Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French site (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywhere, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this report (3) — since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
We propose to give editors two weeks to transfer any feedback they find useful to their article talk pages, using the ‘Discuss on talk page’ tool (4). We also recommend that we archive the data from our pilot sites, and that we keep one instance running on Labs, for reference purposes.
Lastly, we recommend further discussions between the community and the foundation on how to give readers a voice on our sites. Suggested topics include how to make it easier for readers to comment on articles they read — as well as how to enable readers to participate in decisions that impact them, so that we can better serve the needs of all our users in the free culture movement.
We would be grateful for your comments about this recommendation — and how to better integrate readers in our communities. Could you share your thoughts on this Article Feedback talk page (5) in coming days? You are also invited to share any lessons learned from this experiment in our report's discussion page (6).
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the community and team members who contributed to this experiment. We’re particularly grateful to Matthias Mullie, Pau Giner, Oliver Keyes, Maggie Dennis, Philippe Beaudette, Howie Fung and Erik Moeller at the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as to community members Denis Barthel, Benoît Evellin, Tom Morris, Sebastian Peisker, TMg and Utar, to name but a few.
We appreciate your willingness to experiment with new ways to involve our readers in our communities — and we hope that the lessons we learned together can inform future initiatives.
Regards as ever,
Fabrice
(1) French RfC Discussion: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_janvier_2014#Outil...
(2) French RfC Results: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq_75_5y5sKWdDl...
(3) Article Feedback Report: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(4) Discuss on Talk Page Tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_ca...
(5) Article Feedback Post on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
(6) Article Feedback Discussion Page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
On 02/12/2014 05:58 PM, Fabrice Florin wrote:
Lastly, we recommend further discussions between the community and the foundation on how to give readers a voice on our sites. Suggested topics include how to make it easier for readers to comment on articles they read — as well as how to enable readers to participate in decisions that impact them, so that we can better serve the needs of all our users in the free culture movement.
I think a prime focus should be on how we can help readers become contributors (that's also related to my team's primary goals). This does not just mean editing, but any form of contribution, including creating drafts, fixing disambiguation links (and other micro-contributions), uploading images, categorization, adding labels (Wikidata), and so much more.
There are small steps people can take into contributing, which I think is better than a small step where they still define themselves as simply a reader.
If/when we provide ways for readers to provide constructive feedback, we should look at having them anchor it to something concrete, whether it's a section, a range of text, a particular image, etc.
Matt Flaschen
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French sitehttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_janvier_2014#Outil_de_retour_des_Lecteurs_:_r.C3.A9ponse_de_la_WMF (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywherehttps://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq_75_5y5sKWdDl0blpSbGRiS2ppRzlaaHZiV1dRMXc&usp=drive_web#gid=4, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this reporthttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report (3) — since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate.
Hi everyone,
As recommended in our report (1), we now plan to remove the Article Feedback Tool entirely from both the English and French Wikipedia sites this Monday, March 3, at 19:00 UTC (11am PT).
So any editors who wish to transfer useful feedback to their article talk pages should do it this weekend, using the built-in ‘Discuss on talk page’ tool (2). We will also archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it may be accessed even after the tool has been disabled.
We appreciate all the good insights we’ve received from team and community members about our Article Feedback report and recommendation to end this experiment. We appreciate their observations (3) (4), many of which match comments from our own team retrospective (5). And I’m particularly grateful for Ori's kind words below, which mean a lot to me. :)
Many great feature ideas have been proposed in these discussions, which generally make good sense to me: I wish we had the resources to build them as part of this project, but my hope is that some of them will be useful for future projects.
In my view, a key issue for this project is that we took on a very hard problem with insufficient resources to effectively solve it. Our small team engaged community members extensively throughout this experiment, and we were grateful for all the good recommendations we received; but we simply did not have the capacity to build all these features with a single contract engineer. This taught us an important lesson, and we are now staffing our teams more effectively for projects of this size, such as Flow.
On the whole, I think we all gained from this project, despite its setbacks. A lot of the code and research tools we developed for Article Feedback are now being used by other projects, so this experiment is helping improve Wikipedia in more ways than one.
In times like these, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's words about his own experiments: 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.’ We too have learned a lot together from this exploration -- and I am very grateful for everyone's willingness to experiment with us. I look forward to more collaborations with you all in the future.
Onward!
Fabrice
(1) Article Feedback Report: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(2) ‘Discuss on talk page’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_ca...
(3) AFT5 Report Discussion: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
(5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/document/d/1t0as8SIgDDCv_MJL3NxWtDSG... team
(6) Gerrit ticket: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112639/
(7) Bugzilla report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61163
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French site (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywhere, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this report (3) — since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate. _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
Hi folks,
We just removed the Article Feedback Tool from both the English and French Wikipedia sites today at 19:10 UTC.
This means that no feedback can be posted or viewed anymore on those sites.
In coming days, we will archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it can be accessed without the tool.
We will post on this thread as soon as that data archive is available, as well as on this English Wikipedia tallk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this experiment — we hope you learned as much from it as we did. :)
Regards as ever,
Fabrice
On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
As recommended in our report (1), we now plan to remove the Article Feedback Tool entirely from both the English and French Wikipedia sites this Monday, March 3, at 19:00 UTC (11am PT).
So any editors who wish to transfer useful feedback to their article talk pages should do it this weekend, using the built-in ‘Discuss on talk page’ tool (2). We will also archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it may be accessed even after the tool has been disabled.
We appreciate all the good insights we’ve received from team and community members about our Article Feedback report and recommendation to end this experiment. We appreciate their observations (3) (4), many of which match comments from our own team retrospective (5). And I’m particularly grateful for Ori's kind words below, which mean a lot to me. :)
Many great feature ideas have been proposed in these discussions, which generally make good sense to me: I wish we had the resources to build them as part of this project, but my hope is that some of them will be useful for future projects.
In my view, a key issue for this project is that we took on a very hard problem with insufficient resources to effectively solve it. Our small team engaged community members extensively throughout this experiment, and we were grateful for all the good recommendations we received; but we simply did not have the capacity to build all these features with a single contract engineer. This taught us an important lesson, and we are now staffing our teams more effectively for projects of this size, such as Flow.
On the whole, I think we all gained from this project, despite its setbacks. A lot of the code and research tools we developed for Article Feedback are now being used by other projects, so this experiment is helping improve Wikipedia in more ways than one.
In times like these, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's words about his own experiments: 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.’ We too have learned a lot together from this exploration -- and I am very grateful for everyone's willingness to experiment with us. I look forward to more collaborations with you all in the future.
Onward!
Fabrice
(1) Article Feedback Report: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(2) ‘Discuss on talk page’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_ca...
(3) AFT5 Report Discussion: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
(5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/document/d/1t0as8SIgDDCv_MJL3NxWtDSG... team
(6) Gerrit ticket: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112639/
(7) Bugzilla report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61163
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French site (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywhere, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this report (3) — since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate. _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
In the WMSE office, after talking with teachers about Wikiversity as a learning platform (and mostly what lacks in it to make it work as such) we have been thinking about talking with the community about a feedback tool at Wikiversity. If they would like it, could AFT be enabled there or should it be thought of as deprecated/abandoned alltogether?
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida 0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2014-03-03 21:33 GMT+01:00 Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org:
Hi folks,
We just removed the Article Feedback Tool from both the English and French Wikipedia sites today at 19:10 UTC.
This means that no feedback can be posted or viewed anymore on those sites.
In coming days, we will archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it can be accessed without the tool.
We will post on this thread as soon as that data archive is available, as well as on this English Wikipedia tallk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this experiment -- we hope you learned as much from it as we did. :)
Regards as ever,
Fabrice
On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
As recommended in our report (1), we now plan to remove the Article Feedback Tool entirely from both the English and French Wikipedia sites this Monday, March 3, at 19:00 UTC (11am PT).
So any editors who wish to transfer useful feedback to their article talk pages should do it this weekend, using the built-in 'Discuss on talk page' tool (2). We will also archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it may be accessed even after the tool has been disabled.
We appreciate all the good insights we've received from team and community members about our Article Feedback report and recommendation to end this experiment. We appreciate their observations (3) (4), many of which match comments from our own team retrospective (5). And I'm particularly grateful for Ori's kind words below, which mean a lot to me. :)
Many great feature ideas have been proposed in these discussions, which generally make good sense to me: I wish we had the resources to build them as part of this project, but my hope is that some of them will be useful for future projects.
In my view, a key issue for this project is that we took on a very hard problem with insufficient resources to effectively solve it. Our small team engaged community members extensively throughout this experiment, and we were grateful for all the good recommendations we received; but we simply did not have the capacity to build all these features with a single contract engineer. This taught us an important lesson, and we are now staffing our teams more effectively for projects of this size, such as Flow.
On the whole, I think we all gained from this project, despite its setbacks. A lot of the code and research tools we developed for Article Feedback are now being used by other projects, so this experiment is helping improve Wikipedia in more ways than one.
In times like these, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's words about his own experiments: 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.' We too have learned a lot together from this exploration -- and I am very grateful for everyone's willingness to experiment with us. I look forward to more collaborations with you all in the future.
Onward!
Fabrice
(1) Article Feedback Report: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(2) 'Discuss on talk page':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_ca...
(3) AFT5 Report Discussion: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
(5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/document/d/1t0as8SIgDDCv_MJL3NxWtDSG...
(6) Gerrit ticket: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112639/
(7) Bugzilla report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61163
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French sitehttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_janvier_2014#Outil_de_retour_des_Lecteurs_:_r.C3.A9ponse_de_la_WMF (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywherehttps://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq_75_5y5sKWdDl0blpSbGRiS2ppRzlaaHZiV1dRMXc&usp=drive_web#gid=4, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this reporthttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report (3) -- since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate. _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your inquiry about using AFT for Wikiversity.
As stated in our report (1), if other projects wish to enable or adapt AFT5 on their sites, they are welcome to do this on their own, but the foundation cannot provide active support for this project, so this would have to be a purely volunteer initiative.
At this time, no development resources are allocated to this experiment anymore, as all of our efforts in this space are now focused on making Flow a success. So we would not be able to help upgrade or maintain the tool, which is one of the reasons we removed it now, besides community requests on our pilot sites.
The code remains available for re-use in other projects, but would require an experienced developer to pick up where we left off. We did not fully productize this code during the pilot testing phase, so there is still quite a bit of work to do.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Fabrice
(1) https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
In the WMSE office, after talking with teachers about Wikiversity as a learning platform (and mostly what lacks in it to make it work as such) we have been thinking about talking with the community about a feedback tool at Wikiversity. If they would like it, could AFT be enabled there or should it be thought of as deprecated/abandoned alltogether?
Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 0729 - 67 29 48
Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör. Bli medlem.
2014-03-03 21:33 GMT+01:00 Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org: Hi folks,
We just removed the Article Feedback Tool from both the English and French Wikipedia sites today at 19:10 UTC.
This means that no feedback can be posted or viewed anymore on those sites.
In coming days, we will archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it can be accessed without the tool.
We will post on this thread as soon as that data archive is available, as well as on this English Wikipedia tallk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this experiment — we hope you learned as much from it as we did. :)
Regards as ever,
Fabrice
On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
As recommended in our report (1), we now plan to remove the Article Feedback Tool entirely from both the English and French Wikipedia sites this Monday, March 3, at 19:00 UTC (11am PT).
So any editors who wish to transfer useful feedback to their article talk pages should do it this weekend, using the built-in ‘Discuss on talk page’ tool (2). We will also archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it may be accessed even after the tool has been disabled.
We appreciate all the good insights we’ve received from team and community members about our Article Feedback report and recommendation to end this experiment. We appreciate their observations (3) (4), many of which match comments from our own team retrospective (5). And I’m particularly grateful for Ori's kind words below, which mean a lot to me. :)
Many great feature ideas have been proposed in these discussions, which generally make good sense to me: I wish we had the resources to build them as part of this project, but my hope is that some of them will be useful for future projects.
In my view, a key issue for this project is that we took on a very hard problem with insufficient resources to effectively solve it. Our small team engaged community members extensively throughout this experiment, and we were grateful for all the good recommendations we received; but we simply did not have the capacity to build all these features with a single contract engineer. This taught us an important lesson, and we are now staffing our teams more effectively for projects of this size, such as Flow.
On the whole, I think we all gained from this project, despite its setbacks. A lot of the code and research tools we developed for Article Feedback are now being used by other projects, so this experiment is helping improve Wikipedia in more ways than one.
In times like these, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's words about his own experiments: 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.’ We too have learned a lot together from this exploration -- and I am very grateful for everyone's willingness to experiment with us. I look forward to more collaborations with you all in the future.
Onward!
Fabrice
(1) Article Feedback Report: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(2) ‘Discuss on talk page’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_ca...
(3) AFT5 Report Discussion: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report
(4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5...
(5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective: https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/document/d/1t0as8SIgDDCv_MJL3NxWtDSG... team
(6) Gerrit ticket: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112639/
(7) Bugzilla report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61163
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello everyone,
As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages.
The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French site (1), about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed everywhere, while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful enough to warrant the extra moderation work.
Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in this report (3) — since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its benefits to readers.
Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate. _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
I think we should be very careful about any extension added to the cluster - AFT5 is very complex, and if there are use cases that require this kind of functionality, they should be examined independently, rather than assuming AFT5 is the answer.
Thanks for very swift answers!
Follow up question: Is WMF in any way looking into making MediaWiki more suitable as a learning platform (think Moodle or similar platforms) or would it be up to chapters or volunteers to make it happen?
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida 0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2014-03-03 22:38 GMT+01:00 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
I think we should be very careful about any extension added to the cluster - AFT5 is very complex, and if there are use cases that require this kind of functionality, they should be examined independently, rather than assuming AFT5 is the answer.
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Hi Jan,
I cannot speak for WMF Engineering, but if you are looking for an (open source) learning platform that could be integrated with MediaWiki (either in terms of using data from the MediaWiki API or databases or accessing Wikimedia user credentials), you should consider if an application installed on Labs and using OAuth for authentication/authorization [1] would meet your needs.
Dario
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Auth_systems
On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
Thanks for very swift answers!
Follow up question: Is WMF in any way looking into making MediaWiki more suitable as a learning platform (think Moodle or similar platforms) or would it be up to chapters or volunteers to make it happen?
Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 0729 - 67 29 48
Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör. Bli medlem.
2014-03-03 22:38 GMT+01:00 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org: I think we should be very careful about any extension added to the cluster - AFT5 is very complex, and if there are use cases that require this kind of functionality, they should be examined independently, rather than assuming AFT5 is the answer.
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee