Loading AI tools
|
The first tagging and assessment drive challenge is starting now for WikiProject United States Public Policy. If you'd like to participate, start using the new assessment system and the project banner to tag and rate articles that are related to U.S. public policy. There's even a small prize for whoever does the most assessment this week.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Amy. Thanks for adding the {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}} banner to Talk:Abortion. I'm pleased to see this new initiative, and hope you enjoy working with the editors here. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the banner to the top of the talk page, to place it with all the other project banners. It might look as if it's disappeared at first sight, but it's actually inside a collapsed box (a "banner shell") that we use to collect up multiple project banners – it won't alter the functionality of the banner. When you tag other articles, I'd recommend you do it at the top of the talk page, next to any other project banners that are there. It's been our convention to do it that way, possibly because it removes any chance of the banner being archived by a bot if it archived the last thread on the page. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
{{RexxS|Msg from Amy|ts=21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)}}
Yes, I am very interested, intrigued even, and also somewhat flattered by the invitation. I spent the last day looking into the project's plans, scope, and methods, as well as what articles are presently included, and the many I see that are not. At the moment though, I am still assessing the level of involvement which I can commit to this significant project. Saying yes and acting on such productive things are not necessarily the same. I want to come in with all eyes open; I already know that much of this is new to me, and therefore requires even more time spent learning what to do and how to do it well. Thus far my involvement/commitment to Wiki Projects has been self-motivated; I edit/post what seems most productive within the realm I have chosen, and where that leads. I guess in part, it led to your invitation. May I ask which edited articles you saw, and what made you notice; the latter is self-generated project feedback.
I consider becoming involved to be mutually beneficial, to provide a broadening and more global approach to my edits and those of others, as well as to be an NPOV-learning experience. At the same time, I am not broadly a 'policy' guy; only general aspects of this project are currently intriguing from a knowledge base, and fit well into my edit history, but that could change. In my area of particular interest, I very much see the need for improvement, particularly in the areas of comprehensiveness and sourcing. As evidenced by the color, I also see some gaping holes in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage; I know there are widely RS'd reasons for this, as well as its nonexistence being part and parcel of the real world, and mirrored in Wiki-experience.
Initially, I would like to add articles to the project, learn more about categories and formatting, and make some dry-runs at assessing compared to some existing assessments. Once I understand the process better, I'll feel better about delving in as part of something else. After the above questions are answered, maybe a few others, and a couple of days think-time, I will likely commit on the appropriate page, should my comments still allow compliance with your requirements. Warmest Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork, I am so excited that you have some interest in article assessment on this project. I am looking for a group of about 20 people both public policy experts and Wikipedia experts to evaluate about 10-20 articles every 2 months. The articles would range in class so I am guessing the time commitment to be about 2.5 hours every 2 months. (You would probably have a better idea of this than I would, and I assume it would vary somewhat between assessors.) I would really appreciate any input you have on the evaluation plan. The first assessment package is designed to test variability within the assessment metric for the WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy, which is a version of the 1.0 assessment metric. It is totally planned, it just needs 10 or preferably 20 people to assess articles. If you are interested I am open to describing the statistics and methods that will be used to measure variability. Also, I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to coach me if I misstep, and know that it is not intentional. hopefully we'll be in touch, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me know when Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment goes live, and I'll do some article assessments. SilkTork *YES! 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Your external link to outreach.wikimedia is incorrect; for external links do not use a pipe ("|") between the URL and link text, use a space instead. Thanks. Nifboy (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Amy, thanks for the info. Recently, I read something about the Public Policy Initiative and I think it is an excellent program to improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. I'm glad to know it is now a concrete reality and I hope it will be extended to other topics in the near future. I do not have much time, but I signed up on the interest list and I hope to contribute to this program. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
At some point you're going to want to evaluate how your summative assessment criteria line up with the WP1.0 'hurdle' criteria. As an exercise, I had a look at one of the unassessed USPPI articles: AARP. I've done a WP1.0 assessment on the talk page, but not amended the project template, so if it gets reviewed via USPPI criteria, we can have a look at how the two compare. If you'd prefer, I can remove my assessment from the talk page, so as not to bias another reviewer or encourage inappropriate comparisons. It will still be visible in the talk page history, so you can look back if you want to make use of it. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point RexxS, we have thresholds built into the quantitative metric, but for an article to be GA or FA it would still have to go through the established assessment process. I think it's fine to leave the standard 1.0 assessment on the talk page. It would be good to compare the quantitative metric with the 1.0 metric, but the statistical tests that exist to compare qualitative metrics like the 1.0 assessment method are really limited in strength so they need a large sample size and the results are not usually very powerful. That is why I pushed for using some sort of quantitative method for analyzing the PPI, because theoretically we will be able to get a better idea of article quality with fewer assessments. So the first experiment is to see how much variability exists within the quantitative metric. At least my goal is to get some statistically significant results that indicate whether or not the project actually improved article quality.
Assessment Page
Amy,
On my assessment page, do you want me to replace "1 July 2010" with the date I rated each article (I did this with the Homeland Security Act)? Thanks and God bless!
Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- CanonLawJunkie, thanks for reviewing! Yes that's good place to note which date the article was assessed. - I appreciate it. What did you think of the quantitative metric?
ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really like it! It's easy to use and I'll review more articles shortly. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 22:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Amy, do you still want me to review articles from phase 1 I didn't finish? And what did you mean by "Drug Policy of the United States" (nonexistent)? Thanks and God bless! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- hi CanonLawJunkie, yes, if you can, it would be great if you would finish the first phase. I am still waiting for some other assessments on that set as well. Try this link Drug policy of the United States. Sage wrote a tutorial on wikilinks yesterday, so we'll see if that works - I am still learning. Thanks for the response, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Amy, I will be slamming for the next 10 days but I'll try to do some more evals after. Sorry! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No worries CanonLawJunkie, whatever you can do is great, and things are slowing down a bit anyway. But there will research activity going on at a moderate level. Wishing you good Wikitivity ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I got your note; I am out of the house all evening (I'm in the US, on east coast time) so I don't think I'll be able to get to anything till this weekend, but should be able to look then. I look forward to helping out. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- thanks Mike Christie. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to wish you all the very best for the rest of your pregnancy. I read about it on the project talk page. British author Caroline Norton wrote that maternal love is "the only love which, on this teeming earth, asks no return for passion's wayward birth" and this is so true.
I have some ideas and suggestions, and a few questions about the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I will write something about this on the Assessment talk page very soon. I'm working on it, but I'm not ready yet. Maybe in a couple of hours or days. Best regards. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- looking forward to hearing your thoughts pjoef, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "You raised some... ...I hope the peculiarities of the project don't discourage you from wanting to participate in assessment."
No, no, it is the opposite, I am not discouraged (^___^), but as Aristotle said: "well begun is half done"!
Hip hip hooray, I found my assessment page (^___^)!!! Yesterday, I saw my username in the list at the bottom of the assessment page, but I have not checked the link /o\. I thought it was the link to my user page on Wikipedia, and that the members pages linked to the project assessment had not yet been created.
Anyway, I did the first review and I hope to do the rest very soon (maybe in the next week or so.)
Take care and all the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "...credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles... article quality and how to measure it... Article Feedback tool..."
Hi Amy! Hope You are OK!
Thank you for taking the time to write to me.
I know about all of this because I've WP:USPP's pages on my watchlist.
I read the comments by other assessors and editors on the project talk page and some of them are very interesting. I hope to make a "valuable" contribution to the discussion as soon as possible and as soon as I've some new and fresh ideas. Yes, the discussion is very interesting and there are some good points. I have also read your reply regarding my proposal to carry out a base-10 ratings system. The fact is that I'm a "FAN@ic" and I'm positively "obsessed" ~ hahaha ~ by control loop feedback mechanism (closed-loop controllers in control theory and others) and I would like to apply it everywhere. Don't give a monkey's about this! ~ lol
I also know the article feedback tool and I had already seen (and used) it in the past. I've also used it in all the pages I've reviewed. In my opinion it is very well done and works fine. I use a single login across the majority of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, so I can contribute with my opinions and suggestions directly on the MediaWiki website.
I left the {{USPP}} at the top of the articles' talk pages unchanged because I think it would be better to wait until all the results are in, and then to work out an average figure to put in. I hope that the method I used for the assessments is correct. In addition to the ratings, I have added a brief description of what is "good" and what is "not good" for each assessment area.
I think that academic circles would become more involved if the quality of the articles is high, but we do what we can and we work with what we have.
Please, keep me informed about future developments. I will check the project's pages out periodically (2–3 times per week) and post my ideas and suggestions on the project's talk page.
All the best and thanks again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pjoef, I am well, thanks for asking. I did find out though that I will be having a c-section. Baby is breech and has no intention of moving, I sent most of a day at the hospital trying to turn her, she wasn't having it, but this allows me to have a better idea of my schedule. I am glad to hear you are giving some input on the article feedback tool, some of my coworkers will be very excited about that, one or more of them may contact in the next couple of weeks. I have a question I want to ask to the group of Wikipedian assessors: Does Wikipedia kind of self-regulate on article assessment by typically requesting that Wikipedians with expertise in the subject area are the ones to assess artile quality? Or is assessment typically done by Wikipedians who have experience in assessment? I will put this on the assessment talk page, but let me know what you think. thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the article is C-class or lower and belongs to a WP, then the procedure is done by the members of that WP, and they may be or may not be experts on the matter. GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article) candidates must be nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations for GA, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for FA. They must meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria for GA, and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for FA. When a GA or a FA nomination is accepted, consensus must be reached that it meets the GA or the GA+FA criteria respectively, but all editors (registered user only) are elegible to review it. The GA process has a guideline on how to apply the GA criteria. (See: Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles.) Some WPs, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket, Wikipedia:WikiProject History, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, among many others, have also a process for discussing and determining whether an article that belongs to those projects should be given the A-class status, which is a class that is better than GA (the GA nomination must be successfully passed before), but worse than FA.
I think that if we could add some experts to the decision procedure for FA candidates, especially for the comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality and readability areas, and if some experts could edit articles in their subject area in a programmed and not random way, then we could achieve an excellent quality of the encyclopedia. One way would be to involve them and this is possible because, if you do not know, there is a kind of disease that runs in Wikipedia and is called wikipediholism, or obsession, or addiction with Wikipedia ~ hahaha! In this way, many "common" editors would be helped by [the presence of] experts, and in turn the experts would be helped by experienced editors for syntax and techniques regarding the use of the wiki software.
There is a really interesting article on Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia. I think you'll find the Assessments section very interesting, if you have not read it before of course.
That's all for now. "Drop in" whenever you need to. Take care of you both and all the very best! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I copy these comments to the Assessment talk page and respond there?ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would love to help, but as I mentioned, my knowledge is mostly in medical policy, though I could help elsewhere. Also, is there a list of articles to be reviewed? Ronk01 talk 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've completed my first lot of homework. I wasn't sure if I needed to do anything else to let you know that it's done? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm now confused about the second set of assessments, posted here. Is there a reason that the list is not formatted with links? And what does "all from 1 October 2010 or there about" mean? Am I supposed to review the 1 October version? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Cordless Larry, I'm sorry - I didn't have time to make links for the articles. And yes, if possible, use the version of the article from 1 October 2010, but the date is so close at this point that it probably doesn't matter. What do you think of the assessment? What would encourage you to keep working on this project? I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't really know what makes a good Wikiproject, but I do have some good ideas for a public policy assessment barnstar. Let me know what you think. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I would have thought that the exact date did matter. What if someone goes for 2 October instead and the article underwent a considerable re-write on that day? That would surely mess up the comparison of the assessments? In terms of things that would keep me working, I think the most important is that I'm kept informed about what is going on. Many projects die out over time and their pages stop being updated. As long as you keep the project working, I think I'll be interested. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right if there is a big rewrite between 2 dates that will be a big difference in the assessment results. Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the problem is in this subject area) most of the articles within the public policy area are not very actively edited. Also, as long as everyone keeps track of the date of the article version at at assessment I am keeping taking into account both the date of article version and edits between 2 versions. But the goal is for article quality improve more rapidly as we recruit colleges and university students to the project, so it is something that has to be nailed down. And a part of this design was to compare if assessments were significantly different between 2 dates. My problem is that it was so hard to get a group willing to assess that I don't want to hound people about everything. So I am trying to figure out how to keep people active and interested, and still get some decent quality data. So far the people that are actively assessing are VERY impressive: fast turn around, fairly similar results (my preliminary analysis shows), thought provoking comments; it's really a great group of Wikipedians. You mentioned staying informed, what do you think of a weekly or probably bi-weekly update on the research posted on the assessment tab of the project page? Would having a broader sense of what is happening in the research make contributors realize how valuable their assessments and feedback are? ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- A regular update sounds good. I think I'll remain interested and engaged so long as the project appears active, and regular news updates on how it's going might be a way to ensure that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right if there is a big rewrite between 2 dates that will be a big difference in the assessment results. Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the problem is in this subject area) most of the articles within the public policy area are not very actively edited. Also, as long as everyone keeps track of the date of the article version at at assessment I am keeping taking into account both the date of article version and edits between 2 versions. But the goal is for article quality improve more rapidly as we recruit colleges and university students to the project, so it is something that has to be nailed down. And a part of this design was to compare if assessments were significantly different between 2 dates. My problem is that it was so hard to get a group willing to assess that I don't want to hound people about everything. So I am trying to figure out how to keep people active and interested, and still get some decent quality data. So far the people that are actively assessing are VERY impressive: fast turn around, fairly similar results (my preliminary analysis shows), thought provoking comments; it's really a great group of Wikipedians. You mentioned staying informed, what do you think of a weekly or probably bi-weekly update on the research posted on the assessment tab of the project page? Would having a broader sense of what is happening in the research make contributors realize how valuable their assessments and feedback are? ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I would have thought that the exact date did matter. What if someone goes for 2 October instead and the article underwent a considerable re-write on that day? That would surely mess up the comparison of the assessments? In terms of things that would keep me working, I think the most important is that I'm kept informed about what is going on. Many projects die out over time and their pages stop being updated. As long as you keep the project working, I think I'll be interested. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Cordless Larry, I'm sorry - I didn't have time to make links for the articles. And yes, if possible, use the version of the article from 1 October 2010, but the date is so close at this point that it probably doesn't matter. What do you think of the assessment? What would encourage you to keep working on this project? I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't really know what makes a good Wikiproject, but I do have some good ideas for a public policy assessment barnstar. Let me know what you think. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of participation in this project due to scheduling problems with work, etc. I wish everyone else the best of luck in this endeavor. Lord Psyko Jo (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for the response Lord Psyko Jo. All the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to review War on Drugs. I am seeing right now that it gets edited everyday, a few times a day, but seems pretty active. Should we substitute it? -- DQ (t) (e) 02:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi DeltaQuad, Since several reviews have been done, can you review the version from the same date? 1 July 2010? ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, just thought you might want to know it may have changed quite a bit since then. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks DQ, there has been some discussion about using the same article version, I just didn't want to be a nag, since it is so great to have help I don't want to make it harder. But changes in the article will be taken into account, at least somewhat, in the this experiment. You will notice there are a couple of articles to rereview, this is an attempt to measure article improvement. I'll let you know what the analysis shows. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I will get on those ASAP. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I will get on those ASAP. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks DQ, there has been some discussion about using the same article version, I just didn't want to be a nag, since it is so great to have help I don't want to make it harder. But changes in the article will be taken into account, at least somewhat, in the this experiment. You will notice there are a couple of articles to rereview, this is an attempt to measure article improvement. I'll let you know what the analysis shows. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, just thought you might want to know it may have changed quite a bit since then. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Amy. In addition to evaluating media policy articles, I'd also be interested in technology policy. - kaeh4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
MDSanker, you signed up to assess with WP:USPP. If you are interested in public policy or assessment, check out your assessment page, because there is a lot happening on the project. Most of the recruitment for the assessment team was targeted, so I know you have a lot to offer to the research goals of this project. I posted the second assessment request and there will now be a weekly update on the project assessment page. If you are no longer interested in working on this project, I promise this is the last message you will get, but I hope you decide to check it out. Regards, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for not doing this project at this time I was haveing problems with personel stuff and was limeting myself on the internet. MDSanker (Talk to me) 1615, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- No worries MDSanker, if you are still interested the project is continuing next semester, just check out the assessment page after the holidays. - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Amy,
I am very happy to hear from you.
I'll do my "part" before the deadline of 5th January 2011.
Many-many thanks for the wishes. I hope the new year brings you what you wish for.
Take care and all the very best to you and your family. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pjoef, Have a great New Year's! - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 |
Hello, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi talk, things are a bit crazy for me right now, but thanks for the offer. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Amy, I've done a few more, and so have others. There are no articles left with only one review, but there are eleven articles with only two reviews. Do you need a third review on these? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch Mike_Christie. A third review is better, but I think I will have enough to go on. I am working on posting some summary results for the assessment page right now.ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. My main project right now is WikiProject: Law on Wikisource. I won't be able to contribute much time to your public policy initiative, but if there's a small part I can play, I'd be happy to help. LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Legalskeptic, if you are interested, assessment is a pretty minimal commitment. It is really easy for you to contribute as much or as little as you want. We could really use some law expertise on the project since a lot of the articles the students improved were cases or legislation. If it's alright with you, I will post on your talk page when the first assessment request goes up, that should be 1 April 2011. If it doesn't work for you then I will take you off the list for the next round. ok? ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. LegalSkeptic (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi ARoth, just letting you know that I am a little busy with personal stuff right now, so my activity here on Wikipedia will be limited in the foreseeable future. I will try to look at the project stuff if and when I have time. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 13:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Eastlaw, whatever you can do is great. best - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy! Yes, I will be attending Wikimania. Please let me know if any help is needed... as long as it doesn't entail public speaking. :) Bejinhan talks 03:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great Bejinhan! I look forward to meeting you. Maybe we can talk about co-presenting without you having to speak in public? Or co-present with Annie or Sage? It would be good if people at Wikimania realized that a big reason that the Public Policy Initiative is so successful is because we have such awesome volunteers and ambassadors. So we want them to be really visible when we present our findings. Let me know what you think, you can email me too. -ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Amy,
I hope things are going well for you and your family.
I've just assessed the first seven articles of WP:USPP Assessment 2.1, but if you need more assessments, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page around a week before the deadline, and and I will also assess the remaining articles.
Regarding Wikimania, well, I have never participated in, and my free time is very limited, but I have heard good things about Wikimania, and who knows the future ... surely it would be nice for me to attend one of these conferences.
Take care and all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- HI Pjoef, when I get around to creating a new barnstar, it will be because you inspired it. Send me an email, I'll send you a pic of my daughter. She is getting cuter... thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've done a few and will watchlist that page and see if you are short of reviews; please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you want further reviews done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike Christie, I appreciate it and may take you up on it. The articles this term are way more exciting, aren't they? A lot of things have improved this term, I hope the ambassadors feel some of that. best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh Amy, these are all good news.
I'm glad that the projects, PPI and AFT, are going well. And, I am very glad to know that I can help in some way.
I will work on the second round immediately. I'm curious to see the improvements to the articles.
About the experts "thing", I really think that we all and Wikipedia really need their contributions and effort to raise the standards. I will welcome them with open arms. By the way, I am also a member (not so active) of the Welcoming committee here on Wikipedia, so it is an honour and a duty.
That's all for now. Thanks again. Take care and all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Amy, I think it might be a good idea to recruit a couple more assessors. Currently there are about half a dozen active assessors; if you want three assessments of 55 articles you'll need each of us to do almost thirty, which is a much bigger load than we've had to do before. We're getting faster, I'm sure, but it would be a good idea to bring in a couple of extra people before you burn out any of the current ones. I'm fine with that workload so long as it doesn't have to be fast, and I don't want to speak for the other assessors -- they may be happy to crank it up and do fifty apiece. But more resources in reserve is usually a good plan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are totally right Mike. I actually contacted about 24 Wikipedians, earlier this year via personal messages on talk pages, and got no responses. So I don't know how to recruit more assessors, I will talk to Sage about it and see if he has any ideas... ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Amy, I've finished assessing most of the articles needing assessment. Let me know if you need more help. Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cookie Amy. How many more rounds of assessment are to be completed? Yes Michael? •Talk 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- hi MikeLynch, there are 2 more rounds planned. The first round will be articles before student work and the second round will be those same articles after student work. SO the first round is usually really fast because the articles are not that well developed. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Great :) . Just leave me a note when you need help. Yes Michael? •Talk 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- hi MikeLynch, there are 2 more rounds planned. The first round will be articles before student work and the second round will be those same articles after student work. SO the first round is usually really fast because the articles are not that well developed. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy, just wanted to express my interest in your research and to let you know that if I can help contribute, please do let me know, may I wish you every success! User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm MikeBeckett if I can help ask! 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy, I hope you are well too. Unfortunately, politics can be quite a nuisance sometimes. I'll be checking out the assessments now. Best, Bejinhan talks 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that all the articles are already assessed! I've not been actively editing for the past couple of weeks. Guess I have to be quicker next time! :) Bejinhan talks 05:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- hi Bejinhan! yep, this assessment team rocks! I was planning to request the last assessment on 6 June. Your help would be very appreciated. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy,
I hope you are well.
There is a problem with the link to Broadcasting Board of Governors in Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment/Student_Post_test_2.2#Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors. It points to another article (and version): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prometheus_Radio_Project_v._FCC&oldid=430819394 (Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC).
All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Pjoef, I will fix that immediately.
Hello ARoth, sorry I haven't talked to you in a while. I have been very busy with some real-life problems and I have not had time to contribute much here. I will try to have a look at these articles if I have time. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, Eastlaw, just if you have the time. Take care of yourself. all the best ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
RE: Latest Public Policy Assessment + YuMmY CuPcAkE
Thanks Amy for the kind words and for the CuPcAkE. It was really delicious. I hope to have been of some help to you and students. And yes, please keep me informed about the results. I remain at your disposal to help in any way I can. Take care and all the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy! You're welcome! Thanks for working on the assessment project and thanks for the cupcake! Looking forward to reading the results! All the best, Bejinhan talks 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This may be of possible interest:
Also, the section farther down that page called, "New models for Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc.". --Timeshifter (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Timeshifter that look interesting, I think integrated watchlists would be useful. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good. This works: User:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js (explained here: User talk:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js), but it needs more work. Maybe some developer money could be found for making it work as a preference, instead of a JS import, which is difficult for most users. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
playin' with WikiLove.
Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy,
these are good news. Thank you for keeping me informed, it's very much appreciated.
I am happy to know that your efforts are bearing fruit. The article on FastCompany is very interesting, even if it is something that I already know. The "distrust" that the academic world (or part of) has for WikipediA is a problem that is slowly fading away. I hope that a greater cooperation with the educational system (schools, colleges, universities, academics, professors, students,...) may take the place of this state of distrust, suspicion, diffidence, and indifference very soon. I am proud to have participated and contributed (modestly) to the success of this experiment-initiative, and I remain at your complete disposal for any future development and need.
About the "Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit", well, I can only wish you a very happy and fruitful weekend in Boston.
All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: There is no need to send me Wikipedia's swag, but, can I ask you which quote you're using for your email signature? I'm curious (^____^) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Pjoef; I hope that this project improves Wikipedia's standing within the academic community. Good work! Lynch7 11:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you!
Another "ditto" here! I'm looking forward to reading the research results! =) Bejinhan talks 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Amy. 140 (56 new) articles increased both in quality (B-Class) and size (8.8 million bytes), 800 students plus some policy experts graduates of universities participated to the initiative and made a great contribution to Wikipedia... these results seem to be really quite good. Thank you Amy and please keep me informed! Best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I found your research report on the educational articles improvement on one of the WMF sites, and got to your page here, but now I can't find that wiki or your report. Could you provide a link? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
| File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello ARoth (Public Policy Initiative): Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
|
May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
