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(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
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
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:
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this experiment -- we hope you
learned as much from it as we did. :)
Regards as ever,
On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
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
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.
(1) Article Feedback Report:
(2) 'Discuss on talk page':
(3) AFT5 Report Discussion:
(4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia:
(5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective:
(6) Gerrit ticket:
(7) Bugzilla report:
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh <ori(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
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
about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed
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
-- 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 mailing list