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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
 wrote:
> A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to
> get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30)
> posts per person.

There is a well worn statement in Finnish folklore, that every sack
has a bottom.
Don't push it. I can take people being rude to me. and believe me they are doing
it in spades, just read upthread. I have been nothing but cordial, even though
my blood might have been boiling. I find it a little bit rich that you are now
representing that I am the source of rudeness.


-- 
--
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

[J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov]

A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to
get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30)
posts per person.

User:AlexandrDmitri
foundation-l list moderator

2011/12/24 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
> > complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
> > feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
> > this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of
> > the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that,
> merry
> > Newtonmas to all of you.
> >
>
> The same to you. The nice thing about wiki is that I don't have to tell
> people what to think, as you seem to have a compulsive need to. Read
> the words. Think for youself.
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> 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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
> complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
> feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
> this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of
> the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that, merry
> Newtonmas to all of you.
>

The same to you. The nice thing about wiki is that I don't have to tell
people what to think, as you seem to have a compulsive need to. Read
the words. Think for youself.




-- 
--
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

[Oliver Keyes]

I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of
the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that, merry
Newtonmas to all of you.

On 24 December 2011 18:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where
> AFT
> > respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
> > joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they
> are,
> > for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
>
> How far would you go with this? "Are you of the nationality/race/ideology
> interested in this subject? Are your qualifications FUD, strawhorses,
> tenure
> resurrection, staying on the mailing list for pre-release data? Or are you
> just
> purely and simply COI'ng the shit out of our processes?"
>
> You will find that we are pretty inured against such approaches.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> 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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT
> respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
> joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are,
> for whatever reason, *not* average joes.

How far would you go with this? "Are you of the nationality/race/ideology
interested in this subject? Are your qualifications FUD, strawhorses, tenure
resurrection, staying on the mailing list for pre-release data? Or are you just
purely and simply COI'ng the shit out of our processes?"

You will find that we are pretty inured against such approaches.



-- 
--
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

[Oliver Keyes]

The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT
respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are,
for whatever reason, *not* average joes.

On 24 December 2011 16:43, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
> is
> > the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> > that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> > "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
> anywhere
> > productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> > you see as the link.
>
> Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to
> self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's
> topic.[1]
>
> It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think
> it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being
> asked to provide comments on articles.
>
> I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer
> to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or
> explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated
> goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?)
> interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
>
> MZMcBride
>
> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[David Gerard]

On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>> You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
>> and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
>> history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion,
>> even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.

> And it wouldn't take a software wizard to just append it to the talk
> page... You are talking interface, not mechanism.


I'm hoping for positive effect rather than any particular interface or
mechanism. (I'd have thought ARTv4 would have done better than it
did.) Putting it on the talk page is fine by me. Also solves the
problem of alerting interested editors via their watchlist.


- d.

___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
>
>>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>>> the same from OTRS.
>
>> I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
>
>
> You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
> and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
> history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion,
> even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.
>

And it wouldn't take a software wizard to just append it to the talk
page... You are talking interface, not mechanism.

-- 
--
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

[David Gerard]

On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>> the same from OTRS.

> I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?


You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
history exists either.) Something specifically asking for an opinion,
even a stupid one, may provide non-stupid stuff too. I hope.


- d.

___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:28 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
>
>> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
>> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
>> beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is 
>> the
>> hard shoulder.
>
>
> So what we have to fear is it being actually popular?

My sarcasm meter just went off the scale!!!

>
> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
> the same from OTRS.

I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?


-- 
--
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

[David Gerard]

On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
> beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the
> hard shoulder.


So what we have to fear is it being actually popular?

I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
the same from OTRS.


- d.

___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Oliver Keyes wrote:
>> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
>> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
>> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
>> "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere
>> productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
>> you see as the link.
>
> Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to
> self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's
> topic.[1]
>
> It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think
> it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being
> asked to provide comments on articles.
>
> I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer
> to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or
> explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated
> goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?)
> interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
>

I do apologize if I am undedrmining your defense of my personal position.
I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the
hard shoulder.


-- 
--
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

[MZMcBride]

Oliver Keyes wrote:
> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere
> productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> you see as the link.

Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to
self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's
topic.[1]

It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think
it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being
asked to provide comments on articles.

I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer
to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or
explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated
goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?)
interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?

MZMcBride

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5



___
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

[Risker]

On 24 December 2011 11:00, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton 
> wrote:
>
>
> > Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make
> > sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather
> > silly.
>
> I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with
> "consensus".
> The former is what people inside your own mind think, the latter is what a
> group
> of people think (and usually act upon).
>
>

Jussi-Ville, you are being unnecessarily hostile here.  So far, everyone
who's posted here has found themselves confounded by what you have written
in this thread, and they have given you that feedback.  Rather than blaming
everyone else for failing to understand your point, perhaps you might want
to take the time to consider what message you are trying to get through to
people, and try to find a way to explain what your concerns are without
making vague allusions and being so combative.

Best,

Risker
___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:


> Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make
> sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather
> silly.

I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with "consensus".
The former is what people inside your own mind think, the latter is what a group
of people think (and usually act upon).


-- 
--
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

[Thomas Dalton]

On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" 
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes 
wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
> > but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation
for
> > this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to
do,
> > so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a
lot
> > about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and
without
> > context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
> >
>
> Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any
> intelligent
> readers are much impressed by your logic...

Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make
sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather
silly.
___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm absolutely fine with that, sure.

On 24 December 2011 12:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
> thread -
> > but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation
> for
> > this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
> > so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a
> lot
> > about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and
> without
> > context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
> >
>
> Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any
> intelligent
> readers are much impressed by your logic...
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> 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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
> but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
> this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
> so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot
> about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without
> context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
>

Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any
intelligent
readers are much impressed by your logic...


-- 
--
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

[David Gerard]

On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions
> to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint
> enough for you?


I always thought of it as a potential source of useful feedback for
those people most interested in editing the article and making it
good. (So I see v4 as not very useful in practice because approximate
no-one was providing said feedback, and hope the free comment box in
v5 will actually get used, there will be a little flag on the
watchlist when an article you're watching gets feedback, etc.)

I somewhat see where you're coming from - there's an observable
tendency to make Wikipedia less editable (hence the current en:wp
community largely treating new editors as a problem to be processed,
rather than as colleagues) and people who think like that will use
anything they can for it. I don't think AFT is an excellent tool for
this job, but we'll be able to tell it's successful when people start
trying to abuse the results.


- d.

___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot
about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without
context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.

On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
> > Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
> > perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
> > I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any
> misunderstandings
> > which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
> >
>
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid
> contributions
> to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that
> succint
> enough for you?
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> 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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
> Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
> perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
> I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings
> which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
>

I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions
to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint
enough for you?



-- 
--
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

[Oliver Keyes]

The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings
which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.

On 24 December 2011 11:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
> is
> > the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> > that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> > "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
> anywhere
> > productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> > you see as the link.
>
> That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to
> encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us
> lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting
> diverted...
>
> There is no link.
>
> But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia
> does not do that for things that are not working.
>
> The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve"
> (or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has
> failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will
> make it succeed.
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> 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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:



>
> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere
> productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> you see as the link.

That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to
encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us
lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting
diverted...

There is no link.

But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia
does not do that for things that are not working.

The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve"
(or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has
failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will
make it succeed.

-- 
--
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

[Oliver Keyes]

Yup; once we move on to full deployment, there's going to be a special
feedback page (updated wireframes to follow) which will list all the
feedback each article has been given, as well as a centralised one to avoid
things slipping through the cracks.

Actually, we get quite a few ratings; the problem is more that it's the
very definition of a "long tail". Something complicating this is an awkward
position for the feedback box itself - right at the bottom of an article,
after all the external links and references and other gubbins that readers
don't so often use. We'll hopefully have the chance (and time!) to
experiment with some new positions, a couple of which were user-suggested.

On 24 December 2011 11:38, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> > that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account
> as
> > a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> > concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
> > "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no
> > guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know
> when
> > I do.
>
>
> I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as
> 2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or
> DVD encyclopedia):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
>
> The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most
> articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.
>
> With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article
> editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?"
> looks potentially very useful.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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

[David Gerard]

On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
> a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
> "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no
> guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know when
> I do.


I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as
2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or
DVD encyclopedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0

The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most
articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.

With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article
editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?"
looks potentially very useful.


- d.

___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
"from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no
guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know when
I do.

To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
"encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
you see as the link.

On 24 December 2011 11:20, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt 
> wrote:
> > > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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]]
> > >>
> > >
> > > Jussie-Ville -  terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a
> reasoned
> > > argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts
> on
> > > this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being
> > > unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however
> > > strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
> >
> > I don't really get the "unclear" bit.
>
> It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and
> Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.
>
> Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely
> unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say.
> ___
> 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

[Thomas Dalton]

On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" 
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
wrote:
> >
> >> 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]]
> >>
> >
> > Jussie-Ville -  terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a
reasoned
> > argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts
on
> > this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being
> > unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however
> > strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
>
> I don't really get the "unclear" bit.

It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and
Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.

Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely
unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say.
___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:


> If we want to
> make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed
> I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being
> demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable as
> being "against it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
>
> Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we
> learn from the mistakes.

The meta-issue here is that coming on to the list and saying someone made
a mistake seems to be perceived by the perpetrators as being a sign of
weakness..It never *was* and never should be. Being able to admit being
wrong usually denotes a position of strength, not weakness. You don't need
a thick skin to admit to mistakes, you just need a belief that at core you are
working for the right goal. If you have that, everything else flows from that.
If you worry about whether you are fulfilling all the conflicting requirements
coming at you from various sides, you are in for a hiding to nothing. You
won't win, you may not lose, but your position will be ever vulnerable and
ineffective.


-- 
--
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing
> and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you
> can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and
> now 5) have built on the best and discarded the worst of each previous
> model. As I've stated, I hold much hope for the usefulness of AFTv5, which
> is being build learning from past experience. Which is why I would like to
> see AFTv4 removed from the remaining 99.7% of en.wp now that it is being
> superseded.

This is both true in the absolute, and absolutely misleading in the real world,
as a Jesuit might put it.

You paint the current effort as one of iterations which will "improve" but in
actual fact they are iterations that approach asymptotically the one thing
that was demonstrably a total timewaster and failure, namely Nupedia.
Just because you are fiddling the bits doesn't mean you are improving
things. Usually you are just making them fail less badly. Not a way to
design winning mechanisms.


-- 
--
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
>
>
> Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we
> learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office
> [so I have been told], "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow". This is a
> good attitude to have!

Never been to the office, but if "IF" I do, I'll come armed with a marker pen
and will scrawl "Let's just not keep doing the same mistake over and over
again!"


-- 
--
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
>
>> 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]]
>>
>
> Jussie-Ville -  terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned
> argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on
> this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being
> unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however
> strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.

I don't really get the "unclear" bit. How more clear could I be than say
"impartial observer". How do you ever think you are going to get an
intelligent reader to swallow that as "[...] however strong you might
hold your opinions on the topic. "


-- 
--
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

[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

[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

[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
>> <http://tommorris.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

[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

[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

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

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm not going to reply to the *entire* email, because I don't have all the
data in front of me (and it's 3:40am - even if I did, I'm not going to
write anything massively coherent ;p) - I'll revisit when I've poked some
people to get some more info. However, one thing the current version has
been used for, productively, and is still used for, is the Calls to Action
- the notices that appear after you've submitted feedback that invite
contributors to edit. We've seen a fairly low conversion rate for this -
mostly due to a lack of ability to grok WP's rather outdated and
complicated interface, more than due to a lack of desire on the readers'
part - but it's still a valuable way to attract new edits and new editors,
and attract them it does. So, turning it off now is not just saying no to
the feedback; it's also saying no to a method of drawing in new editors, at
a time when we've got a dearth of such people.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a perfect situation, and I'm a
bit on-the-fence about it myself (I had initially argued we should turn off
AFT4, at least for the users who are getting AFT5 on some articles) but
it's important to consider the impact of switching off a conduit for new
editors.

Hopefully I'll have something useful to say once I've got some shuteye.
Sorry if this raises more questions than it answers :)

On 23 December 2011 02:41, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I
> understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small
> subset of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community
> whilst still being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know
> whether it's working. Then iterate, improve, rollout to a slightly larger
> set, repeat :-)
>
> However, I'd like to contest the two reasons you've given for not turning
> off AFTv4 in the mean time.
>
> On 23/12/2011, at 3:49, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is
> twofold.
> >
> > On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing
> purposes,
> > and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we
> can
> > build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
> > getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty
> > coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much
> > closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.
>
> Are you saying that AFTv4 (the 'star rating' system) is being used as the
> "control group" in this experiment? That is, if ONLY 0.3% of en.wp articles
> had a feedback tool enabled, then they would receive different kinds of
> feedback because they would look different to the vast majority if the
> encyclopedia. So you're trying to minimize that difference by keeping it
> running on all the rest? If that's the case, then surely you only need to
> run the "control" group at the same frequency as the new tests rather than
> giving them disproportionate visibility.
>
> On the other hand, what I think you're saying is that you want to preserve
> a consisten user-experience during this period of testing AFTv5, so that we
> don't go from 100% of v4, to 0.3% of v5 (with the rest having nothing), and
> then to 100% v5. If this is the case I find it a bit worrying that the
> current version of the tool - which has always been proposed as
> experimental - is now simply there as a placeholder awaiting improvement.
> Surely if we know that we're not using the current version any more, we
> should take it offline until the new one is ready. I would be very
> surprised if any members of the general public would be confused because I
> would be surprised if any members of the general public are actually
> looking for the feedback tool when they visit any articles. Quite the
> contrary, I think the public WOULD be confused if we told them that the big
> box at the bottom of every article is only there to "maintain a consistent
> interface" and we're not actually using the ratings data that the big box
> is asking them for.
>
> 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.
>
> >
> > On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is on

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

[Liam Wyatt]

Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I 
understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small subset 
of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community whilst still 
being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know whether it's working. 
Then iterate, improve, rollout to a slightly larger set, repeat :-)

However, I'd like to contest the two reasons you've given for not turning off 
AFTv4 in the mean time.

On 23/12/2011, at 3:49, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.
> 
> On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes,
> and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can
> build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
> getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty
> coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much
> closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.

Are you saying that AFTv4 (the 'star rating' system) is being used as the 
"control group" in this experiment? That is, if ONLY 0.3% of en.wp articles had 
a feedback tool enabled, then they would receive different kinds of feedback 
because they would look different to the vast majority if the encyclopedia. So 
you're trying to minimize that difference by keeping it running on all the 
rest? If that's the case, then surely you only need to run the "control" group 
at the same frequency as the new tests rather than giving them disproportionate 
visibility.

On the other hand, what I think you're saying is that you want to preserve a 
consisten user-experience during this period of testing AFTv5, so that we don't 
go from 100% of v4, to 0.3% of v5 (with the rest having nothing), and then to 
100% v5. If this is the case I find it a bit worrying that the current version 
of the tool - which has always been proposed as experimental - is now simply 
there as a placeholder awaiting improvement. Surely if we know that we're not 
using the current version any more, we should take it offline until the new one 
is ready. I would be very surprised if any members of the general public would 
be confused because I would be surprised if any members of the general public 
are actually looking for the feedback tool when they visit any articles. Quite 
the contrary, I think the public WOULD be confused if we told them that the big 
box at the bottom of every article is only there to "maintain a consistent 
interface" and we're not actually using the ratings data that the big box is 
asking them for.

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.

> 
> On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only
> temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback
> being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale is
> still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4
> feedback will be taken into account.

What AFTv4 ratings has ever actually been used? I understand that data on HOW 
the tool has been used is providing input into the design of v5, which is fair 
enough. But has anyone actually been able to get useful data out of the ratings 
themselves - either on a per-article or whole dataset basis? I think the 
software of the "article feedback dashboard" is very interesting and 
potentially quite a useful system 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedback but, honestly, has any 
Wikipedian ever been able to make practical use of that information to improve 
articles? Personally, I make use of that tool to identify articles which are 
current targets for NPOV editing [e.g. Justin Beiber is currently 6th highest 
rated article in the entire encyclopedia, whilst Hanukkah is the 4th lowest], 
potentially useful information for vandal patrollers, but hardly the intended 
use of the whole system. 

Sincerely,
-Liam
___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm not seeing the problem there, actually; the feedback page itself isn't
up yet (again, just for testing) so editors aren't expected to do anything
with the feedback. Am I missing something?

On 22 December 2011 17:25, geni  wrote:

> On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being
> > used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> > tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype
> > and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> > take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> > version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
> it
> > on.
>
> Zee problem with 0.3% is that while it may be enough to get you data
> is isn't enough to be particularly sure that a reasonable number of
> wikipedians will actually see it.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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

[geni]

On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
> used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
> and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it
> on.

Zee problem with 0.3% is that while it may be enough to get you data
is isn't enough to be particularly sure that a reasonable number of
wikipedians will actually see it.

-- 
geni

___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.

On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes,
and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can
build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty
coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much
closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.

On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only
temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback
being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale is
still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4
feedback will be taken into account.

On 22 December 2011 14:06, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)
>
> So - with regards to my original question?
> In summary it was:
> Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of
> en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently
> running on the remaining 99.7% of en.wp, please?
>
> -Liam
>
> Peace, love & metadata
>
> On 23/12/2011, at 0:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being
> > used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> > tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype
> > and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> > take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> > version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
> it
> > on.
> >
> > On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> >>> eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> >>> quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> >>> read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
> >>> language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
> >>> deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
> >>> you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
> >> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
> >> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
> >> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
> >> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
> >> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
> >> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
> >> wikis.
> >>
> >> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
> >> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
> >>
> >> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
> >> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
> >> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
> >> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
> >> more discussion and consultation.
> >>
> >> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
> >> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 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

[Liam Wyatt]

Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)

So - with regards to my original question? 
In summary it was:
Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of 
en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently 
running on the remaining 99.7% of en.wp, please?

-Liam

Peace, love & metadata

On 23/12/2011, at 0:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
> used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
> and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it
> on.
> 
> On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>  wrote:
>>> Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
>>> eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
>>> quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
>>> read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
>>> language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
>>> deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
>>> you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
>>> 
>> 
>> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
>> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
>> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
>> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
>> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
>> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
>> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
>> wikis.
>> 
>> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
>> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
>> 
>> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
>> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
>> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
>> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
>> more discussion and consultation.
>> 
>> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
>> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
>> 
>> --
>> 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 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

[Oliver Keyes]

And thanks for bringing this up, Jussi! You're usually pretty on the ball,
so if you misunderstood what I wrote, it's most likely because my prose was
unclear :). I appreciate the chance to correct myself before the poor prose
leads others to get the wrong impression too :).

On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia;
> a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other
> projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in.
> With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request*that 
> we switch it on.
>
>
> On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>  wrote:
>> > Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
>> > eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
>> > quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
>> > read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
>> > language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
>> > deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
>> > you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
>> >
>>
>> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
>> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
>> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
>> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
>> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
>> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
>> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
>> wikis.
>>
>> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
>> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
>>
>> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
>> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
>> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
>> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
>> more discussion and consultation.
>>
>> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
>> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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

[Oliver Keyes]

That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it
on.

On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>  wrote:
> > Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> > eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> > quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> > read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
> > language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
> > deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
> > you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
> >
>
> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
> wikis.
>
> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
>
> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
> more discussion and consultation.
>
> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
>
> --
> 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

[Tom Morris]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 wrote:
> Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
> language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
> deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
> you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
>

Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
wikis.

The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.

It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
more discussion and consultation.

But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.

-- 
Tom Morris


___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>> One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry 
>> if you've
>> already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles 
>> that are not
>> part of this new test group?
>
> Hi Liam,
>
> this is the first time we're experimenting with free text feedback in
> a serious way. We've not decided yet whether that's a good idea or
> not. This will depend in large part on the signal/noise ratio and
> volume of the feedback we're getting, which will be coded through the
> process described here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Feedback_evaluation
>
> Note, also, that some of the forms include different forms of
> quantitative feedback as well. We'll evaluate those as well, and
> compare our findings with what we've learned, and are still learning,
> from AFTv4. This evaluation will precede any site-wide changes to the
> current AFT deployment.

Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!

Perhaps it is as simple a misapprehension as that while you linked
to an english language page on tbe tool, in fact it has translations
in several other language wikipedias which are trying it out as well... ?


-- 
--
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

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry 
> if you've
> already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles that 
> are not
> part of this new test group?

Hi Liam,

this is the first time we're experimenting with free text feedback in
a serious way. We've not decided yet whether that's a good idea or
not. This will depend in large part on the signal/noise ratio and
volume of the feedback we're getting, which will be coded through the
process described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Feedback_evaluation

Note, also, that some of the forms include different forms of
quantitative feedback as well. We'll evaluate those as well, and
compare our findings with what we've learned, and are still learning,
from AFTv4. This evaluation will precede any site-wide changes to the
current AFT deployment.

All best,
Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
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

[Liam Wyatt]

Thanks for the notice Oliver. Glad to see the work is coming along with the 
tool and I'm looking forward to seeing the data on how these new, 
qualitative-focused, versions perform. Which one generates the best reader 
feedback that is useful for editors and which generates good reader-to-newbie 
conversion :-)

One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry if 
you've already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles 
that are not part of this new test group? 

If the quantitative-focused version (the current "star-rating" system) is being 
dropped completely, and because I don't think that we're actually doing 
anything with article ratings that are still being given by readers (either on 
a per-article or complete data-set basis), therefore could we turn it off the 
rest of the articles that are not part of the test group? Also, if we are 
confirmed to be replacing the star-rating system then I think it's also a bit 
disingenuous to the readers to continue asking them for star-ratings that we're 
not planning to use. 

When you've got good data on the new (qualitative) system then the most 
successful version is going to be rolled out progressively, eventually to all 
articles - like it is now. But in the mean time, can we turn off the 
depreciated version for the rest of the articles?

Sincerely,
-Liam

Peace, love & metadata

On 21/12/2011, at 19:16, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Hey guys
> 
> Just dropping everyone a note to let you know that the new version of the
> Article Feedback Tool -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 - is
> now live on a subset of articles, in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_5 :). This may not
> impact as it may not be deployed on a page you edit, but I wanted everyone
> to know just in case you do see the new designs and are unsure as to where
> they come from (or in case you get queries from readers or newbies along
> the same lines).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Helpshould
> provide some more context, and answer questions; if you have any
> comments or queries that aren't solved through that page, feel free to
> email me and I'll try to get back to you promptly.
> 
> A reminder that this is a preliminary rollout to a very limited set of
> articles - around 0.3 percent of enwiki's content. This is just to test
> whether or not it's beneficial, and we don't plan on keeping every single
> form in place :).
> 
> -- 
> 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 mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l