We've set up a couple more test sites to do some final shakedown testing of Flagged Revisiosn and Reader Feedback, respectively:

The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are configurable.

"Sage Ross" <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:40c6a93a0908201411w75a700derc9a07759fd9d7b40@mail.gmail.com... 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.

2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>: > What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a

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.)

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'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 Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibber<brion(a)wikimedia.org> 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.

2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: 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 :-)

2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn <brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>ca>: Oooooh. Well spotted. Yes, the Special:Search page needs a "What were you looking for, in detail?/Did you find it?" on it. 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. _______________________________________________ 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

2009/8/20 Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>om>: 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 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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: 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 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.