Hi all.
Would Wikimedia like to have anything similar to https://input.mozilla.org/ (it runs on an open-source platform)? I see this as a useful and transparent (!) channel for feedback; useful to see what majority of users actually have issues with. While most WMF projects have a village pump, a talk page, mailing lists, they're sort of to solve issues on the spot without leaving a trace. This one leaves output: a pattern of what users are displeased with. Output classifiable by language, by project, by time. Similarly what they're pleased with, likewise.
Gryllida.
Something like this could be nice, but there are several issues:
1. Is the software behind it still maintained? I heard at some point that Mozilla is retiring it. But maybe that website already runs a new version.
2. We'll have to see whether there are volunteers who are willing to track it and reply to the queries.
3. There is a similar - though not identical - tool in the MediaWiki universe - ArticleFeedback. It's acceptance is quite slow.
Somebody has to take responsibility for resolving these issues.
Don't take that as stop energy, please; I do think that better user feedback tools would be great.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2013/11/22 Gryllida gryllida@fastmail.fm
Hi all.
Would Wikimedia like to have anything similar to https://input.mozilla.org/ (it runs on an open-source platform)? I see this as a useful and transparent (!) channel for feedback; useful to see what majority of users actually have issues with. While most WMF projects have a village pump, a talk page, mailing lists, they're sort of to solve issues on the spot without leaving a trace. This one leaves output: a pattern of what users are displeased with. Output classifiable by language, by project, by time. Similarly what they're pleased with, likewise.
Gryllida.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, at 19:18, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
- We'll have to see whether there are volunteers who are willing to track
it and reply to the queries.
As far as I am aware there is no responsibility for WMF staff or volunteers to reply; they may if they want to, but that's not required.
- There is a similar - though not identical - tool in the MediaWiki
universe - ArticleFeedback. It's acceptance is quite slow.
That's only about articles. "Hi, I read this, you have my feedback". The input tool could be more wide, including issues contributors have with the atmosphere and software.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Gryllida gryllida@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, at 19:18, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
- We'll have to see whether there are volunteers who are willing to track
it and reply to the queries.
As far as I am aware there is no responsibility for WMF staff or volunteers to reply; they may if they want to, but that's not required.
It would probably be counter-productive if the issues and concerns raised receive no response.
I should also note that input.mozilla.org inspired MoodBar/the Feedback Dashboard extension (we actually met with the PM of the project several times before kicking off work on MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard), which can be used to collect feedback from users. We used it for collecting new user feedback on enwiki for some time, as well as enabling experienced users to respond to such feedback. You can still see it in use on nlwiki:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:DashboardTerugkoppeling
We disabled it on enwiki not because we think it's a bad idea, but because we'd ultimately like to integrate such micro-feedback functionality more cleanly with Flow [1] & improvements to the onboarding experience [2]. The "instant response" features in particular are difficult to integrate with talk pages in a way that's intuitive for new users, because talk pages suck for new users.
I realize you're asking for a general feedback mechanism for editors, and I too suspect that Flow will be the right foundation on which such mechanisms should be built. While I think input.mozilla.org itself is pretty sound, in the long run, we benefit more from tools that are well-integrated with the Wikimedia user experience.
Erik
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, at 20:07, Erik Moeller wrote:
I should also note that input.mozilla.org inspired MoodBar/the Feedback Dashboard extension (we actually met with the PM of the project several times before kicking off work on MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard), which can be used to collect feedback from users. We used it for collecting new user feedback on enwiki for some time, as well as enabling experienced users to respond to such feedback. You can still see it in use on nlwiki:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:DashboardTerugkoppeling
This looks nice but it is per-wiki. I would perhaps look for -- in addition, not to replace -- a more features-centric system, e.g. "feedback from all languages of all wikis". When talking to a contributor today, I realised that he thinks his feedback about Flow wasn't acknowledged. Likely he sent it to wrong place due to lack of a standard centralized system.
Gryllida
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org