[Wikimedia-l] AFT5: what practical benefits has it had?

[Oliver Keyes]

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.)
>
*They did; the spike is most probably caused by a deployment from 0.6
percent of articles to 5 percent of articles, with a resulting "ooh, shiny!
Lets take a look" reaction.

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?
>

*So, I *believe* it means "the number of distinct articles which have had
feedback moderated that day", regardless of whether people use the
article-specific page or the centralised page, but I'm not sure - some
clarification from Dario would be awesome :). Ditto your other questions,
particularly on the distribution of articles.

>
> Nemo
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation