[WikiEN-l] Article Feedback - Ramp up to 10% of Articles

[WereSpielChequers]

Cutting off the top or bottom 10% wouldn't work if 4chan targets the
articles written by one of our editors, if anything the non4chan votes
will be in the top 10% that you discard.

To be honest I'm not particularly worried if people canvass their
mates to give straight 5s to an obscure article that only a few
hundred people will ever notice. I would anticipate that will happen
whenever someone files an AFD on an article that is of interest to a
particular fansite, and if anything it will be less disruptive to have
a bunch of fans boost the articles ratings than it will be to deal
with those same fans at the AFD. The positive ratings that really
matter to editors on this site are things like FA and GA and I don't
see this system replacing that.

I'm more concerned that this will give people an underhand way to get
back at an editor they dislike.

Unless I'm missing something and this has already  been anticipated,
this system needs a mechanism to spot when a group of editors
anonymously rate everything another editor has done as rubbish.

WSC

On 14 July 2011 18:01, MuZemike <muzemike at gmail.com> wrote:
> A couple of fair points. However, I would disagree that everyone is
> interested in editing or improving the encyclopedia; some are perfectly
> content on reading the content therein and, if given the chance, say
> what they think about out (not necessarily on Wikipedia, but could be
> anywhere on the Web). I mean, we cannot point a gun to their head and
> make them edit something, as this is a purely volunteer project.
>
> However, you've made a good point there about "gaming the system" and
> intentionally trying to garner high ratings. For example, one could
> create a horrid piece of crap article which would have no chance of
> staying on Wikipedia and canvass his/her buddies to flood said piece of
> crap with 5.0's across the board. This thing precisely happens from time
> to time on YouTube. I don't know how this could be prevented, but I
> acknowledge that even this feedback system, as with all others, are not
> perfect and comes with systemic flaws.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 7/14/2011 7:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
>> or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
>> it?
>>
>> Remember there is a risk that this could exacerbate the templating
>> trend. Just as we need to value edits that fix problems and remove
>> templates above edits that add to the hundreds of thousands of
>> maintenance templates on the pedia; So we need to value a talkpage
>> comment that explains why someone has a specific concern about an
>> article over a bunch of "feedback" that says people like or dislike an
>> article without indicating why. Better still we should be encouraging
>> readers to improve articles that they see as flawed. So we need to
>> measure this tool in terms of its success at getting readers to edit,
>> not in terms of its success at getting readers to rate articles. I
>> hope it is successful, and I'm happy to take the long view and measure
>> a trial over months to see how effectively we convert article raters
>> into article editors. But we do need to be prepared to remove this if
>> it has a net effect of diverting potential editors into merely rating
>> articles for others to fix.
>> We also need to be careful how we compare this 374k to the other
>> "90%", not least because with 3,682,158 articles on En wiki as I
>> write, 374k is about 6k more than a random 10% sample would be.
>>
>> We also need to learn from one of the lessons of the Strategy wiki
>> where we had a similar rating system. Many of the proposals there had
>> so few ratings that they were close to being individual views and few
>> had sufficient responses to be genuinely collective to the point where
>> one maverick couldn't skew them - even without sockpuppetry. On
>> average our articles get one or two edits a month, many get far less.
>> I would not be surprised if 100,000 of the 374k in the trial had less
>> than ten ratings even if trialled for a couple of months.
>>
>> Lastly we need to be prepared for sockpuppetry, especially as these
>> are random unsigned votes with no rationale. Can we have assurances
>> that something is being built into the scheme to combat this?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> WereSpielChequers
>>
>> On 14 July 2011 10:08, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On 14 July 2011 00:40, Howie Fung<hfung at wikimedia.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just wanted to pass along a note to let everyone know that earlier today, we
>>>> ramped up the Article Feedback Tool to 10% of articles on the English
>>>> Wikipedia.  That brings the total to approximately 374K articles with the
>>>> tool deployed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anywhere we can read articles' ratings?
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>