Talk:Article feedback/FAQ

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Start a new discussion

Hi. Since november 5 the tool is available in all es:WP articles. I think this should be included. I already did in the proper section in spanish version of this FAQ. I know there is an official request but I don´t know where exactly. Cheers.

Andreateletrabajo12:30, 6 November 2011

Thank you for doing that.

WhatamIdoing17:41, 6 November 2011
 

Translation

Hi. Recently AF has been implemented in es:WP and some users are interesting in translate this FAQ page into spanish. Is there any chance? I can do it but I need to know where to do it. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Andreateletrabajo16:52, 5 November 2011

If you want to translate page Article_feedback/FAQ, create article with name Article_feedback/FAQ/es.

wargo18:23, 5 November 2011

Thanks. In process.

Andreateletrabajo12:25, 6 November 2011
 
 

Why are anon votes accepted and why is there no single protection against abusive fake / fan / hate votes?

And why can people rate their own articles 5/5 right after creating them?

Subfader17:49, 21 September 2011

Because Bug #29212 is not fixed yet. Consider voting for it.

Helder11:54, 26 September 2011

I only have 999 votes left. I may need them for bugs related to useful things ;)

The question in the thread title remains tho.

Subfader20:41, 26 September 2011

Feel free to vote on some of my favorites... ;-)

Helder00:30, 27 September 2011
 
 
 

Can anyone point us to a single article that AFT improved?

AFT is not ment to improve articles?

Subfader17:48, 21 September 2011

Personally, I think bug #31022 (+free-text field) and/or bug #30334 (+dashboard options) will need to be (at least partially) fixed before that could happen.

See also Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Extended aticle feedback RFP.

Helder11:58, 26 September 2011
 

Where was the community consens for the introduction of AFT?

And I don't mean a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother.

Subfader17:47, 21 September 2011

On English Wikipedia I didn't find consensus on w:Wikipedia:Village pump and its subpages (neither for "full" deployment or for removing the tool), but on Portuguese Wikipedia the consensus for using it is here.

Helder11:25, 22 September 2011
 

It's probably all part of a streamlining process. Governance, progress, and improvement of the Wikipedia by consensus is often replaced by ideas implemented by small groups of the WMF staff, or small task forces of editors (fellowships) specially designated by the WMF. The main advantages are that decisions can then be reached and implemented more quickly, and decisions that are reached by consensus of the community can be declined by the WMF staff if they do not consider them to be appropriate. The disadvantages are that the smaller groups of WMF developers and deciders may sometimes not necessarily have the hands on experience, or extensive background knowledge to be truly addressing the needs of Wikipedia readers, editors, or the site software, and may not always accord sufficient audience to those outside their workgroup that do.

Kudpung09:49, 23 September 2011
 

Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.

But let me repeat for you what you've been told many times: Consensus is not a matter of people writing down that they do, or don't, agree with something. Consensus is a matter of people agreeing to do something.

If a tool is getting used (and it is), then there is a consensus for using that tool. We have exactly as much consensus for the "Edit this page" button as we do for the AFT: people are voluntarily using it, therefore people have agreed to use it. Nobody's forcing them use it: if they did not voluntarily agree to use it, then they would not actually use it. Their use constitutes proof of their agreement/their consensus. Even as defined at en:WP:Consensus, consensus is about an agreement to do something, not about messages on talk pages or jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

WhatamIdoing21:19, 23 September 2011

Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.

That sounds so much NOT like this... X-Mas soon. Next time Jimmy wants to tell me something about freedom and democracy on WP I may just ignore it cos I saw how much the WMF really cares about the community. As mentioned before, it reminds me of mafia style tactics...

So my guess was right and a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother is all that is needed to add an useless tool like this to all articles on WP. Sure, I don't have to use it and can hide it. But the majority is logged out and can't disable it. Instead 99% of the viewers are faced with useless fake/fan/hate votes as if it were crappy youtube video pages. The image of WP is not increasing that way and new editors won't join either just cos they see Buch is rated 2/5 (main goal of AFT as you said).

Subfader19:11, 24 September 2011
 
 

Number of citations

FYI: there is an open request on bugzilla which is related to one of the topics mentioned on this page:

  • Bug 21209 - Provide new special pages for statistics on the number of references tags <ref> per article
Helder21:52, 27 May 2011

I am currently using a script to collect data on demand on the number of citations (or citation needed templates) over time for an article and compare it to the scores and total volume of ratings the article generates, but I think something like this would be relatively easy to implement as part of the AF dashboard.

DarTar22:57, 27 May 2011

Is the script source code available somewhere?

Helder17:08, 1 June 2011

I need to add some basic documentation and I can share it, ping me if you don't hear from on this in the next couple of days.

DarTar18:24, 1 June 2011

Any updates?

Helder13:24, 9 June 2011

I am waiting to have toolserver access to upload this stuff, if someone knows how to speed up my approval...

DarTar17:16, 9 June 2011
 
 
 
 
 

Why is the FAQ and every official sounding like you want to sell us useless overprized crap?

And why is the FAQ using subjunctive here while all of the points are not possible scenarios but the only real results AFT produces?

Why are you trying to make everyone believe that there is no abuse?
Wait, you do not? You actually only say that abusive votes have no impact? Then how do real votes by experienced users?

Subfader17:49, 21 September 2011

Does positive feedback for AFT exist?

Can anyone point us to it?

Subfader17:47, 21 September 2011

Do articles without fake / fan / hate votes exist?

Can anyone point us to some?

Subfader17:48, 21 September 2011

What's the goal of AFT if negative and positive ratings are not telling us anything?

The trend of abusive fake / fan / hate ratings over the years?

Subfader17:48, 21 September 2011

30 edits is a very coarse metric

30 edits is a very coarse metric. Some articles would be changed out of all recognition by far less than 30 edits, whilst a vandal magnet like en:Beaver will often be completely unaltered after 30 revisions, (last 37 revisions to Beaver).

Ideally you'd want some sort of fancy algorithm that looks at the amount of change in the article and/or whether some sort of trusted rater had altered their rating or rated it very differently to the average rating from before the latest changes. But at a minimum I would suggest that edits that juts add interwiki links, reverted edits and their reversions be ignored by this process, and that minor edits be given less weight than other edits.

WereSpielChequers06:51, 16 June 2011

Reverted edits shouldn't be counted in calculating the total 30 edits. Also, if a user/anon(IP) happens to rate a vandalised article poorly, and subsequently the article is reverted to its unvandalised state(prior to the rating), the rating should automatically be removed. I think along with giving minor edits lower weightage, weightage should be decided on the basis of the number of characters added/deleted. A user may mark addition of a lot of content as minor and a spell-correction may not be tagged the same.

Siddhartha Ghai14:20, 2 August 2011

...weightage should be decided on the basis of the number of characters added/deleted.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the number of characters added/deleted in wikicode will have any relation to the other measurements of the "size of the page". E.g. a page with only

{{:August 2010 in sports}}

will be very long even if the source has only 26 characters. So the number of characters may not be a good criteria to decide which versions of an article should be considered important.

There is a script on English Wikipedia which provides some other metrics for the "size" of the pages:

Helder16:03, 3 August 2011
 
 

Notifying editors that their rating has expired

There is an intention to notify editors if more than thirty edits have happened to the article and therefore their rating has expired. How will this be done? Will it be by bot message to your talkpage or will a note appear on your screen when you next visit that article? If the former I think we will need a way to switch that off so that individual editors can opt out.

WereSpielChequers06:37, 16 June 2011

It's just a note on the page, inside the article feedback tool. It shows your old ratings and says that they've expired. If you think that they're still the right ratings, then all you need to do is to click "Submit" again.

WhatamIdoing16:33, 22 July 2011
 

How do I opt out of AFT?

I would have expected to see this very early in the FAQ (maybe third, after "what is this" and "what do I do with it"): How do I prevent Wikimedia from keeping on cluttering up pages with this thing? The answer is actually not difficult: go to My preferences, in the Appearance pane, Advanced options panel, "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" checkbox. But I would have hoped to see it in the FAQ, and am somewhat dismayed that it's not already here. Frankly, since it's such an obvious question to ask, its absence to me feels like deliberate obfuscation in order to continue pushing this system on people who don't want it. —David Eppstein 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein22:37, 14 July 2011

This is missing from the FAQ? Wikipedia:BOLD

DarTar01:49, 15 July 2011

Ok, done. —David Eppstein 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein07:01, 16 July 2011
 
 

Expired ratings

Will it there be some link to the diff between the current version of the article and the version which the reader has rated? I think this would it easier to find the relevant changes and determine if our rating should be changed.

Helder22:02, 27 May 2011

That's a great idea we should definitely consider, if it's technically possible to implement it. Do you mind opening a new ticket on bugzilla?

DarTar19:04, 1 June 2011