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

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 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.

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 *