Dario Taraborelli wrote: Hi. Do you have a link to on-wiki consensus for this idea? I was under the impression that the ArticleFeedback tool was developed as an experiment. It needs a discussion and on-wiki consensus before being widely deployed, right? Has that happened? MZMcBride

Hey – apologies for the late response (I've just returned from my annual leave). The AFT team is currently reviewing a number of options to address the moderation workload issue, which is definitely an important one. So to answer your question: you can safely consider the feature as "experimental", further decisions will be deferred until we've tested/discussed different approaches to moderation. As far as data is concerned, we're going to publish additional analyses/datasets on feedback volume and moderation activity for the current (10%) sample on top of those already available via the dashboards, they'll be announced on the lists and on meta:R:AFT. Dario On Nov 10, 2012, at 8:04 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:

2012/10/12 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>om>: No, for me too. They start being full at "Daily feedback volume (option 1)". And the graphs on the FeedbackPage usage dashboard are completely empty. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

Dario Taraborelli, 12/10/2012 15:41: Thank you for enabling it again. I had read about the blind tests in <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Quality_assessment> before but I see some major changes in the graphs, which are a bit hard to understand. 1) In "Daily moderation actions (percentage)" there's a huge spike of helpful/unhelpful after C (July), did those flags even exist before? Or did helpfulness increase after wider usage according to the finding «the average page receives higher quality feedback than pages picked for their popularity/controversial topic»? (There's no change between 5 and 10 % though.) 2) "Unique daily articles with feedback moderated" shows a spike and then a stabilization, but I don't know what the graphs actually is about. For instance, can feedback be moderated per article ("feedback semi/full protection" or so) or only per item, etc. Do you know if moderation happens on the same articles and if stricter moderation increases helpfulness of feedback also on non-moderated articles? Nemo

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Oliver Keyes &lt;okeyes(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Indeed; I remember some (internal) announcements around this, which caused me and no doubt others to while away an evening just after deployment clicking helpful/unhelpful :) Also, not to state the obvious, but 'helpful' feedback in and of itself doesn't mean the article changed for the better; I've marked plenty of feedback 'helpful' without doing anything further about it. Is there any data about rate of change of the articles since AFT was enabled? (probably pretty hard to measure since articles are individually fluid at much different rates, depending on topic, and you'd have to control for the baseline likeliness of random bursts of editing somehow). -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

I found it mostly useless. Not only could I mark the feedback resolved, which should not be possible for a banned user (!), but the feedback was either gibberish/abuse or unhelpful in the sense of (1) the material requested was already in the article, or a linked article, or (2) the complaint was too unspecific to be actionable. Since I have about 4700 articles watchlisted, I feel this is a representative sample, and the result is only to be expected from "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Does this feature justify its cost? No. ----- Original Message ----- From: "phoebe ayers" &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFT5: what practical benefits has it had? On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Oliver Keyes &lt;okeyes(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Indeed; I remember some (internal) announcements around this, which caused me and no doubt others to while away an evening just after deployment clicking helpful/unhelpful :) Also, not to state the obvious, but 'helpful' feedback in and of itself doesn't mean the article changed for the better; I've marked plenty of feedback 'helpful' without doing anything further about it. Is there any data about rate of change of the articles since AFT was enabled? (probably pretty hard to measure since articles are individually fluid at much different rates, depending on topic, and you'd have to control for the baseline likeliness of random bursts of editing somehow). -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

the spike actually follows the 5% deployment combined with the CentralNotice announcement (see annotation D in the first plot), the latter is almost certainly what caused the spike what Oliver said, we are not keeping track of the source of moderation activity at the moment but I agree it would be a very important piece of data to analyze. After consulting with Fabrice, I've opened this ticket on bugzilla so we can assess the effort needed to implement this via the logging table: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41061 Dario