On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyesscire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?" thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement. Admittedly only 2 percent of them*succeed*, but it's not a lack of motivation, methinks.
What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong.
In a text driven interface it is a little difficult to float an interactive window asking if a reader saw any errors and if they'd like to fix them - yet that's the level most readers are on.
We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this?
Robin McCain, 31/10/2011 17:20:
We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this?
Yes, it was something like 70 % of "edit" clicks are not followed by save. It's difficuilt to tell how many of those were people (or even stupid bots) looking for the source text. Erik Zachte gave this numbers somewhere; previously, some wikiHow staffer at Wikimania did so (showing how they improved it).
Nemo
On 10/31/2011 10:09 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Robin McCain, 31/10/2011 17:20:
We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this?
Yes, it was something like 70 % of "edit" clicks are not followed by save. It's difficuilt to tell how many of those were people (or even stupid bots) looking for the source text.
For me, the most common reason why an "edit" click is not followed by a "save" is because I end up not having the time to complete the work, or the edit I had in mind becomes more complicated than I thought (sometimes the latter partly explains the former). To put it idiomatically, it's a reaction to biting off more than I can chew.
That may not be entirely typical, but in the sense of "editing proved more difficult than anticipated" it probably explains many abortive attempts at editing. I suppose it's been suggested before, but I think more fine-grained section editing capability, so you can simply highlight any portion of an article and open an edit window for just that portion, could be helpful.
--Michael Snow
On 10/31/11 1:31 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
For me, the most common reason why an "edit" click is not followed by a "save" is because I end up not having the time to complete the work, or the edit I had in mind becomes more complicated than I thought (sometimes the latter partly explains the former). To put it idiomatically, it's a reaction to biting off more than I can chew.
That may not be entirely typical, but in the sense of "editing proved more difficult than anticipated" it probably explains many abortive attempts at editing. I suppose it's been suggested before, but I think more fine-grained section editing capability, so you can simply highlight any portion of an article and open an edit window for just that portion, could be helpful.
This is completely understandable. I recently looked at a 13-page article in the Bullletin of the Pan American Union for 1933 on "Hipólito Unánue." Our stub article shows him as president of Peru in 1825-6. He wasn't. I had to ask myself how much time am I prepared to use for sorting this out.
Ray
This is completely understandable. I recently looked at a 13-page article in the Bullletin of the Pan American Union for 1933 on "Hipólito Unánue." Our stub article shows him as president of Peru in 1825-6. He wasn't. I had to ask myself how much time am I prepared to use for sorting this out.
Ray
Ray, does the article say he was not the President of the Government Council? I found a link on that and added it to the article, but the reference, how should I put it, does not look to me as an ultimately to most authoritative source. I will search more, but if you have the material at hand I guess it would be useful if we could just remove the incorrect statement.
Cheers Yaroslav
Ray, does the article say he was not the President of the Government Council? I found a link on that and added it to the article, but the reference, how should I put it, does not look to me as an ultimately to most authoritative source. I will search more, but if you have the
material
at hand I guess it would be useful if we could just remove the incorrect statement.
Cheers Yaroslav
Found myself, removed the statement from the article.
Cheers Yaroslav
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org