If you're like me, you've probably been breathlessly awaiting the results of the first WikiGrok stable A/B test to see if the responses we're getting are good, bad, or ugly :) Well, good news! I did some hand-coding of the results (a sample of about 300 responses from the ~1,200 we got during the test) and have some interesting preliminary findings to share. Caveat: this is not science, just a quick check of WikiGrok's pulse. Leila from Analytics is helping us analyze this and other WikiGrok test data and will have a more thorough write-up of the results soon :)

As a reminder, this test ran for a week in December in stable for logged in users only on English Wikipedia. We tested two versions of the UX (a simple "yes/no/maybe" interface and a slightly more complex tagging one), and we asked questions about biographies (actors and writers) and music albums (live or studio albums). The responses were not yet sent to Wikidata; the infrastructure to do that is currently in development.

* The tl;dr is that the quality of the responses is pretty high! The overall rate of correct responses for the sample I looked at was 80%. 

* Also, users with no edits and users with 1 or more edits had similar quality responses (in fact, the 0 edit count users gave slightly higher quality responses). So even total newbs are capable of grokking :)

* Lastly, while we didn't see any differences in engagement or conversion (the rate at which users started and finished the WikiGrok process) between the two versions, there was a difference in quality – Version B (tagging) produced a noticeably higher quality response rate (95%). 

More detailed breakdown of quality below, including by individual answer (fun fact that is sure to make Sam Smith sad: nobody seems to have any clue what a live album is!). Now let's see if these trends hold for logged out users, too :) Our first test for all users (logged in and logged out) is slated for later this month.

Users with 1 or more edits – 80%

Version A – 68%

Version B – 95%
--