User talk:DGG

Article Feedback Tool Help?
Hey DGG. I noticed you signed up for the Article Feedback Workgroup. I was wondering if you'd like to help us with Phase 2 of the feature. A goal for this phase is to better understand how these ratings reflect article quality. To do this, we're going to be applying the article feedback tool to page which we are fairly certain will undergo substantial revision in the near future (e.g., upcoming elections, movies, etc.). We can then evaluate the ratings before and after the substantial revisions and see if the revisions actually impact ratings.

Would you have time to help manage the articles that we're putting the feedback tool on? We're created a list of Additional Pages, but there are some other ideas that are floating around the community as well. It would be great if we could get some help coordinating these additional pages and then communicating with the English Wikipedia community. For more background, please check out this post and the Phase 2 design doc.

Let me know if you have time and we can chat more. Thanks! Howief 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As soon as I saw the additional pages mentioned on en-L, I went  and rated them, to see how the scale would work. I found that   not all the criteria  made   sense for an article written as a skeleton in advance of the event,  (for example, I decided to interpret "complete"   as "complete for the time of writing.")  I'll be glad to talk further.  Do you want to call me--Monday? email me for the number & to set a time, though I think several of the people  at the foundation know the number DGG 21:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * DGG, I sent you an email, but not sure if you received it. I've also posted some suggested tasks for the workgroup on the workgroup page.  Please take a look -- hopefully you'll still be able to help out.
 * BTW, I'm interested in your thoughts around the criteria and how they may/may not make sense for different types of articles. One of the neat things about this phase of the experiment is that we're testing the tool on articles of all types, not just public policy.  These criteria may take on different meaning to users depending on the article, so it will be interesting to see how the data falls. Howief 05:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have emailed you again to try to set up a phone call, as I'd like to talk .  DGG 10:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * DGG, I sent you an email, but not sure if you received it. I've also posted some suggested tasks for the workgroup on the workgroup page.  Please take a look -- hopefully you'll still be able to help out.
 * BTW, I'm interested in your thoughts around the criteria and how they may/may not make sense for different types of articles. One of the neat things about this phase of the experiment is that we're testing the tool on articles of all types, not just public policy.  These criteria may take on different meaning to users depending on the article, so it will be interesting to see how the data falls. Howief 05:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, In this particular case, my comment above about the criteria was based not primarily on the subjects of the articles--the criteria for quality of Wikipedia articles are fairly general. It's the use of the schema for a set of rapidly changing current interest articles, where the concept of before and after measures of quality  does not apply at all, since there is no way to measure the quality of something that has not yet been written--the approach does not have  even  face validity.

As you suggest,  the only thing I can usefully do on this,  is to  provide an independent examination of your analysis once you have finished. DGG 01:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)