Arbital quality
Arbital’s quality scale is used to track the quality of pages on Arbital. To request a review ask on Arbital Slack (#reviews) or make a comment on the page tagging @1yq.
Quality tags
Other
Although some of our tags use the same names as Wikipedia’s system and have similar definitions, the requirements are not identical and editors from Wikipedia should not expect equivalence.
Unassessed, Stub, and Start may be used by anyone, C-Class by trusted editors, B-Class and A-Class by domain moderators, and Featured by Team Arbital.
Children:
- Proposed A-Class
Pages which have been proposed for A-Class status.
- Placeholder
This is an empty page created for structural reasons (parent, requisite, or teaches).
Parents:
- Contributing to Arbital
Want to help Arbital become awesome?
Are the other tags part of the quality scale?
When a page has the message, “This page’s quality is unknown. Can you add a quality tag?” will adding one of the other tags make that message go away, or only the official quality tags?
Unclear how best to proceed. In particular, I’m unsure about how Proof, List, and Formal definition should interact with the quality scale. It’s both bad to give them high-quality tags (they dominate lists of HQ pages, people think they’re meant to be good explanations), and bad to give the low-quality (pages which do their job correctly are flagged as needing attention indefinitely). I have some ideas about cheating the tradeoff, bt not distilled yet.
Featured should make the other messages go away, as should WIP and still needs work (replacing message bar). I think Out of date probably should as well.
Do user pages need quality tags? That seems unnecessary to me…
Excellent point. Filing a bug.
For reference: the bottom of this proposal describes a similar content ranking system, although it doesn’t encapsulate brevity and it includes a-0 = “you’re stupider for reading it.” The full list is below. Each has more description, but I wasn’t sure it made sense to quote that much text here.
The author also notes
I think that this raises a valuable point, which I would characterize as a distinction between a work that summarizes or explains a concept that has already been presented elsewhere (Arbital’s math section would be this) versus a work that explicates something as an authoritative, original source (which would include some of the AI Safety content on Arbital).
This is slightly different than the person I’m quoting here, in that something doesn’t have to be defining of an entirely new field in order to itself be a new concept. So maybe there are three categories, with one being “this is an original extension of an existing concept”. Much of what I’ve written falls in this category.
It seems like this kind of metadata might be quite valuable to have on Arbital pages, especially as it grows as a content platform.