Yup; once we move on to full deployment, there's going to be a special
feedback page (updated wireframes to follow) which will list all the
feedback each article has been given, as well as a centralised one to avoid
things slipping through the cracks.
Actually, we get quite a few ratings; the problem is more that it's the
very definition of a "long tail". Something complicating this is an awkward
position for the feedback box itself - right at the bottom of an article,
after all the external links and references and other gubbins that readers
don't so often use. We'll hopefully have the chance (and time!) to
experiment with some new positions, a couple of which were user-suggested.
On 24 December 2011 11:38, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no,
that's not the "real reason",
that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account
as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've
emailed people asking for more
concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
"from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so
there's no
guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know
when
I do.
I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as
2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or
DVD encyclopedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most
articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.
With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article
editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?"
looks potentially very useful.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation