bad articles and acceptable (to me!) articles, rather than separating fair, good, and superb articles... User:Dpbsmith_User_talk:dpbsmith">User:Dpbsmith|User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 13:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why schools in particular? If we applied the same standards to Lord of the Rings characters or tiny American towns we would radically change what Wikipedia is. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Well, I can talk about this two ways. One is the explanation I have always given, which is that I use BEEFSTEW as a factor in judging whether borderline articles on schools should be kept. I'm not asserting this as consensus policy, I'm stating a factor that can be used to predict how I will vote on school articles--an elaborate version of the same thing you find on Wikipedia:What's in, what's out.
:Second, I've made it fairly clear that I personally am not inclusionist nor deletionist, but I am "mergist" and I am "qualitarian."
::The überinclusionist belief system is that the quality of an article should be irrelevant, because if the topic itself has ''potential'' for being encyclopedic, the articles will magically grow and improve as the result of, I suppose, vital aetheric vibrations.
:My belief is that articles are ''written'' by the action of ''people'' who volunteer to work on them. Articles that are likely to attract the attention of a large pool of interested editors are likely to grow and improve. Articles on extremely narrow topics of interest to only tiny number of editors are not. Therefore, I take the illogical but commonsense view of factoring in article quality on any article that are borderline in being encyclopedic.
:My belief is that we are trying to build an encyclopedia and that an encyclopedia is a big set of books full of ''good'' articles in them. It's not clear what policies will best support that goal, but that's the goal.
:In other words, a crappy one-line stub on Beethoven is fine with me because it won't stay that way for long. A lovingly written, detailed, interesting, well-referenced, through, scholarly treatment of a Pokemon character, or a non-notable high school is fine with me because it is a good article.
:I see—not absolutely no evidence, but very little evidence, that the semi-literate two-line squibs about secondary and middle schools get any systematic attention.
:With respect to the Rambot articles, that's a special case. I'm not much of Rambot fan, and I dislike the idea that what should be simple tabular data somehow gains something by being mechanically converted into COBOL-like prose. However, the town articles have the characteristic that they are reasonable comprehensive, complete, and (apparently) get regular maintenance. This does not happen with school articles. Wikipedia is not, and in the foreseeable future will not be a substitute for www.greatschools.net or anything like that.
:As for "radically chang[ing] what Wikipedia is," I don't think it would. When I look at the actual voting behavior on school articles what I see is that ''regardless of stated principle,'' both inclusionists and deletionists do take article quality into account. Whether or not BEEFSTEW scores are mentioned, high-BEEFSTEW articles usually survive and low-BEEFSTEW articles do not (unless improved during VfD).
:But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in anarchy. The organizational principles that were effective when Wikipedia was starting up and you had a huge population of stubby articles on clearly encyclopedic topics are not sacred.
:By the way, no, I do not like the effect BEEFSTEW has had on some articles--when editors deliberately engaged in BEEFSTEW-bloat in order to get an article past VfD. But I don't think the answer to that is to tinker or refine BEEFSTEW. I just meant it as a rough metric to identify semi-objectively what I'd call the "insultingly bad" articles.
:Anyway, by all means vote as you think fit on school articles. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 14:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Many thanks for search a detailed response to my query. As you might have guessed I was somewhat motivated by the Robert Frost Middle School deletion debate currently underway. It looks you would keep that article from what you say, and it is a shame that your metric is not being used the way the inventor intended. I guess this all part of my agitation that "non-notability" is more and more an acceptable criterion for deletion. Unlike other deletion rules notability is inherently subjective (or POV to use the wikipedia term). And because deletion votes are binding, if the community has a particular skew then this a copper-bottomed way of introducing systemic bias into the encyclopedia (e.g. we systematically have lots of esoterica on computers but very little on individual small companies). I guess I am just frustrated that I am powerless to stop this - I can't force the neverending torrent of newcomers all to think, "hang on, I am being objective here". Your criteria, to judge the quality of content regardless of subject matter, is definitely something I can identify with. Thanks again, User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 23:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC).
== adding criteria? ==
Can we change this? I'd like to add "how many classrooms (etc) a school has" as being non-notable (excluding any architectural merit). Also, most British grammar schools and public schools I think are inherently notable. Thirdly, there should be some merit for age, this obviously varies from place to place, but say pre-1800 in Europe, pre-1900 in the US and the Commonwealth should be given points. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 16:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Dpbsmith/beefstew:
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
Dpbsmith/beefstew
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
This is a personal tool that I use myself. Others are free to use it if they like. I do not propose its use in any sort of policy. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ---- BEEFSTEW
Basic Education Evaluation Form and Standardized Test for Evaluating Worthiness For use on articles on high schools, particularly those listed on VfD. This scoring system represents my personal opinion and nothing more. I will be using it in future in order to make sure that my own evaluations of high school articles are as objective and consistent as possible Each "yes" answer counts one point. A) Is the article more than two sentences long?
B) Does the article contain at least one coherent paragraph of text (other than list items)?
C) Is the article more than 2000 bytes long?
D) Does the article contain at least three facts that are ''not'' on the following list:
::The school's name, address, telephone number, website. ::The school's current enrollment ::The name of the school's principal. ::The school district or athletic conference/league to which it belongs. ::The school colors, school mascot, and name of one athletic team. E) Does the article include a photograph of the school?
F) Does the article list at least one alumnus notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article?
G) Does the article mention a regional or national news story that mentions the school? (''Not'' descriptions of athletic events in ''local'' media)
H) Besides F and G, does the article make a serious effort to establish the school's notability and describe some distinct things about it that distinguish it from other schools?
I) Would an alumnus of the school, reading the article, be pleased at how knowledgeable the article was?
J) Could a teacher learn anything relevant to a job search by reading this article (other than basic contact information)?
Scoring examples: Westview High School is a large high school of 2,300 students, located in Beaverton, Oregon, a suburb of Portland, Oregon.
''External link:'' [http://www.beavton.k12.or.us/westview Westview High School] :Score 0 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dr._Michael_M._Krop_High_School&oldid=6113637 Early version of ''Dr. Michael H. Krop High School''] :Score 3 (items A, B, D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dr._Michael_M._Krop_High_School&oldid=6161214 Improved version of ''Dr. Michael H. Krop High School''] :Score 7 (items A, B, C, D, H, I, J) Montgomery Bell Academy
Specific revision: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Montgomery_Bell_Academy&oldid=5436200 ''Montgomery Bell Academy'']
:'''Score 8 (items A, B, C, D, G ("Dead Poets Society"), H, I, J) Moanalua High School
Specific revision: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moanalua_High_School&oldid=6146843 ''Moanalua High School'']
:'''Score 9 (items A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J) ==NOTES== *The lighthearted acronym is intended to suggest that this should ''not'' be taken too seriously. *The scoring system is related to my ''own personal agenda,'' as follows: **Stubs have no value unless they grow into articles. The contributor of a stub is issuing an open invitation to others to jump in and work on the article before the contributor gets around to working on it. But the contributor of a stub has a responsibility to work on the stub and expand it if nobody else does. **High schools have such limited interest that stubs are not likely to grow. **Stubby high school articles are useless because a simple Google search on the web almost always provides better and more up-to-date information. *Stubby high school articles do not provide a headstart on future articles. Someone who wants to write a decent article about a high school is just as well off starting from zero as starting from a stubby article. *I am personally willing to tolerate good articles about non-notable high schools. *This scoring system tries to define what I think is "good enough." *The bar is set deliberately low. *I'm trying for a quick, easy discrimination between bad articles and acceptable articles, not a way of distinguishing fair, good and superb articles. I don't believe elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, etc. belong in Wikipedia unless they are truly, genuinely, notable on a level of national importance. I would not expect more than a handful of schools to be this notable. Froebel's own kindergarten would meet this standard; so would the first Montessori school in the United States; things like that. If I were going to formalize BEEFSTEW I suppose I would deduct three points for a junior high or middle school, six points for an elementary school, or something like that... ==Comments by other Wikipedians== *I copied several comments about BEEFSTEW, in hopes of making it better.--User:AAAAA 03:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) **I like those criteria, and I think I'll use them. I'm changing my vote to keep. Cool Hand Luke 17:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) **I agree, BEEFSTEW is a good system for this. – Quadell (talk) (help) 22:45, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) **It's a good start as a system, but if it gives this article a 7 while Montgomery Bell Academy gets an 8, then it seems apparent that this tool is inadequate. There seems to me to be an obvious gap in both quality and notability between the two articles that's far bigger than the numbers indicate. Gamaliel 23:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) ***Gamaliel is probably right, but how could you improve BEEFSTEW? Improving scoring systems might serve to improve articles about high schools--AAAAA 23:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) **On BEEFSTEW: ***The criteria 'A'-'E' are poor indicators of whether an article (on high schools or otherwise) should be kept or deleted. ***'F' promotes "notability by association", which I believe is a poor guideline (and is generally rejected on VfD). ***'G' -- the "notability by national media mention" principle is sometimes used to bolster an article's case on VfD, but usually only if the media attention is due to notability, and not the other way around. ***'H' is an excellent measure. ***'I' is a little nebulous, and probably points mostly back to 'A'-'E'. ***'J' is good, I think, but will be more significant if and when Wikipedia is large and mature enough for a teacher to think it a good resource for finding well-maintained, unbiased, non-trivial information about high schools. **Notice that a stub about a very notable school might only score 1/10, whereas a mass of trivial information about an entirely unnotable school might score a 7/10 or 8/10 -- WOT 18:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) **(For what it's worth, I am trying to evaluate the quality of the article, not the notability of the school, because my own opinion is that good articles about non-notable schools are tolerable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) *Comments on improving. Why is the score only limited to 0-9? Do all of the selected items really have the same importance or value? How about adding national awards? Say ratings in national surveys or if a US school 2 National Merit scholarship awards in a year or 3 students in a 5 year period. Does the fact that a school did well 30 years ago mean it should be included today if it is not doing as well? Are all magnet schools automatically listed? Does a district that has a lot of magnet schools make it harder for other schools in the district to get listed? Does the fact that a notable resident created and helps fund the school affect the BEEFSTEW score? Should it? Should notable teachers affect the score? The presence of a completed info box should add to the score. User:Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC) *Comment on US/western centric comments. While many of the comments may reflect this, I think it's because schools of interest to others would actually be placed in the WP for their language. I would not expect that everyone speaks English so it would be easier for them to add schools to other WP projects. User:Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ===Will school articles be kept up to date?=== * We shall ask another question: ** If anything changes, will the article be updated in time? * This is a vital question. What if the school changes its principal? Something as bad as false information is outdated information. I don't think many high school articles, despite of frequent edits, will be updated in time. Most of us will not check the name of principal once it's in Wikipedia. This is not a good idea. If that article contains some other information known by insiders only (such as a science project, or a scandal ...), how do we update it if anything changes? Except for some magnet schools, I against nearly all high school articles. -- User:Toytoy 04:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) ** Reply: If concerned about contributing information which may become dated in years time, simply date the statement in preface. For example, "As of 2005, Mr. Daniel Smith is the senior principal of BEEFSTEW County High School." --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *** I'm sorry, but I don't think that's adequate or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be relatively timeless. The content should still be relevant in 100 years. Ephemeral information should be edited out. Slapping a date on the content and then failing to update the article does more harm than good to the credibility and usefulness of the encyclopedia as a whole. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 21:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***** A lot of information on WP is both in flux and unlikely to be updated, but that is a common feature of all encyclopedias — I recently came across a WP article on a city that said something like "As of 1870, the population is 5000". "As of 1870"!! I think that the article's source was EB1911, and that encyclopedia had been unable to find more recent information... User:VivaEmilyDavies 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) **** I'm sorry you disagree. While Toytoy's concerns are valid, "as of" dates are frequently used on Wikipedia to mark content which may be subject to change in the future. A cursory scan of articles about recent U.S. presidents validates this. If these marks are good enough for the President of the United States, why not a high school principal? --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 22:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***** The average number of editors and completely-up-to-date sources available for a US President is several thousand. The average number of editors and up-to-date sources available for Woop-Woop Lutheran Primary School is bound to be somewhat smaller. And for good reason. User:Lacrimosus User talk:Lacrimosus 22:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****** So, if I understand you correctly, the number of editors dedicated to a certain subject validates or invalidates this as a resolution? As Wikipedia grows, so will the number of editors available for each "Woop Woop" school, as you put it. --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 23:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *******Firstly, the number of available editors and sources is an excellent indication of the ''utility'' of a given article. If it's exceedingly low, the article will be information-poor and (as discussed above) out-of-date/unverifiable, rendering it useless. Secondly, the number of editors on Wikipedia is not and never will be infinite. Wikipedia will always have scarce resources - so it's best to allocate these to the topics that are most worthwhile (and not in a way that reinforces systemic bias). My point is that number of editors/sources *in this case* ''reinforces'' (not determines) the subject's lack of noteworthiness. Wouldn't it be better if all the effort devoted to the Schoolwatch were devoted towards, say, the Culture of Azerbaijan article, an area where there is a genuine and pressing dearth that affects Wikipedia's repute as a source? It's a matter of what readers expect to find in an encyclopedia. They don't need to reference it to check up on class timetables. *******On a side note, it's interesting to see that you respond to me when I post in another user's namespace, but not in your own. User:Lacrimosus User talk:Lacrimosus 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ********Suggesting an alternate documentary subject, such as Culture of Azerbaijan, seems more appropriate to discuss with authors of fictional subjects rather than non. --User:GRider\User_talk:GRider 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *********I dunno. I think the idea of the Wikipedia is to be consensus-driven. While editors may choose to contribute to articles where Wikipedia is lacking, when there are other articles they may prefer, they're under no obligation to do so. If people want to make articles on schools, let them (but try and keep the quality up). *********On the side note: It is very interesting to see GRider engaging in discussion. I hope it's something we'll see more of :) --User:Kierano 06:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ******* Yes, I do believe that the number of editors ought to be a factor in the decision. There is a certain critical mass necessary to be reasonably sure that the article is on enough watchlists to be protected in the long-term from subtle vandalism and/or from the inclusion of unverified or biased content. Very small or obscure topics are very difficult to protect. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 14:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ******** I beleive that someone made a request for a feature that shows the number of users watching a particular article somewhere (but I can't remember where). Does anyone know any more about it? User:Thryduulf 15:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ********* I vaguely recall that it was shouted down largely on the basis that it would be a powerful tool for vandals - they'd be able to confine vandalism to articles that they ''know'' no one's watching, and thus go undetected longer. —User:Korath (User talk:Korath) 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) The examples listed are sooo egocentred on schools in the United States or western schools. Won't you represent schools (on this page) from the East out of accurate reflection? -- User:Natalinasmpf 22:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ==Combining issues== I think this approach actually collapses 2 issues into one. Very short stubs aren't always helful, but they are hardly combined to schools. In general (not just with schools) then we have to assume that if a subject is inherently notable then the stub will probably grow. I can see these guidelines being the subject of endless arguments. Although I am not always a drastic inclusionist, I propose to treat all secondary schools as inherently notable, as this encourages young people to get involved in Wikipedia. User:PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
*COMMENT: This is a GREAT tool. I will work on the missing "points".--User:AAAAA 15:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) *I agree. I've been voting on these high schools a lot recently, so this helps me keep my votes more uniform. I'll strongly consider voting "keep" on articles scoring ''better than'' 5. Cool_Hand_Luke">User:Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) Just a suggestion: does the age of a school make it notable enough to warrant an article even if it's only one sentence? I happen to think that Aylesbury Grammar School is fairly notable because it was founded in 1598. Unfortunately I don't happen to know a great deal more about it. It is at least as notable, if not more so than Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe which has just two short paragraphs. The point is both these schools were founded in the 16th century: should age be a BEEFSTEW indicator of notability? Great system by the way. -- User:Francs2000 | User talk:Francs2000 12:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) I like the system! I agree that it would be worth adding a question about age ("Is the school over 100 years old?"), but I also wonder if it'd be worth adding a weighting system? So, F, G and H could all score 2 points. Actually I'd be tempted to split G into three parts: regoinal (1 point), national (2 points), international (4 points). The thinking behind 4 points is that if a school's internationally mentioned it really should have an article! --User:Grutter 08:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) *Do you want to explain that? If a school is mentioned on here then it is by proxy internationally mentioned. -- User:Francs2000 | User talk:Francs2000 11:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::I meant mentioned in the international news media (TV, radio, newspaper). --User:Grutter 08:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) See my notes at User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW for what my intentions were. I'm gratified that people see some value in the scoring system. I don't want to fuss too much about refining or tuning it. I don't want people to take it too seriously. Do note that I'm trying to evaluate the quality of the article, not the notability of the school, and that I'm trying to make a rough-and-ready distinction between bad articles and acceptable (to me!) articles, rather than separating fair, good, and superb articles... User:Dpbsmith_
Dpbsmith/beefstew
#REDIRECT User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Dpbsmith/beefstew:
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
Dpbsmith/beefstew
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
