True, I just made that up, hence the "afaik". But as long as you have not proven < 50% of Wikipedians like this tool we can assume that the actual percentage is a lot lower than 50%.
The intention of developing a mechanism whereby quality can be measured is an excellent idea, but this articlefeedbacktool on every article is not the way to move forward.
That is why I try to change the direction now, before everything is set in stone.
Is it possible to reach consensus about the location of these articlefeedbacktool boxes? Can we please move them to the talkpages?
If we move all of them to the talkpages the majority of Wikipedians who does not want to use them has a lot less to complain about and the people who want to use them will still be able to.
The tool will not be moved to the talk pages. Most users of Wikipedia are not even aware that Talk pages exist. Since the goal of the tool is to attract impressions from as wide a range of users as possible, hiding the tool on the talk page is not a viable solution.
The Strategy plan - which all Wiki(p|m)edians were invited to join - includes a provision for this tool and a directive from the community to increase quality. This is part of that plan.
So the decision to NOT move the article feedback tool to the talkpages has already been made?
By who? Does he/she have the authority to make that decision? Even if the community disagrees?
The fact that most users of Wikipedia do not know talkpages exist is one of the main reasons why I want to move the article feedback tool there.
To be honest, I think we have two options here:
- Moving it to the talkpage and developing it into something useful
- Deleting it
The second option means there is a lot of time wasted, so the first option would be the best way forward imho.
Yes, that decision has already been made. It was actually made during the first iteration of the tool.
If you require a name to blame for "whose idea was this?", then you may use mine. I was the principle designer of the tool in its first iteration.
Burying the tool on the talk pages will have the exact opposite effect of what we are looking to do. Moving the tool there will not improve article quality, nor will it help educate users that talk pages exist.
Well, Jorm, lets agree to disagree and have a happy wiki! :-)
We agree on the fact that moving the tool to the talkpage will not educate users that talkpages exist. I think that moving the tool to the talkpage will not improve the quality of the article itself.
But I think it would be a huge improvement to the article en:Salt_Creek_(White_River) if the article feedback tool was moved to the talkpage.
I think that article is almost a perfect candidate for the tool. The ratings, as given, clearly reflect the article as a whole.
It's lowest score is in "Complete", and it's barely more than a stub (with several red links). I think it's working just fine on this one.
Is your primary objection to its being there based around the fact that you are the primary editor of the article and that you feel that low ratings reflect poorly on you? Editors do not "own" articles, and users do not attribute an article's state to specific editors.
I am in no way form or shape the primary editor of that article, user Nyttend wrote it. I never wrote an article on EN wiki with this username.
Lets talk about the article feedbacktool, not about me and my intentions, that is more important. I am not trying to attack you personally, my criticism is focussed on the AFT and not on you as a person.
I agree: the score fits the article. But does the Article Feedback Tool improve that article? How?
I think the addition of the AFT has a very negative effect on this article, lots of screen real estate is used to display interface, not content.
As I understand, the tool doesn't need to improve the article in order to be considered adequate. The project has multiple goals.
If a reader goes to that article, notice it doesn't has much content and then rate it as say 2/5 complete, the extension may show a message after the the user submits the data, inviting him to edit and improve the article. I think this possibility by itself justify the presence of the tool in that specific article. Besides, if after the page receives ratings from various readers its Trustworthy became something near 5/5 (even if the article is not lengthy), the readers can deduce that they can trust in the content which is available. The opposite situation would be a lengthy article with almost no references (if any), whose Trustworthy tends to 0: the readers could use the "View page ratings" link to discover that it is probably better not to trust in the content of the article.
Why not show the ratings on the article, with a "rate this article" link next to it instead of a box asking for a rating? That would save a huge amount of screen real estate, and it would be a lot easier to put into the existing interface.
Do you want to switch to this method after a certain period of time after an article has received enough ratings? Extremely popular articles might get lots of ratings, up to a point where its no longer useful to ask for them.
Is it possible to turn the AFT off for users that are not logged in?
I am not very optimistic about the value of the ratings in general but especially those of users who did not log in, I fear people will base their ratings on the subject of the article and not on the article itself (e.g. people who like Bieber a lot will rate his article high and people who hate him give 1 star).
The ratings given by anon users are not very useful because they use the rating system like a like/dislike button system and prefer to give 1 or 5 stars. Some anon users are able to give high quality and reliable ratings, but the masses do not.
It is not possible for anonymous users to turn off the tool. At this point in time, if they wish to disable the tool, they will have to create user accounts and set preferences for it.
The entire purpose of this tool is to determine if the public's understanding of article quality can be measured at all. That's why the tool was made. We will need data to determine whether or not this actually works - that we can measure an article's quality over time.
I've used Ad block plus to hide the AFT, so even when I log out the AFT is hidden.
If we have the data, will it be publicly accessible?
Who gets to decide if the test was successful? What happens if others disagree?
I can guesstimate in advance that it is possible but totally useless to measure the public's understanding of the quality of an article,
We are currently working to get an anonymized dump of the data available to the public. I don't have a specific timeline for that to give you.
I don't know who gets to decide if the test was successful but I expect that it will be our strategy department. If others disagree, I suppose they can show their proofs as to how and why they think that the data doesn't support whatever conclusions we draw from it and discussions can be had from there.
I'm not sure how much more constructive this conversation can be moving forward. I believe you've made up your mind and no amount of data or conversation is going to change it.
Well, to be honest, I've spent some time thinking about this idea and indeed, the more I think about it the more convinced I become that this is a bad idea. The answers to my questions on this page are a good reason to oppose, so the data and conversation are confirming my suspicion that it is a bad idea.
But the intention of this discussion was not to change my opinion.
The intention was to give honest feedback, change your opinion a little bit, explain why some people dislike the AFT, and to try to find a compromise between AFT-advocates and people who dislike the AFT.
So, the strategy department will decide. Aren't they the ones who asked for the AFT in the first place? If so, they are unlikely to admit they made a mistake and decide to stop the AFT. Why not let the community decide?
I'm afraid you do not want me to ask the community to give feedback to see if we get an indication that a change of direction is required because the majority might have an opinion you disagree with. Is that why you see that as a threat?