Mailing List Archive

Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
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
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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
> <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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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
>> <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
>
>


--
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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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
>> <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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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
> >> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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
>



--
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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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
Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 +0000
> From: Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAQB2S_BGKFabA1MLondrSxt7e+wXEpWz+qQfcY3PniL-BV6Sw@mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <werespielchequers@gmail.com>
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 +0000
>> From: Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Message-ID:
>> <
CAAQB2S_BGKFabA1MLondrSxt7e+wXEpWz+qQfcY3PniL-BV6Sw@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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 <okeyes@wikimedia.org> 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 <tom@tommorris.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
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
Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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. As you can see I have
fairly strong views on this particular topic myself :-) and I'm making them
known here in a public forum. But I am also trying to make reasoned
arguments and propose solutions without demonising those who are
responsible or the project itself (e.g. "corpse" etc. above). 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. 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! Rather than trying to avoid mistakes altogether, or
worse, not acknowledge them at all. "let's try again" (as you put it) is,
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.

-Liam

Peace, love & metadata


--
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> 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: Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment [ In reply to ]
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonavaro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>
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

1 2 3  View All