for
a bit of refinement.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Howie Fung <hfung(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending
Oliver's Office Hours on the topic. Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours
approximately every week to discuss the project. Some are about specific
topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and is thus limited
to oversighters), but most are general purpose discussion where we discuss
stuff like design direction, general workflows, and DATA. Here's a link to
the WMF office hours schedule (Oliver's Office Hours are always listed
here):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
One of the goals of this project is, as David states, increasing reader
engagement. Ultimately, we hope that a percentage of the readers that
leave constructive comments will become editors. We need to add feedback
loops where if someone leaves a great comment that's acted on by the
editors, that reader gets notified. Hopefully that loop will work to draw
in readers by piquing their curiosity (and also providing some positive
feedback of "Hey look! They took my suggestion -- and by the way, what are
they doing on this talk page thing. . ." We need to get through a few more
baseline features before we start thinking more closely about the feedback
loop, but I at least wanted to put it out there.
Also, there will be some readers that simply will not become editors, and I
think that's okay. Having them provide constructive feedback about what
their information needs are as readers, I think, is better than having them
not involved at all. There is, of course, the signal to noise ratio, which
is one of the things that Oliver, Aaron Halfaker, and Dario have spent
quite a bit of time researching. Having said that, we do need to be
careful about creating a "someone else's problem" dynamic. One way to do
this is to keep making sure these readers know that they can make the
change themselves.
Howie
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern
we've taken into account; we'll
be
testing whether (for example) the presence of the
feedback page adds
2,000
comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits,
or whatever. If the harm
outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 February 2012 09:04,
<neil(a)thebabbages.com> wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage
readers to type in
suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next
step and
begin
editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
> Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new
editors
> contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to
fix
> things compared to our current stock
response of "if you see things
that
could be
better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but
it
runs the risk of making projects look they have
people exercising
editorial
control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all,
that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out.
(With numbers.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l