Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
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]]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread Liam Wyatt 
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  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  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  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
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> _

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread Oliver Keyes 
Sure; we are doing those tests (I think this marks the fifth, or possibly
sixth time Dario and/or I have communicated this to you :p) and won't draw
any conclusions until we've gathered the data.

you say 'logic and the statistics make me think otherwise' - can you
explain what statistics? If you mean the below data, as I have already
explained to you, that logically doesn't fly. The data merely provides our
rate of decline - it does not provide any clues as to the reasons for that
rate, or possible factors retarding it.

On Friday, 23 December 2011, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:
> The theory that the Article Feedback Tool may be encouraging newbies to
> edit is an interesting one, though not in my view born out by the
> statistics. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
>
> Comparing the number of newbies in recent months with the same month last
> year I can't help but notice that last year we were getting rather more
> newbies. This current testing phase gives us the opportunity to test not
> just against the earlier version but against no AFT at all. Of course its
> possible that if we didn't have the AFT encouraging readers to rate rather
> than edit articles we would be having an even steeper decline in the
number
> of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise.
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
>> From: Tom Morris 
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>
>> Message-ID:
>><
caaqb2s_bgkfaba1mlondrsxt7e+wxepwz+qqfcy3pnil-bv...@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  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
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread WereSpielChequers 
The theory that the Article Feedback Tool may be encouraging newbies to
edit is an interesting one, though not in my view born out by the
statistics. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

Comparing the number of newbies in recent months with the same month last
year I can't help but notice that last year we were getting rather more
newbies. This current testing phase gives us the opportunity to test not
just against the earlier version but against no AFT at all. Of course its
possible that if we didn't have the AFT encouraging readers to rate rather
than edit articles we would be having an even steeper decline in the number
of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise.

WereSpielChequers



> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
> From: Tom Morris 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  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
> 
>
>
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread Fajro 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Also, "Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA" (the title of their press
> release) implies they did before, doesn't it?

Firmly:

>We contacted GoDaddy for comment. A spokesman declined to comment on the 
>boycott specifically, but reiterated the firm's support for the legislation.

>Update (6:18 PM): GoDaddy seems unimpressed by the boycott so far. They made 
>the following statement to Ars Technica: "Go Daddy has received some emails 
>that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact 
>to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA 
>regulations."

>Update (December 23): Barely 24 hours after the boycott started, GoDaddy now 
>says it has dropped its support for SOPA.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars

-- 
Fajro

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 
David Gerard, 23/12/2011 20:25:
> Until a few moments ago,
> http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sopa/
> contained a strong statement of support for SOPA. I don't have a
> screen capture, but I quite definitely read it.

Also, "Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA" (the title of their press 
release) implies they did before, doesn't it?

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread David Gerard 
On 23 December 2011 19:25, Platonides  wrote:
> On 23/12/11 16:30, John Du Hart wrote:

>> This is currently on the reddit front page
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/

> Everybody there seem to know whatever evil thoughts GoDaddy said, but
> there's no reference supporting that.


Until a few moments ago,
http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sopa/
contained a strong statement of support for SOPA. I don't have a
screen capture, but I quite definitely read it.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread Platonides 
On 23/12/11 16:30, John Du Hart wrote:
> This is currently on the reddit front page
> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/

Everybody there seem to know whatever evil thoughts GoDaddy said, but
there's no reference supporting that.


> Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
> better options available (Like ones that don't support SOPA or have CEOs
> that shoot elephants).

It may have been originally registered at GoDaddy 11 years ago, or could
have provided a better deal than the pondered competitors at some point
in the past.

I remember that a long time ago there were different registrars for the
domains, but they were later homogenized to a single one.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread David Gerard 
On 23 December 2011 19:20, David Gerard  wrote:

> http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736
> GoDaddy have backed down -
> http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378 -
> but it's too


... it's too bloody late.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread David Gerard 
On 23 December 2011 15:30, John Du Hart  wrote:

> This is currently on the reddit front page
> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
> Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
> better options available (Like ones that don't support SOPA or have CEOs
> that shoot elephants).


http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736

GoDaddy have backed down -
http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378 -
but it's too

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread Patricio Molina 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> John Du Hart, 23/12/2011 16:30:
> > This is currently on the reddit front page
> > http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
> >
> > Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
> > better options available (Like ones that don't support SOPA or have CEOs
> > that shoot elephants).
>
> @jimmy_wales: I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names
> will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us.
> https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

And now Go Daddy no longer supports SOPA:
http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smfb2

--
Patricio Molina

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 
John Du Hart, 23/12/2011 16:30:
> This is currently on the reddit front page
> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
>
> Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
> better options available (Like ones that don't support SOPA or have CEOs
> that shoot elephants).

@jimmy_wales: I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names 
will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us.
https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Reminder: IRC office hours with the Head of Reader Relations, Thursday Dec. 22nd

2011-12-23 Thread Lodewijk 
Hi Jürgen,

I didn't mean to specify a format, but rather how I would like to use it.
If the same can be achieved in a way that is also open source etc (an can
be used on multiple platforms) that deserved of course preference. Hence
the "some kind of" :)

Best,

Lodewijk

No dia 22 de Dezembro de 2011 19:34, Juergen Fenn <
schneeschme...@googlemail.com> escreveu:

> Am 22. Dezember 2011 10:38 schrieb Lodewijk :
>
> > is there some kind of Google Agenda of this type of meetings that I could
> > load into my own? Then I could use that as a reminder as well.
>
> I would appreciate it if you please could provide an iCal calendar
> that works with Thunderbird/Lightning and Apple iCal. Yes, we're open.
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Jürgen.
>
> ___
> 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

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia domains at GoDaddy

2011-12-23 Thread John Du Hart 
This is currently on the reddit front page
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/

Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
better options available (Like ones that don't support SOPA or have CEOs
that shoot elephants).

-- 
John
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 videos - mission complete!

2011-12-23 Thread emijrp 
Those who want to download all the videos, can use this script[1] and run
this in a Unix console:

python youtube-dl -t -i -c http://www.youtube.com/user/WikimediaIL

[1] http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/

2011/11/29 Itzik Edri 

> Hi,
>
> *I happy to announce that all the videos from Wikimania 2011 in Haifa are
> now available on our channel in YouTube!:
> http://www.youtube.com/WikimediaIL
> .*
> Next week I will send a HDD with all the footage and the edited videos to
> the WMF so they will have a copy for archive and so they can upload it to
> commons also.
>
> *Don't forget also to check our Flickr stream!:
> http://www.flickr.com/WikimediaIL*
>
> On the schedule you will find links to the videos:
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
>
> Also, on each submissions page there is a links to the video, slides and
> Etherpad (if available). *For the presenter who didn't upload their slides
> yet, please do so and update your submissions page.*
>
> *** Bonus! - a video clip that we made after Wikimania to summarize the
> (amazing!) beach party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-MzHGA6fc ***
>
> It was harder than we thought - to record 3 days, in 5 simulation
> High-Definition cameras, and than edit, upload and tag them - really not an
> easy thing. What we thought will take us few weeks, took about 2 months -
> but I'm happy that we finish with that finally :)
>
> I think now we've made this step, we finished our commitment to the
> community and to the conference participants. I Hope everyone will enjoy
> and will found our (hard) work useful. I personally going to find time to
> watch some of lectures... (a tip for Wikimania organizers - don't plan to
> attend session during the conference, you will fail :).
>
> And some statistics:
> We have about 2TB of footages, 135GB of edit videos, all of them are in HD.
> During the confrtence we produce 3 summaries video clips (and one more
> after that)
> Until now the videos on our YouTube channel had been watched more than
> 16,000 times and our Flickr stream, who have 1,425 photos been seen more
> than 83,000 times!
>
>
> Thanks everyone for the great opportunity to have this conference in Haifa,
> and good luck to the great guys in D.C next year!
>
>
> Itzik
> Wikimania 2011 local team
> (probably the last time i'm going to use this title...)
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread Oliver Keyes 
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  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  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
> 
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

2011-12-23 Thread Tom Morris 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  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


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l