Sure; we are doing those tests (I think this marks the fifth, or possibly
sixth time Dario and/or I have communicated this to you :p) and won't draw
any conclusions until we've gathered the data.
you say 'logic and the statistics make me think otherwise' - can you
explain what statistics? If you mean the below data, as I have already
explained to you, that logically doesn't fly. The data merely provides our
rate of decline - it does not provide any clues as to the reasons for that
rate, or possible factors retarding it.
On Friday, 23 December 2011, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The theory that the Article Feedback Tool may be
encouraging newbies to
edit is an interesting one, though not in my view born out by the
statistics.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
Comparing the number of newbies in recent months with the same month last
year I can't help but notice that last year we were getting rather more
newbies. This current testing phase gives us the opportunity to test not
just against the earlier version but against no AFT at all. Of course its
possible that if we didn't have the AFT encouraging readers to rate rather
than edit articles we would be having an even steeper decline in the
number
of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think
otherwise.
WereSpielChequers
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +0000
> From: Tom Morris <tom(a)tommorris.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
CAAQB2S_BGKFabA1MLondrSxt7e+wXEpWz+qQfcY3PniL-BV6Sw(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality
> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet
> talkpages). I'm also NOT making the argument that the WMF needs to seek
> some kind of mythical consensus for every single software change or new
> feature test. What I AM saying is that now that v4 has been depreciated
it
> is both disingenuous to our readers and annoying
to our community to
have a
> big box appear in such valuable real-estate simply
because it will
> eventually be replaced by a different, more useful, box. As you say, this
> replacement is "still quite some time away" so it's a long time to
leave
a
placeholder on
the world's 5th most visited website.
From what I understood, part of the point of the
article feedback tool
was that it increased the number of readers who edit -
because they
click through the star ratings and then were invited to edit
(apparently, despite the phrase "the encyclopedia you can edit" and a
big link at the top of the article saying "Edit" and little links next
to each section that say "edit", and ten years of people in the news
media, academia and so on excoriating Wikipedia for being unreliable
precisely because anyone can edit it, there is some group who do not
know that you can edit Wikipedia).
Even if we are no longer using the data collected from the previous
incarnation of the AFT (I've looked at a few articles I've written to
see what the AFTers think of it, and it is a minor curiosity), the
fact that it may be encouraging newbs to edit seems like a fairly good
reason for us to not jump the gun and switch it off prematurely.
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
_______________________________________________
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