Hey guys
Just dropping everyone a note to let you know that the new version of the Article Feedback Tool - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 - is now live on a subset of articles, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_5 :). This may not impact as it may not be deployed on a page you edit, but I wanted everyone to know just in case you do see the new designs and are unsure as to where they come from (or in case you get queries from readers or newbies along the same lines). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Helps... provide some more context, and answer questions; if you have any comments or queries that aren't solved through that page, feel free to email me and I'll try to get back to you promptly.
A reminder that this is a preliminary rollout to a very limited set of articles - around 0.3 percent of enwiki's content. This is just to test whether or not it's beneficial, and we don't plan on keeping every single form in place :).
Thanks for the notice Oliver. Glad to see the work is coming along with the tool and I'm looking forward to seeing the data on how these new, qualitative-focused, versions perform. Which one generates the best reader feedback that is useful for editors and which generates good reader-to-newbie conversion :-)
One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry if you've already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles that are not part of this new test group?
If the quantitative-focused version (the current "star-rating" system) is being dropped completely, and because I don't think that we're actually doing anything with article ratings that are still being given by readers (either on a per-article or complete data-set basis), therefore could we turn it off the rest of the articles that are not part of the test group? Also, if we are confirmed to be replacing the star-rating system then I think it's also a bit disingenuous to the readers to continue asking them for star-ratings that we're not planning to use.
When you've got good data on the new (qualitative) system then the most successful version is going to be rolled out progressively, eventually to all articles - like it is now. But in the mean time, can we turn off the depreciated version for the rest of the articles?
Sincerely, -Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 21/12/2011, at 19:16, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey guys
Just dropping everyone a note to let you know that the new version of the Article Feedback Tool - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 - is now live on a subset of articles, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_5 :). This may not impact as it may not be deployed on a page you edit, but I wanted everyone to know just in case you do see the new designs and are unsure as to where they come from (or in case you get queries from readers or newbies along the same lines). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Helps... provide some more context, and answer questions; if you have any comments or queries that aren't solved through that page, feel free to email me and I'll try to get back to you promptly.
A reminder that this is a preliminary rollout to a very limited set of articles - around 0.3 percent of enwiki's content. This is just to test whether or not it's beneficial, and we don't plan on keeping every single form in place :).
-- 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
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry if you've already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles that are not part of this new test group?
Hi Liam,
this is the first time we're experimenting with free text feedback in a serious way. We've not decided yet whether that's a good idea or not. This will depend in large part on the signal/noise ratio and volume of the feedback we're getting, which will be coded through the process described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Feedb...
Note, also, that some of the forms include different forms of quantitative feedback as well. We'll evaluate those as well, and compare our findings with what we've learned, and are still learning, from AFTv4. This evaluation will precede any site-wide changes to the current AFT deployment.
All best, Erik
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry if you've already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles that are not part of this new test group?
Hi Liam,
this is the first time we're experimenting with free text feedback in a serious way. We've not decided yet whether that's a good idea or not. This will depend in large part on the signal/noise ratio and volume of the feedback we're getting, which will be coded through the process described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Feedb...
Note, also, that some of the forms include different forms of quantitative feedback as well. We'll evaluate those as well, and compare our findings with what we've learned, and are still learning, from AFTv4. This evaluation will precede any site-wide changes to the current AFT deployment.
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Perhaps it is as simple a misapprehension as that while you linked to an english language page on tbe tool, in fact it has translations in several other language wikipedias which are trying it out as well... ?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other wikis.
The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly) being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot more discussion and consultation.
But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it on.
On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other wikis.
The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly) being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot more discussion and consultation.
But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And thanks for bringing this up, Jussi! You're usually pretty on the ball, so if you misunderstood what I wrote, it's most likely because my prose was unclear :). I appreciate the chance to correct myself before the poor prose leads others to get the wrong impression too :).
On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request*that we switch it on.
On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other wikis.
The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly) being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot more discussion and consultation.
But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
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
Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)
So - with regards to my original question....? In summary it was: Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently running on the remaining 99.7% of en.wp, please?
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 23/12/2011, at 0:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it on.
On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other wikis.
The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly) being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot more discussion and consultation.
But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
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
Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.
On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes, and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.
On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale is still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4 feedback will be taken into account.
On 22 December 2011 14:06, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)
So - with regards to my original question....? In summary it was: Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently running on the remaining 99.7% of en.wp, please?
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 23/12/2011, at 0:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
being
used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
prototype
and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
it
on.
On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other wikis.
The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly) being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot more discussion and consultation.
But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
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
Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small subset of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community whilst still being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know whether it's working. Then iterate, improve, rollout to a slightly larger set, repeat.... :-)
However, I'd like to contest the two reasons you've given for not turning off AFTv4 in the mean time.
On 23/12/2011, at 3:49, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.
On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes, and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.
Are you saying that AFTv4 (the 'star rating' system) is being used as the "control group" in this experiment? That is, if ONLY 0.3% of en.wp articles had a feedback tool enabled, then they would receive different kinds of feedback because they would look different to the vast majority if the encyclopedia. So you're trying to minimize that difference by keeping it running on all the rest? If that's the case, then surely you only need to run the "control" group at the same frequency as the new tests rather than giving them disproportionate visibility.
On the other hand, what I think you're saying is that you want to preserve a consisten user-experience during this period of testing AFTv5, so that we don't go from 100% of v4, to 0.3% of v5 (with the rest having nothing), and then to 100% v5. If this is the case I find it a bit worrying that the current version of the tool - which has always been proposed as experimental - is now simply there as a placeholder awaiting improvement. Surely if we know that we're not using the current version any more, we should take it offline until the new one is ready. I would be very surprised if any members of the general public would be confused because I would be surprised if any members of the general public are actually looking for the feedback tool when they visit any articles. Quite the contrary, I think the public WOULD be confused if we told them that the big box at the bottom of every article is only there to "maintain a consistent interface" and we're not actually using the ratings data that the big box is asking them for.
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.
On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale is still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4 feedback will be taken into account.
What AFTv4 ratings has ever actually been used? I understand that data on HOW the tool has been used is providing input into the design of v5, which is fair enough. But has anyone actually been able to get useful data out of the ratings themselves - either on a per-article or whole dataset basis? I think the software of the "article feedback dashboard" is very interesting and potentially quite a useful system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedback but, honestly, has any Wikipedian ever been able to make practical use of that information to improve articles? Personally, I make use of that tool to identify articles which are current targets for NPOV editing [e.g. Justin Beiber is currently 6th highest rated article in the entire encyclopedia, whilst Hanukkah is the 4th lowest], potentially useful information for vandal patrollers, but hardly the intended use of the whole system.
Sincerely, -Liam
I'm not going to reply to the *entire* email, because I don't have all the data in front of me (and it's 3:40am - even if I did, I'm not going to write anything massively coherent ;p) - I'll revisit when I've poked some people to get some more info. However, one thing the current version has been used for, productively, and is still used for, is the Calls to Action - the notices that appear after you've submitted feedback that invite contributors to edit. We've seen a fairly low conversion rate for this - mostly due to a lack of ability to grok WP's rather outdated and complicated interface, more than due to a lack of desire on the readers' part - but it's still a valuable way to attract new edits and new editors, and attract them it does. So, turning it off now is not just saying no to the feedback; it's also saying no to a method of drawing in new editors, at a time when we've got a dearth of such people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a perfect situation, and I'm a bit on-the-fence about it myself (I had initially argued we should turn off AFT4, at least for the users who are getting AFT5 on some articles) but it's important to consider the impact of switching off a conduit for new editors.
Hopefully I'll have something useful to say once I've got some shuteye. Sorry if this raises more questions than it answers :)
On 23 December 2011 02:41, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small subset of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community whilst still being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know whether it's working. Then iterate, improve, rollout to a slightly larger set, repeat.... :-)
However, I'd like to contest the two reasons you've given for not turning off AFTv4 in the mean time.
On 23/12/2011, at 3:49, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is
twofold.
On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing
purposes,
and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we
can
build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.
Are you saying that AFTv4 (the 'star rating' system) is being used as the "control group" in this experiment? That is, if ONLY 0.3% of en.wp articles had a feedback tool enabled, then they would receive different kinds of feedback because they would look different to the vast majority if the encyclopedia. So you're trying to minimize that difference by keeping it running on all the rest? If that's the case, then surely you only need to run the "control" group at the same frequency as the new tests rather than giving them disproportionate visibility.
On the other hand, what I think you're saying is that you want to preserve a consisten user-experience during this period of testing AFTv5, so that we don't go from 100% of v4, to 0.3% of v5 (with the rest having nothing), and then to 100% v5. If this is the case I find it a bit worrying that the current version of the tool - which has always been proposed as experimental - is now simply there as a placeholder awaiting improvement. Surely if we know that we're not using the current version any more, we should take it offline until the new one is ready. I would be very surprised if any members of the general public would be confused because I would be surprised if any members of the general public are actually looking for the feedback tool when they visit any articles. Quite the contrary, I think the public WOULD be confused if we told them that the big box at the bottom of every article is only there to "maintain a consistent interface" and we're not actually using the ratings data that the big box is asking them for.
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.
On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale
is
still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4 feedback will be taken into account.
What AFTv4 ratings has ever actually been used? I understand that data on HOW the tool has been used is providing input into the design of v5, which is fair enough. But has anyone actually been able to get useful data out of the ratings themselves - either on a per-article or whole dataset basis? I think the software of the "article feedback dashboard" is very interesting and potentially quite a useful system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedback but, honestly, has any Wikipedian ever been able to make practical use of that information to improve articles? Personally, I make use of that tool to identify articles which are current targets for NPOV editing [e.g. Justin Beiber is currently 6th highest rated article in the entire encyclopedia, whilst Hanukkah is the 4th lowest], potentially useful information for vandal patrollers, but hardly the intended use of the whole system.
Sincerely, -Liam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@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.
That's basically my rationale, yup; thanks for explaining so clearly, Tom :P. Sleep deprivation makes me a poor writer.
On 23 December 2011 10:58, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I was afraid of that... That the real reason, the underlying reason, for keeping the AFTv4 running all this time is because of the vanishingly small number of readers who make a rating, see the 'call to action' and then stay around long enough to become valuable editors in their own right. If it's the case then the AFTv4 is simply being used as a cover for an inefficient editor recruitment program, then asking readers to give ratings is simply disingenuous. It is misleading to the well-intentioned reader (who genuinely believes we want their 'star ratings' opinion) and is also misleading the existing community who have been told that this tool will provide useful article feedback (its the name of the tool after all).
I honestly look forward to the AFTv5 that will be genuinely useful in generating qualitative article feedback. And, my hope is that it will include a method for the community to contacting those readers who give quality suggestions to ask them to join the discussion of their comments on the article talkpage (similar to the privacy-compliant 'email this user' feature we already have perhaps?). I believe that a 'call to action' that is personalised like this - personally relevant because it is responding to the reader's qualitative feedback and is also individually written - will be effective in recruiting new users that are seen by the existing community as an asset rather than a burden. Certainly, that method would engage fewer readers in total but I suspect it would have a greater level of retention because the new user's first interaction would be with other human beings on the talkpage asking them about their own feedback. Surely this is much more positive for everyone as the newbie feels more welcome and is less likely to trip over one of our editorial policies in their first edits (resulting in reverts, bot-warnings etc.).
In the mean time, I would like to reiterate that the the Article Feedback Tool (version 4 or 5) has always had its *primary* goal of getting article feedback and a distant *secondary* goal of getting new users. If the only real reason that v4 is still running is because of the very marginal success of that secondary goal then that is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification for keeping it running on 99.7% of en.wp articles. This is especially the case if the justification to the community for the tool being put on 100% of en.wp in the first place was on the basis of the primary goal, not the secondary goal.
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On 23/12/2011, at 23:45, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's basically my rationale, yup; thanks for explaining so clearly, Tom :P. Sleep deprivation makes me a poor writer.
On 23 December 2011 10:58, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@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@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 hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the season for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and arm waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! This time it will work!"
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and
arm
waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! This time it will work!"
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic. As you can see I have fairly strong views on this particular topic myself :-) and I'm making them known here in a public forum. But I am also trying to make reasoned arguments and propose solutions without demonising those who are responsible or the project itself (e.g. "corpse" etc. above). If we want to make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable as being "against it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office [so I have been told], "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow". This is a good attitude to have! Rather than trying to avoid mistakes altogether, or worse, not acknowledge them at all. "let's try again" (as you put it) is, IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and now 5) have built on the best and discarded the worst of each previous model. As I've stated, I hold much hope for the usefulness of AFTv5, which is being build learning from past experience. Which is why I would like to see AFTv4 removed from the remaining 99.7% of en.wp now that it is being superseded.
-Liam
Peace, love & metadata
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and
arm
waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! This time it will work!"
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
I don't really get the "unclear" bit. How more clear could I be than say "impartial observer". How do you ever think you are going to get an intelligent reader to swallow that as "[...] however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic. "
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial
observer
this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia
from
the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus
and
arm
waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! This time it will work!"
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a
reasoned
argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts
on
this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
I don't really get the "unclear" bit.
It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.
Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say.
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason", that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know when I do.
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
On 24 December 2011 11:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial
observer
this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia
from
the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus
and
arm
waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again! This time it will work!"
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a
reasoned
argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts
on
this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
I don't really get the "unclear" bit.
It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.
Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason", that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know when I do.
I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as 2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or DVD encyclopedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.
With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?" looks potentially very useful.
- d.
Yup; once we move on to full deployment, there's going to be a special feedback page (updated wireframes to follow) which will list all the feedback each article has been given, as well as a centralised one to avoid things slipping through the cracks.
Actually, we get quite a few ratings; the problem is more that it's the very definition of a "long tail". Something complicating this is an awkward position for the feedback box itself - right at the bottom of an article, after all the external links and references and other gubbins that readers don't so often use. We'll hopefully have the chance (and time!) to experiment with some new positions, a couple of which were user-suggested.
On 24 December 2011 11:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason", that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account
as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know
when
I do.
I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as 2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or DVD encyclopedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.
With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?" looks potentially very useful.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting diverted...
There is no link.
But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia does not do that for things that are not working.
The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve" (or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will make it succeed.
The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though. Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
On 24 December 2011 11:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
is
the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting diverted...
There is no link.
But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia does not do that for things that are not working.
The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve" (or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will make it succeed.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though. Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint enough for you?
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread - but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do, so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though. Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any
misunderstandings
which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint enough for you?
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread - but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do, so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any intelligent readers are much impressed by your logic...
I'm absolutely fine with that, sure.
On 24 December 2011 12:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation
for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do, so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a
lot
about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and
without
context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any intelligent readers are much impressed by your logic...
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation
for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to
do,
so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a
lot
about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and
without
context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any intelligent readers are much impressed by your logic...
Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather silly.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather silly.
I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with "consensus". The former is what people inside your own mind think, the latter is what a group of people think (and usually act upon).
On 24 December 2011 11:00, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather silly.
I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with "consensus". The former is what people inside your own mind think, the latter is what a group of people think (and usually act upon).
Jussi-Ville, you are being unnecessarily hostile here. So far, everyone who's posted here has found themselves confounded by what you have written in this thread, and they have given you that feedback. Rather than blaming everyone else for failing to understand your point, perhaps you might want to take the time to consider what message you are trying to get through to people, and try to find a way to explain what your concerns are without making vague allusions and being so combative.
Best,
Risker
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint enough for you?
I always thought of it as a potential source of useful feedback for those people most interested in editing the article and making it good. (So I see v4 as not very useful in practice because approximate no-one was providing said feedback, and hope the free comment box in v5 will actually get used, there will be a little flag on the watchlist when an article you're watching gets feedback, etc.)
I somewhat see where you're coming from - there's an observable tendency to make Wikipedia less editable (hence the current en:wp community largely treating new editors as a problem to be processed, rather than as colleagues) and people who think like that will use anything they can for it. I don't think AFT is an excellent tool for this job, but we'll be able to tell it's successful when people start trying to abuse the results.
- d.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's topic.[1]
It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being asked to provide comments on articles.
I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?) interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
MZMcBride
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3 [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's topic.[1]
It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being asked to provide comments on articles.
I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?) interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
I do apologize if I am undedrmining your defense of my personal position. I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the hard shoulder.
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the hard shoulder.
So what we have to fear is it being actually popular?
I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than the same from OTRS.
- d.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the hard shoulder.
So what we have to fear is it being actually popular?
My sarcasm meter just went off the scale!!!
I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than the same from OTRS.
I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than the same from OTRS.
I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist, and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion, even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.
- d.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than the same from OTRS.
I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist, and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion, even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.
And it wouldn't take a software wizard to just append it to the talk page... You are talking interface, not mechanism.
On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist, and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion, even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.
And it wouldn't take a software wizard to just append it to the talk page... You are talking interface, not mechanism.
I'm hoping for positive effect rather than any particular interface or mechanism. (I'd have thought ARTv4 would have done better than it did.) Putting it on the talk page is fine by me. Also solves the problem of alerting interested editors via their watchlist.
- d.
The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are, for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
On 24 December 2011 16:43, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
is
the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what you see as the link.
Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's topic.[1]
It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being asked to provide comments on articles.
I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?) interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
MZMcBride
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3 [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are, for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
How far would you go with this? "Are you of the nationality/race/ideology interested in this subject? Are your qualifications FUD, strawhorses, tenure resurrection, staying on the mailing list for pre-release data? Or are you just purely and simply COI'ng the shit out of our processes?"
You will find that we are pretty inured against such approaches.
I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that, merry Newtonmas to all of you.
On 24 December 2011 18:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where
AFT
respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they
are,
for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
How far would you go with this? "Are you of the nationality/race/ideology interested in this subject? Are your qualifications FUD, strawhorses, tenure resurrection, staying on the mailing list for pre-release data? Or are you just purely and simply COI'ng the shit out of our processes?"
You will find that we are pretty inured against such approaches.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that, merry Newtonmas to all of you.
The same to you. The nice thing about wiki is that I don't have to tell people what to think, as you seem to have a compulsive need to. Read the words. Think for youself.
A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30) posts per person.
User:AlexandrDmitri foundation-l list moderator
2011/12/24 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that,
merry
Newtonmas to all of you.
The same to you. The nice thing about wiki is that I don't have to tell people what to think, as you seem to have a compulsive need to. Read the words. Think for youself.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov alexandrdmitriromanov@gmail.com wrote:
A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30) posts per person.
There is a well worn statement in Finnish folklore, that every sack has a bottom. Don't push it. I can take people being rude to me. and believe me they are doing it in spades, just read upthread. I have been nothing but cordial, even though my blood might have been boiling. I find it a little bit rich that you are now representing that I am the source of rudeness.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office [so I have been told], "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow". This is a good attitude to have!
Never been to the office, but if "IF" I do, I'll come armed with a marker pen and will scrawl "Let's just not keep doing the same mistake over and over again!"
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and now 5) have built on the best and discarded the worst of each previous model. As I've stated, I hold much hope for the usefulness of AFTv5, which is being build learning from past experience. Which is why I would like to see AFTv4 removed from the remaining 99.7% of en.wp now that it is being superseded.
This is both true in the absolute, and absolutely misleading in the real world, as a Jesuit might put it.
You paint the current effort as one of iterations which will "improve" but in actual fact they are iterations that approach asymptotically the one thing that was demonstrably a total timewaster and failure, namely Nupedia. Just because you are fiddling the bits doesn't mean you are improving things. Usually you are just making them fail less badly. Not a way to design winning mechanisms.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable as being "against it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we learn from the mistakes.
The meta-issue here is that coming on to the list and saying someone made a mistake seems to be perceived by the perpetrators as being a sign of weakness..It never *was* and never should be. Being able to admit being wrong usually denotes a position of strength, not weakness. You don't need a thick skin to admit to mistakes, you just need a belief that at core you are working for the right goal. If you have that, everything else flows from that. If you worry about whether you are fulfilling all the conflicting requirements coming at you from various sides, you are in for a hiding to nothing. You won't win, you may not lose, but your position will be ever vulnerable and ineffective.
Feedbacks and Experts for websites are evil.
1. It costs a lot of money 2. Nobody will analyse it really 3. the type of questioning determines the results 4. It is only good for people who want to take no responsibility for their own work. 5. last but not least, no one will implement the findings resulting from such feedback to change something that is already finished.
What can you learn from this?
1. Do it right from the beginning. 2. Ask your mother if she has understand your work, namely that what you wanted to achieve 3. If you can´t do #1, then try another job
Feedbacks and experts are the plague of the century.
h
On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it on.
Zee problem with 0.3% is that while it may be enough to get you data is isn't enough to be particularly sure that a reasonable number of wikipedians will actually see it.
I'm not seeing the problem there, actually; the feedback page itself isn't up yet (again, just for testing) so editors aren't expected to do anything with the feedback. Am I missing something?
On 22 December 2011 17:25, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
being
used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
prototype
and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
it
on.
Zee problem with 0.3% is that while it may be enough to get you data is isn't enough to be particularly sure that a reasonable number of wikipedians will actually see it.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org