Hi Phoebe, Thanks for your good questions and insights about of Article Feedback 5. Dario and Oliver have answered a couple of your questions below, but I wanted to give you a quick overview on where we are with this new editor engagement tool. We are now collecting fresh data to track how many readers who post feedback go on to make productive edits, which is one of our key objectives for this project. We are also analyzing moderation data to evaluate the usefulness of the feedback, which is another important goal, though harder to track accurately. Lastly, we are enhancing our automated filters to reduce the workload for editors, as well as re-factoring our code to make this extension scale better. We plan to have more information to share in a couple weeks, once all the new data have been collected and analyzed, and new tools deployed. At that point, we will share our findings widely, so we can all have more informed discussions on how to best use this engagement tool. In the meantime, I've added a couple clarifications inline below. Thanks again for your interest, and I look forward to continuing this discussion very soon! Fabrice __________________________________ Also note that up until September 6, users were able to moderate their own feedback, which caused a slight increase in the number of 'helpful ratings on the feedback page dashboard ( http://toolserver.org/~dartar/fp/ ). So we really should be paying more attention to the data collected after this date, even though the overall pattern doesn't appear significantly different from earlier this summer. We now have a feature that allows administrators to disable the feedback form for controversial articles, as part of the 'protect' tool. However, it was recently deployed and may not be in wide use yet. Yes, Phoebe, you are absolutely right. Marking an article as helpful is a good way to bring up a good suggestion to the attention of other editors, but it does not mean that the comment has been used to edit the article. However, it makes it easier for editors to find comments that can help them improve the article. Over the two months following wider deployment, about 35% of the feedback was found useful by moderators. This finding seems consistent with our earlier estimate of usefulness, based on hand-coded feedback evaluations. Yes. measuring the rate of change in the articles is pretty hard to measure, as you point out -- particularly changes in their quality. But I would like to remind us that a primary objective for this project is to engage readers to contribute productively to Wikipedia, which is much easier to measure. I look forward to reviewing that data together in a couple weeks. __________________________________ Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation fflorin(a)wikimedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)