The English Wikipedia has become "one of those sites with a feedback tab"? Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham.
How did this happen?
MZMcBride
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and playing around with others.
On 9 February 2012 01:08, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia has become "one of those sites with a feedback tab"? Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham.
How did this happen?
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and playing around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page content.
MZMcBride
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
playing
around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and necessary for all Wikimedia wikis. Thanks!
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
playing
around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other wikis. Would you like me to find out?
On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and necessary for all Wikimedia wikis. Thanks!
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
We're
experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
playing
around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
important
that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual
page
content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Uhm. Can I require to enable in any project through MediaZilla (such as my homewiki)? Anyway, it should be deployment to many wiki, help improve content quality.
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other wikis. Would you like me to find out?
On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and necessary for all Wikimedia wikis. Thanks!
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
We're
experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
playing
around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
important
that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual
page
content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask for it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not likely to result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran several rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new things, or notes of errors with existing content.
On 9 February 2012 02:22, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Uhm. Can I require to enable in any project through MediaZilla (such as my homewiki)? Anyway, it should be deployment to many wiki, help improve content quality.
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other wikis. Would you like me to find out?
On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and necessary for all Wikimedia wikis. Thanks!
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
We're
experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
playing
around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
important
that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual
page
content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Okay, Minata: looks like I was right; if wikis want it after the design process is finished, they can just ask for it.
On 9 February 2012 02:31, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask for it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not likely to result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran several rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new things, or notes of errors with existing content.
On 9 February 2012 02:22, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Uhm. Can I require to enable in any project through MediaZilla (such as my homewiki)? Anyway, it should be deployment to many wiki, help improve content quality.
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other wikis. Would you like me to find out?
On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune minhhuywiki@gmail.com wrote:
When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and necessary for all Wikimedia wikis. Thanks!
2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote: > Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
We're
> experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* > this > design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks
and
playing > around with others.
I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be unquestionably off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
important
that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other
actual
page
content.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune) ---volunteer and translator of the Wikimedia Foundation---
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
On 2/8/12 6:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Okay, Minata: looks like I was right; if wikis want it after the design process is finished, they can just ask for it.
Let's be clear about our (admittedly informal) policy here:
If a wiki wants to have it deployed, they will have to ensure that it has been localized to their language as well as determining any other configuration elements (for example, WikiLove requires a localized configuration file).
-b.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let's be clear about our (admittedly informal) policy here:
What is informal about our process?
* Community gains consenus for feature to be activated (and the desired config if required) * Bug gets filled in BugZilla * Extension is translated if needed at TranslateWiki (If needed) * Eventually gets activated by a Shellie.
Well, has it ever been written down anywhere and solidified as Official Standard Operating Procedure? If not, structured or not, it's informal ;)
On 9 February 2012 03:20, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let's be clear about our (admittedly informal) policy here:What is informal about our process?
- Community gains consenus for feature to be activated (and the
desired config if required)
- Bug gets filled in BugZilla
- Extension is translated if needed at TranslateWiki (If needed)
- Eventually gets activated by a Shellie.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, has it ever been written down anywhere and solidified as Official Standard Operating Procedure? If not, structured or not, it's informal ;)
It is definitely way past the realm of "everyone knows this is the way things are done, even if it's not officially stamped 'policy'". However, the process is described on-wiki already: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask for it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not likely to result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran several rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new things, or notes of errors with existing content.
And what percentage of the feedback resulted in article improvements?
And will that scale when feedback is being left about all articles?
Even useful notes left on the talk page are unlikely to result in article improvements within a reasonable timeframe.
On the first one, no idea - if you have any idea how we can test this without full deployment, please, go ahead. On the second, it should scale; we're using a randomised sample (minus DAB pages)
On 9 February 2012 04:17, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask
for
it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not likely to result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran
several
rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new
things,
or notes of errors with existing content.
And what percentage of the feedback resulted in article improvements?
And will that scale when feedback is being left about all articles?
Even useful notes left on the talk page are unlikely to result in article improvements within a reasonable timeframe.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the first one, no idea - if you have any idea how we can test this without full deployment, please, go ahead.
feedback was sent to contributors? did the contributor make use of the feedback? if not, why not?
On the second, it should scale; we're using a randomised sample (minus DAB pages)
I'm not talking about server scalability. im suggesting that you dont know whether the community can use the feedback effectively without answering the first question.
"Improve this page" is unfounded until there is evidence that the feedback *will* be used by the community.
p.s. it should be "Improve this article"
-- John Vandenberg
We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...
On 9 February 2012 04:34, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the first one, no idea - if you have any idea how we can test this without full deployment, please, go ahead.
feedback was sent to contributors? did the contributor make use of the feedback? if not, why not?
On the second, it should scale; we're using a randomised sample (minus DAB pages)
I'm not talking about server scalability. im suggesting that you dont know whether the community can use the feedback effectively without answering the first question.
"Improve this page" is unfounded until there is evidence that the feedback *will* be used by the community.
p.s. it should be "Improve this article"
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...
you say that you have existing feedback, and contributors have seen this feedback. You *can* already determine whether that feedback (already in hand) resulted in article improvements.
Sure..except we weren't asking contributors to use this feedback to fix up the articles. I do know that even without any standing system to improve it, several article improvements were made. All I can give you quantifiably, though, is that editors saw the feedback, and thought a big chunk of it was "stuff I can use".
On 9 February 2012 04:44, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...
you say that you have existing feedback, and contributors have seen this feedback. You *can* already determine whether that feedback (already in hand) resulted in article improvements.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing themselves. Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new editors contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to fix things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things that could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but it runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising editorial control. Neil Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:47:54 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia
Sure..except we weren't asking contributors to use this feedback to fix up the articles. I do know that even without any standing system to improve it, several article improvements were made. All I can give you quantifiably, though, is that editors saw the feedback, and thought a big chunk of it was "stuff I can use".
On 9 February 2012 04:44, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...
you say that you have existing feedback, and contributors have seen this feedback. You *can* already determine whether that feedback (already in hand) resulted in article improvements.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9 February 2012 09:04, neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new editors contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to fix things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things that could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but it runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising editorial control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all, that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out. (With numbers.)
- d.
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account; we'll be testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds 2,000 comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the harm outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2012 09:04, neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new editors
contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to fix things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things that could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but it runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising editorial control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all, that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out. (With numbers.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending Oliver's Office Hours on the topic. Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours approximately every week to discuss the project. Some are about specific topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and is thus limited to oversighters), but most are general purpose discussion where we discuss stuff like design direction, general workflows, and DATA. Here's a link to the WMF office hours schedule (Oliver's Office Hours are always listed here): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
One of the goals of this project is, as David states, increasing reader engagement. Ultimately, we hope that a percentage of the readers that leave constructive comments will become editors. We need to add feedback loops where if someone leaves a great comment that's acted on by the editors, that reader gets notified. Hopefully that loop will work to draw in readers by piquing their curiosity (and also providing some positive feedback of "Hey look! They took my suggestion -- and by the way, what are they doing on this talk page thing. . ." We need to get through a few more baseline features before we start thinking more closely about the feedback loop, but I at least wanted to put it out there.
Also, there will be some readers that simply will not become editors, and I think that's okay. Having them provide constructive feedback about what their information needs are as readers, I think, is better than having them not involved at all. There is, of course, the signal to noise ratio, which is one of the things that Oliver, Aaron Halfaker, and Dario have spent quite a bit of time researching. Having said that, we do need to be careful about creating a "someone else's problem" dynamic. One way to do this is to keep making sure these readers know that they can make the change themselves.
Howie
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account; we'll be testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds 2,000 comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the harm outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2012 09:04, neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and
begin
editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new
editors
contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to fix things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things that could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but
it
runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising
editorial
control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all, that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out. (With numbers.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I say the design needs improvement; I suggest taking a look at Usernoisehttp://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/usernoise/screenshots/ for a bit of refinement.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Howie Fung hfung@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending Oliver's Office Hours on the topic. Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours approximately every week to discuss the project. Some are about specific topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and is thus limited to oversighters), but most are general purpose discussion where we discuss stuff like design direction, general workflows, and DATA. Here's a link to the WMF office hours schedule (Oliver's Office Hours are always listed here): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
One of the goals of this project is, as David states, increasing reader engagement. Ultimately, we hope that a percentage of the readers that leave constructive comments will become editors. We need to add feedback loops where if someone leaves a great comment that's acted on by the editors, that reader gets notified. Hopefully that loop will work to draw in readers by piquing their curiosity (and also providing some positive feedback of "Hey look! They took my suggestion -- and by the way, what are they doing on this talk page thing. . ." We need to get through a few more baseline features before we start thinking more closely about the feedback loop, but I at least wanted to put it out there.
Also, there will be some readers that simply will not become editors, and I think that's okay. Having them provide constructive feedback about what their information needs are as readers, I think, is better than having them not involved at all. There is, of course, the signal to noise ratio, which is one of the things that Oliver, Aaron Halfaker, and Dario have spent quite a bit of time researching. Having said that, we do need to be careful about creating a "someone else's problem" dynamic. One way to do this is to keep making sure these readers know that they can make the change themselves.
Howie
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account; we'll
be
testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds
2,000
comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the harm outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2012 09:04, neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and
begin
editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new
editors
contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to
fix
things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things
that
could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but
it
runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising
editorial
control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all, that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out. (With numbers.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I believe Brandon is going to give it the once-over pretty soon :)
On 9 February 2012 23:09, Mono monomium@gmail.com wrote:
I say the design needs improvement; I suggest taking a look at Usernoisehttp://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/usernoise/screenshots/ for a bit of refinement.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Howie Fung hfung@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending Oliver's Office Hours on the topic. Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours approximately every week to discuss the project. Some are about specific topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and is thus limited to oversighters), but most are general purpose discussion where we
discuss
stuff like design direction, general workflows, and DATA. Here's a link
to
the WMF office hours schedule (Oliver's Office Hours are always listed here): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
One of the goals of this project is, as David states, increasing reader engagement. Ultimately, we hope that a percentage of the readers that leave constructive comments will become editors. We need to add feedback loops where if someone leaves a great comment that's acted on by the editors, that reader gets notified. Hopefully that loop will work to
draw
in readers by piquing their curiosity (and also providing some positive feedback of "Hey look! They took my suggestion -- and by the way, what
are
they doing on this talk page thing. . ." We need to get through a few
more
baseline features before we start thinking more closely about the
feedback
loop, but I at least wanted to put it out there.
Also, there will be some readers that simply will not become editors,
and I
think that's okay. Having them provide constructive feedback about what their information needs are as readers, I think, is better than having
them
not involved at all. There is, of course, the signal to noise ratio,
which
is one of the things that Oliver, Aaron Halfaker, and Dario have spent quite a bit of time researching. Having said that, we do need to be careful about creating a "someone else's problem" dynamic. One way to do this is to keep making sure these readers know that they can make the change themselves.
Howie
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org
wrote:
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account;
we'll
be
testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds
2,000
comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the
harm
outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2012 09:04, neil@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and
begin
editing themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new
editors
contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to
fix
things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things
that
could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended
but
it
runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising
editorial
control.
If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all, that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works
out.
(With numbers.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior to implementation? Both with regards to the locations to be tested and to the pages to test on?
On 9 February 2012 23:14, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior to implementation? Both with regards to the locations to be tested and to the pages to test on?
We've been holding discussions with the community at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5s... November, and have held a series of office hours during the past few months (oy veh...ten, so far) during which things like the location experiments have been discussed. In addition, when the localisation went live, notices were sent to the major noticeboards and to both this mailing list and wikiEN
Oliver Keyes wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page content.
As said above...it is being moved ;p
What's the status of this? I think I saw the tab yesterday or the day before on the English Wikipedia. As ghastly now as it was a few weeks ago.
Related: there's an interesting bug about moving the whole feedback tool out of the content area.
* Current location: http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=8875
* Mock-up of an alternate location: http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=8739
The bug is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29704.
More voices and eyes on this always appreciated. :-)
MZMcBride
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia has become "one of those sites with a feedback tab"? Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham.
How did this happen?
Eww. Why is it called "Improve this page"?
It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not likely to result in improvements except in rare cases.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org