Hooray!
Big thanks to the developers and put your tipple of choice on ice.... those of us blessed with ancient powers of foresight are excited that flagged revisions is finally enabled on the english wikipedia!
Well the smart money's actually on next tuesday, with the official announcement 'live' shortly after.....
till next time, PM.
On 8/20/09 4:16 AM, private musings wrote:
Big thanks to the developers and put your tipple of choice on ice.... those of us blessed with ancient powers of foresight are excited that flagged revisions is finally enabled on the english wikipedia!
Well the smart money's actually on next tuesday, with the official announcement 'live' shortly after.....
Well, I dunno about that... ;)
But here's where we stand right now:
We've set up a couple more test sites to do some final shakedown testing of Flagged Revisiosn and Reader Feedback, respectively:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/ http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/
I'm currently in the process of importing the complete set of en.wikipedia featured articles onto both of these to play with. It'll be at least a couple hours before they're fully populated.
The ReaderFeedback component will probably go live sooner, as it's easier to drop in and has less visible impact on the page. The FlaggedRevs setup is currently using the config from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
After a couple more weeks of solid shakedown I hope we can get something prepped that folks are happy with trying. :) (Over in dev-land we're using a simple FlaggedRevs setup for our manual pages on http://www.mediawiki.org/ and are pretty happy so far.)
-- brion
On 8/20/09 12:38 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
The ReaderFeedback component will probably go live sooner, as it's easier to drop in and has less visible impact on the page.
For those not familiar with ReaderFeedback, there's some background and screen shots at:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ReaderFeedback
It allows readers to give feedback (duh ;) on the quality of a page, sticking a little bar down at the bottom of the article for it. (You've probably seen similar sorts of feedback solicitation on other sites like "Did you find this article helpful?") The scores can then be weighted by age and graphed, giving folks some idea of how an article is being perceived over time.
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.
(This was developed as part of Flagged Revisions originally but has been split off so it's easier to deploy.)
-- brion
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbrion@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
-Sage
"Sage Ross" ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote in message news:40c6a93a0908201411w75a700derc9a07759fd9d7b40@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbrion@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
Lest it be seen as encouraging howto information, which should be external.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 07:31:51AM -0600, Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Sage Ross" ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote in message news:40c6a93a0908201411w75a700derc9a07759fd9d7b40@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbrion@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
Lest it be seen as encouraging howto information, which should be external.
Perhaps "informativeness" (it needs rephrasing) would be better than "usefulness" for this.
-- Jonathan G Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
Jay Litwyn wrote:
"Sage Ross" wrote
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback? I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
Lest it be seen as encouraging howto information, which should be external.
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful.
Ec
2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful.
Sure, it would be very useful, but it isn't within Wikipedia's scope. Perhaps a new WikiHowTo project? (Several such projects already exist: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikihowto Maybe no need for a new Wikimedia one.)
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0908210918w6ad2a4a5q14a3fc036fa31b82@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful.
Sure, it would be very useful, but it isn't within Wikipedia's scope. Perhaps a new WikiHowTo project? (Several such projects already exist: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikihowto Maybe no need for a new Wikimedia one.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/template:howto {{howto}} DID contain links to http://www.wikihow.com and http://howto.wikia.com/ One is a sister project. The other is more closely allied with google and penis enlargement product comparisons. I also found either a performance or a connectivity difference. In specific instances, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kombucha , both could be in the external links. It seems that we are now recommending wikiversity and wikibooks for training.
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0908210918w6ad2a4a5q14a3fc036fa31b82@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a
lot
of people would find such practical information very useful.
Sure, it would be very useful, but it isn't within Wikipedia's scope. Perhaps a new WikiHowTo project? (Several such projects already exist: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikihowto Maybe no need for a new Wikimedia one.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/template:howto {{howto}} DID contain links to http://www.wikihow.com and http://howto.wikia.com/ One is a sister project. The other is more closely allied with google and penis enlargement product comparisons. I also found either a performance or a connectivity difference. In specific instances, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kombucha , both could be in the external links. It seems that we are now recommending wikiversity and wikibooks for training. >> ----------------------
Jay you seem to be under the assumption that Wikia is a sister. It might be more appropriate to call Wikia your father's new wife or your first cousin from that part of your family that your family doesn't talk to anymore.
As far as wiki.howto.com being called a "penis enlargement" site that's pretty offensive isn't it? What's the point of that sort of rant? The front page of it, has links to I suppose recommended articles and none of them are about penis enlargement.
W.J.
2009/8/22 wjhonson@aol.com:
Jay you seem to be under the assumption that Wikia is a sister. It might be more appropriate to call Wikia your father's new wife or your first cousin from that part of your family that your family doesn't talk to anymore.
I agree with you that Wikia isn't a sister project, although arguably we have the same father so in a sense we are sisters. However, I'm not sure I like your alternative - I don't know about you, but I still talk to Jimmy... Citizendium, on the other hand, that could be the cousin you mention.
Thomas you need some new word to describe the relationship. We have sister projects. Wikisource for example, wikiquote, etc. The Wikia domains or subdomains represent something a bit more removed. Can we call them half-sister projects? Step-sister? What would you propose.
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions
2009/8/22 wjhonson@aol.com:
Jay you seem to be under the assumption that Wikia is a sister. It might be more appropriate to call Wikia your father's new wife or your first cousin from that part of your family that your family doesn't talk to anymore.
I agree with you that Wikia isn't a sister project, although arguably we have the same father so in a sense we are sisters. However, I'm not sure I like your alternative - I don't know about you, but I still talk to Jimmy... Citizendium, on the other hand, that could be the cousin you mention.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/22 wjhonson@aol.com:
Thomas you need some new word to describe the relationship. We have sister projects. Wikisource for example, wikiquote, etc. The Wikia domains or subdomains represent something a bit more removed. Can we call them half-sister projects? Step-sister? What would you propose.
Like I said, I agree with you. I was just taking the metaphor as literally as I could - I like to do that! I think we should just call it "Wikia", to be honest.
In a thread that is verging towards wiki-driven howto information, I am answering wjhonson@aol.com:
I am hosting my first howto on moss filters with my ISP, because I saw advertizing after I wrote it on wikihow.com, and it was exactly what I mentioned. In the meantime, anybody can see advertizing vaguely or well-matched to each wikihow, near the top. At the bottom, there is more. So, I will keep an eye on what I started, and I won't promote the link to wikihow.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=wikihow+enlargement+penis&meta= It was there on link six.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful.
Perhaps so, but it's not in tune with the idea of an encyclopedia, which is what we're all supposed to be striving for.
I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of spices that are often included yes. But not cooking times.
If I look up [[engine]] I want to know how it functions. But I don't want to see a tutorial on how to deal with specific problems.
Although I suppose there's a possible claim of hypocrisy here. Many of our medical articles include a section on treatment, which I guess is a form of How To.
And I just happened upon [[suicide methods]] which perhaps is the last word, almost literally, on How To do something.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of spices that are often included yes. But not cooking times.
If I look up [[engine]] I want to know how it functions. But I don't want to see a tutorial on how to deal with specific problems.
Although I suppose there's a possible claim of hypocrisy here. Many of our medical articles include a section on treatment, which I guess is a form of How To.
And I just happened upon [[suicide methods]] which perhaps is the last word, almost literally, on How To do something.
I think the difference is between instructions with the expectation that someone would actually follow them, and simply understanding common practice.
Curry recipe: you don't need precise cooking times, sequences etc to understand common practice. Engine: You don't need troubleshooting instructions to understand common practice. Disease: A description of treatment *is* appropriate to understand common practice. Suicide methods: It's a fine line, but there is probably information you can leave out without affecting the encyclopaedicness. For example, we could explain that people take certain kinds of pills without being too specific. We could mention that people jump off buildings without highlighting particular ones. Maybe.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70908230910h3466019cpcedf7ae0a2c0a98b@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of spices that are often included yes. But not cooking times.
If I look up [[engine]] I want to know how it functions. But I don't want to see a tutorial on how to deal with specific problems.
Although I suppose there's a possible claim of hypocrisy here. Many of our medical articles include a section on treatment, which I guess is a form of How To.
And I just happened upon [[suicide methods]] which perhaps is the last word, almost literally, on How To do something.
I think the difference is between instructions with the expectation that someone would actually follow them, and simply understanding common practice.
Curry recipe: you don't need precise cooking times, sequences etc to understand common practice. Engine: You don't need troubleshooting instructions to understand common practice. Disease: A description of treatment *is* appropriate to understand common practice.
I agree. Sometimes doctors do not hav time to describe exactly what they will do, because they're concentrating on minute details, like angiograms, and it is useful to hav a cursory description of a medical procedure, so patients can compare or deliver informed consent. Nobody will put a step by step process for a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commisurotomy into the encyclopedia.
Suicide methods: It's a fine line, but there is probably information you can leave out without affecting the encyclopaedicness. For example, we could explain that people take certain kinds of pills without being too specific. We could mention that people jump off buildings without highlighting particular ones. Maybe.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbrion@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I agree. The only appropriate response to "How useful is this article?" is "Useful for what?".
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I agree. The only appropriate response to "How useful is this article?" is "Useful for what?".
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a suggested list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan
The list there is:
Overall quality Neutral Point Of View Factual accuracy Quality of references Completeness/conciseness Quality of lead section Images and illustrations Grammar, spelling, word choice, wikification and layout What were you looking for? Did you find what you were looking for? Is this the article you expected at this title? How relevant is the topic to a general encyclopedia?
Obviously, that would be just a bit of a wall of text and probably not all of those should be deployed in the first instance :-)
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140908210704u76f71a4fid58ea2ed952f991d@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I agree. The only appropriate response to "How useful is this article?" is "Useful for what?".
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a suggested list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan
The list there is:
Overall quality Neutral Point Of View Factual accuracy Quality of references Completeness/conciseness Quality of lead section Images and illustrations Grammar, spelling, word choice, wikification and layout What were you looking for? Did you find what you were looking for? Is this the article you expected at this title? How relevant is the topic to a general encyclopedia?
Obviously, that would be just a bit of a wall of text and probably not all of those should be deployed in the first instance :-)
The whole thing, methinks would be on a RATE tab. "What were you looking for?" is a search box with your current search in it. I do not think anybody asks all of those questions unless they contribute. If they answer in the positive, then maybe a template should disappear. If they answer in the negative, then maybe it should appear. Of course, if they edit, that might be a quick way of learning which templates apply, so the user could place the template closer to where it belongs in an article, or just follow links in the template to directions on making improvements. Questions like that should normally offer only a preview of the article, an edit window, and once confirmed, a save button. In some languages, save buttons are not activated until a user has done the preview.
2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a suggested list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan The list there is:
The whole thing, methinks would be on a RATE tab. "What were you looking for?" is a search box with your current search in it.
Oooooh. Well spotted. Yes, the Special:Search page needs a "What were you looking for, in detail?/Did you find it?" on it.
I do not think anybody asks all of those questions unless they contribute. If they answer in the positive, then maybe a template should disappear. If they answer in the negative, then maybe it should appear. Of course, if they edit, that might be a quick way of learning which templates apply, so the user could place the template closer to where it belongs in an article, or just follow links in the template to directions on making improvements.
I'd expect here we're talking about a simple "rate this article" clicky thing for readers who can't be bothered editing or are scared to, but still want to make Wikipedia better somehow.
(As I noted on the linked page, making full data available to anyone who wants it is a good idea, and absolutely appropriate as it's part of working on the encyclopedia. That may even go as far as making full contributor/IP data available just as article history is. Thinking about it, though, that may discourage ratings - they're anonymous on most sites.)
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news://news.gmane.org/fbad4e140908211511y22906e4ue3dbbd7b12cfcf45@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a suggested list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan The list there is:
The whole thing, methinks would be on a RATE tab. "What were you looking for?" is a search box with your current search in it.
Oooooh. Well spotted. Yes, the Special:Search page needs a "What were you looking for, in detail?/Did you find it?" on it.
I do not think anybody asks all of those questions unless they contribute. If they answer in the positive, then maybe a template should disappear. If they answer in the negative, then maybe it should appear. Of course, if they edit, that might be a quick way of learning which templates apply, so the user could place the template closer to where it belongs in an article, or just follow links in the template to directions on making improvements.
I'd expect here we're talking about a simple "rate this article" clicky thing for readers who can't be bothered editing or are scared to, but still want to make Wikipedia better somehow.
It could be a set of five bowling pins on the right quarter of a content warning, with a green checkmark on it by default and a red X over it if the user clicks. If the user saves a change, then that template disappears and they get a message on their talk page telling them how to reinforce their change. Most people would go the other way around and delay removing a content warning until they had done what they could about it--save final change and call it a strike. There could of course be people who can do a lot about a content warning without reading any fine manual, then become monsters and write more into our manual. _______ http://www.lovetolearnplace.com/SpecialDays/Labor/Workman%20of%20God%20Works...
(As I noted on the linked page, making full data available to anyone who wants it is a good idea, and absolutely appropriate as it's part of working on the encyclopedia. That may even go as far as making full contributor/IP data available just as article history is. Thinking about it, though, that may discourage ratings - they're anonymous on most sites.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit more introductory text and then get the word out to start a conversation about the rating criteria we want to use for this, and indeed whether we want to use this at all. Because part of the point of this feature is to be able to compare perception of quality across languages, those criteria need to IMO be defined across at least all languages of a project.
I'll probably only get to this part of the setup post-Wikimania, but if you want to start setting up pages yourself, please don't hesitate.
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I suggested "usefulness" for the initial setup, but as noted above, this is one of the things we need to figure out. I like usefulness or helpfulness because it reflects the direct perceived value that our readers are deriving from the information we provide. Yes, that value depends on what they were looking for to begin with, and one would hope that some of them would provide further comments. But, for example, it would be interesting to know if our articles about movies or books, or about historical subjects, or whatever other category, are organized in a manner that our readers consider helpful to find the stuff they're looking for.
How does this differ from the talk page assessments? If this is meant only for readers-who-don't-edit, then you will have to tell editors that, as there will be some editors that try and skew the feedback for a particular article.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Erik Moellererik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit more introductory text and then get the word out to start a conversation about the rating criteria we want to use for this, and indeed whether we want to use this at all. Because part of the point of this feature is to be able to compare perception of quality across languages, those criteria need to IMO be defined across at least all languages of a project.
I'll probably only get to this part of the setup post-Wikimania, but if you want to start setting up pages yourself, please don't hesitate.
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I suggested "usefulness" for the initial setup, but as noted above, this is one of the things we need to figure out. I like usefulness or helpfulness because it reflects the direct perceived value that our readers are deriving from the information we provide. Yes, that value depends on what they were looking for to begin with, and one would hope that some of them would provide further comments. But, for example, it would be interesting to know if our articles about movies or books, or about historical subjects, or whatever other category, are organized in a manner that our readers consider helpful to find the stuff they're looking for. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
How does this differ from the talk page assessments? If this is meant only for readers-who-don't-edit, then you will have to tell editors that, as there will be some editors that try and skew the feedback for a particular article.
* People are used to "rate this article" boxes on web pages * Talk page comments tend to be treated by experienced editors as editorial suggestions rather than reader feedback and often get "no, bugger off" responses. Not ideal, even when arguably appropriate.
- d.
Perhaps the ratings system should only let readers remove a template, then send them a welcome message (to an IP#, no less) that transcludes the template of their expertise, and encourages them to follow the links in it, and by those actions encourage them to ensure that their rating is even more true. To know and enjoy what you are good at is three blessings, because two of them are the same.
"Carcharoth" carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote in message news:206791b10908210748l234eba30lda3628b2022adc9c@mail.gmail.com... How does this differ from the talk page assessments? If this is meant only for readers-who-don't-edit, then you will have to tell editors that, as there will be some editors that try and skew the feedback for a particular article.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Erik Moellererik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit more introductory text and then get the word out to start a conversation about the rating criteria we want to use for this, and indeed whether we want to use this at all. Because part of the point of this feature is to be able to compare perception of quality across languages, those criteria need to IMO be defined across at least all languages of a project.
I'll probably only get to this part of the setup post-Wikimania, but if you want to start setting up pages yourself, please don't hesitate.
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness", "Presentation", and "Neutrality", while the extension documentation uses four example categories, "Reliability", "Completeness", "NPOV", and "Presentation". I hope something more specific than "Usefulness" is what gets deployed on en-wiki.
I suggested "usefulness" for the initial setup, but as noted above, this is one of the things we need to figure out. I like usefulness or helpfulness because it reflects the direct perceived value that our readers are deriving from the information we provide. Yes, that value depends on what they were looking for to begin with, and one would hope that some of them would provide further comments. But, for example, it would be interesting to know if our articles about movies or books, or about historical subjects, or whatever other category, are organized in a manner that our readers consider helpful to find the stuff they're looking for. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/21 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit more introductory text and then get the word out to start a conversation about the rating criteria we want to use for this, and indeed whether we want to use this at all. Because part of the point of this feature is to be able to compare perception of quality across languages, those criteria need to IMO be defined across at least all languages of a project.
I'm not sure that kind of comparison will be possible. It will be different people doing the assessments on each project and even with the best translations the criteria we use will have different nuances in different languages. For example, I expect languages with few literate speakers will do better than English since there are fewer alternatives to Wikipedia articles, so "good" just means better than nothing, rather than better than the various other reference materials written in English.
On Aug 20, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
It allows readers to give feedback (duh ;) on the quality of a page, sticking a little bar down at the bottom of the article for it. (You've probably seen similar sorts of feedback solicitation on other sites like "Did you find this article helpful?") The scores can then be weighted by age and graphed, giving folks some idea of how an article is being perceived over time.
We've been using ReaderFeedback on http://strategy.wikimedia.org for about a week now; it's a cool little tool. We're using it to rate a few aspects of proposals. Feel free to try it out over there (but do rate the proposal accurately, please, don't just play around - it's a live data-set).
Philippe
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Planning Wikimedia Foundation
pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!