Editing Philosophical Research:Rating Hub (section)

== Possible rubric questions ==

Ideas for rubric questions - not guaranteed to be good ideas

=== Country-internal or country-independent questions ===

* Is this description or argument scientifically accurate? ("Scientific consensus test") - [[Ontology:P201|P201]]
* Is this description or argument historically accurate? Does it present the set of events that have happened as far as anyone can tell or does it present another unverifiable set of events? ("Historical accuracy test") - [[Ontology:P202|P202]]
* Can one take this description or argument and identify the historical progression of tangible objects and processes it is describing? ("Object test") - [[Ontology:P206|P206]]
* Does this description or argument strictly put which figures are in authority and which authority figures people side with over what factually happened? ("Figurehead test")
** May be used to fail conspiracy theories. Rather hilariously highlights a lot of historical Trotskyist arguments as actually being conspiracy theories.
** "The proletariat" is not an authority figure. "Stalin" or "Trotsky" do count as authority figures.
* Is this description or argument unnecessarily opaque for its intended educational level? ("Dirac test") - [[Ontology:P203|P203]]
* Is this description or argument so terribly boring and full of monotone writing that normal people would not be able to focus?
* Would this description or argument make somebody with ADHD look like they have totally normal executive function when they choose to stop listening to it?
* If normal people saw this description or argument, would they actually care that this was the answer? Is the description or argument answering the wrong question rather than the questions everyone actually wants answered? ("Question-begging test") - [[Ontology:P207|P207]]
* Is it possible this description or argument would sound completely stupid if the author just woke up, got out of bed and touched grass? ("Sunny test") - [[Ontology:P214|P214]]
* Does this description or argument spend so much time on describing problems most people already know about it takes time away from contemplating solutions? ("Althusser test") - [[Ontology:P208|P208]]

=== Country-external questions ===

* Does this description or argument heavily rely on concepts or terms that normal people may fail to comprehend or reject as being coherent concepts? ("Signs test") - [[Ontology:P213|P213]]
* Will everything in this description or argument become irrelevant to anybody else the day its particular speaker stops selling products? Is the description or argument solely a description of a particular business territory designed to be mutually exclusive with everything else even when it stops existing? ("Billboard test")
* Would this description or argument be intelligible to a peasant? ("Peasant test")
* Would this description or argument be important to a Common Raven? (Replace this with any wild corvid of choice.) ("Raven test")
* Would this description or argument be inherently objectionable to Leon Trotsky? - [[Ontology:P204|P204]]
* Would this description or argument look ridiculous if you brought it from the United States and showed it to people in China? ("China test")
* Would this description or argument become utterly nonsensical to somebody who had never ever heard of Cartesian-style formal logic? ("Descartes test") - [[Ontology:P205|P205]]

=== Agenda questions ===

* Could this description or argument be used to argue for shooting Black people to death to "protect" the people of United States towns? ("George Floyd test")
* Could this description or argument be used to argue for invading Vietnam? ("Vietnam test")
** A test that many anticommunist fables and propositions attempting to talk about "utopias" fail.
* Could this description or argument be used to argue for inadvertently shattering China into multiple countries? ("Three Chinas test")
** This test mostly applies to works claiming to clear up misconceptions about China that just make things more confusing.
** This test squeaks by the "signs test" on the merit that it can be used to mark works "U / Unknown" due to the sheer creation of contradictory narratives between multiple people. No need to worry about whether individual members of the audience care about having an accurate picture of China or hate China, because obfuscating the story around China violates the principle of giving accurate factual accounts of recent history.

=== Nuance questions ===

* Do any of the problems identified with this rubric constitute fatal problems in context, or could they still allow information to be communicated and learning to happen anyway? - [[Ontology:P299|P299]]
* Is the description or argument being studied too full of personal or subjective experiences to evaluate with a focus on its factual content? If so, mark the work E / Excepted.
** This is, for example, for video channels mostly containing factual arguments but suddenly containing a channel announcement detailing life events. The channel announcement is considered "non-notable" for rating purposes.


[[Category:Communication rating levels ontology]] [[Category:Source communication rating sheets]]  __NOTOC__