Cutting off the top or bottom 10% wouldn't work if 4chan targets the
articles written by one of our editors, if anything the non4chan votes
will be in the top 10% that you discard.
To be honest I'm not particularly worried if people canvass their
mates to give straight 5s to an obscure article that only a few
hundred people will ever notice. I would anticipate that will happen
whenever someone files an AFD on an article that is of interest to a
particular fansite, and if anything it will be less disruptive to have
a bunch of fans boost the articles ratings than it will be to deal
with those same fans at the AFD. The positive ratings that really
matter to editors on this site are things like FA and GA and I don't
see this system replacing that.
I'm more concerned that this will give people an underhand way to get
back at an editor they dislike.
Unless I'm missing something and this has already been anticipated,
this system needs a mechanism to spot when a group of editors
anonymously rate everything another editor has done as rubbish.
WSC
On 14 July 2011 18:01, MuZemike <muzemike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A couple of fair points. However, I would disagree
that everyone is
interested in editing or improving the encyclopedia; some are perfectly
content on reading the content therein and, if given the chance, say
what they think about out (not necessarily on Wikipedia, but could be
anywhere on the Web). I mean, we cannot point a gun to their head and
make them edit something, as this is a purely volunteer project.
However, you've made a good point there about "gaming the system" and
intentionally trying to garner high ratings. For example, one could
create a horrid piece of crap article which would have no chance of
staying on Wikipedia and canvass his/her buddies to flood said piece of
crap with 5.0's across the board. This thing precisely happens from time
to time on YouTube. I don't know how this could be prevented, but I
acknowledge that even this feedback system, as with all others, are not
perfect and comes with systemic flaws.
-MuZemike
On 7/14/2011 7:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is
encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
it?
Remember there is a risk that this could exacerbate the templating
trend. Just as we need to value edits that fix problems and remove
templates above edits that add to the hundreds of thousands of
maintenance templates on the pedia; So we need to value a talkpage
comment that explains why someone has a specific concern about an
article over a bunch of "feedback" that says people like or dislike an
article without indicating why. Better still we should be encouraging
readers to improve articles that they see as flawed. So we need to
measure this tool in terms of its success at getting readers to edit,
not in terms of its success at getting readers to rate articles. I
hope it is successful, and I'm happy to take the long view and measure
a trial over months to see how effectively we convert article raters
into article editors. But we do need to be prepared to remove this if
it has a net effect of diverting potential editors into merely rating
articles for others to fix.
We also need to be careful how we compare this 374k to the other
"90%", not least because with 3,682,158 articles on En wiki as I
write, 374k is about 6k more than a random 10% sample would be.
We also need to learn from one of the lessons of the Strategy wiki
where we had a similar rating system. Many of the proposals there had
so few ratings that they were close to being individual views and few
had sufficient responses to be genuinely collective to the point where
one maverick couldn't skew them - even without sockpuppetry. On
average our articles get one or two edits a month, many get far less.
I would not be surprised if 100,000 of the 374k in the trial had less
than ten ratings even if trialled for a couple of months.
Lastly we need to be prepared for sockpuppetry, especially as these
are random unsigned votes with no rationale. Can we have assurances
that something is being built into the scheme to combat this?
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 14 July 2011 10:08, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 July 2011 00:40, Howie
Fung<hfung(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Just wanted to pass along a note to let everyone
know that earlier today, we
ramped up the Article Feedback Tool to 10% of articles on the English
Wikipedia. That brings the total to approximately 374K articles with the
tool deployed.
Is there anywhere we can read articles' ratings?
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l