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.

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.

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.

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.

2009/8/20 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

"Sage Ross" wrote Lest it be seen as encouraging howto information, which should be external.

"David Gerard" <dgerard(a)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.

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.

2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>: 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.

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.

What's so bad about encouraging howto information?  I'm sure that a lot of people would find such practical information very useful.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbod<bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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