Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Workgroup

The goal of this work group is to assess the Article feedback experimental tool during its trial period on Public Policy articles. See the blog post and the Frequently asked questions.

Sign-up
Please sign up below if you'd like to join the workgroup. You don't need to be a developer, we're mostly looking for users. Thanks!


 * « Saper // @talk »
 * Fetchcomms (Not a developer, but working with the Public Policy Initiative.)
 * Eloquence
 * guillom
 * DGG 23:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (also not a developer, but interested in improving article quality)
 * ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Howief 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jorm (WMF) 01:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alolitas 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * pjoef ~ (I'm a programmer, but I never wrote or debugged programs for Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. (I do not have the rights nor the time). I'm also participating in the Public Policy Initiative project. If you need help, or if you have any questions, or if you want to bring something to my attention, please contact me at my talk page on the English Wikipedia with the interwiki link to the page where you want to receive my attention. I'm always busy, but I hope I can help.) –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mohamed Ouda
 * ruurt
 * Kudpung. Not a developer but a 'busy' editor, and also interested in improving article quality.

Draft action plan

 * Write down questions we want to answer
 * Collect pointers & scattered pieces of information
 * talk page
 * Responses to the announcement on foundation-l
 * Survey data
 * summarize feedback

Questions
"Users" means people who use the tool, whether they're readers or editors.


 * What motivates users to use the tool?
 * Possible sources of answers:
 * Data from the survey


 * How useful are the ratings for readers and editors?
 * Possible sources of answers:
 * Data from the survey
 * Voluntary general qualitative feedback
 * Voluntary feedback qualitative provided by editors of public policy articles
 * Additional qualitative research such as interviews / UX study (deferred for now)


 * How understandable is the Likert scale used for the feature?
 * Voluntary general qualitative feedback
 * Data from the Phase 2 survey (deferred for now)


 * Does the feature have an impact on account creation and editing?
 * Possible sources of answers:
 * Raw data from the DB can provide the following metrics:
 * percentage of raters who create an account within a month after the rating (baseline: ?)
 * percentage of raters who edit an article within a month after the rating (baseline: ?)


 * How does this reader rating compares to other rating systems (existing Wikipedia article assessment system, expert opinion, Public Policy Initiative system)
 * Possible sources of answers:
 * outreachwiki:Public Policy Initiative Evaluation and Research


 * More generally, how to improve the tool so it better helps users achieve their goals?
 * Data from the survey
 * Voluntary general qualitative feedback

Phase 2: Applying Article Feedback Tool to General English Wikipedia Pages
I've posted on several people's user pages and so far, Fetchcomms, pjoef, and DGG indicated that they're interested in helping. It's great to have help with testing this feature on the English Wikipedia. So far, the Feedback Tool has only been applied to certain pages that are part of the public policy initiative. In this next phase, we'd like to experiment with having this feature on general English Wikipedia pages to see if these ratings are indeed a reasonable indicator of article quality. For more details, please refer to the following post.

I'd like to get some help from the workgroup on managing the list of general English Wikipedia articles the feedback tool is on and communicating status with the community:
 * Managing the list: We have a list of Additional Pages we'd like to put this feature on.  We've posted to wikien-l and as a result have gotten some feedback from the enwiki community as to which pages they think would make sense.  Can someone monitor this page every few days (say Monday and Thursday) and vet additional suggestions for inclusion in the test?  If they seem reasonable (i.e., meet the criteria at the top of the page, or for another reason seem to be a good test article), please go ahead and add the tool to the article.
 * Communicating with the enwiki community: Can someone post to Village Pump with a message about what we're doing (i.e., testing the feedback tool on general wiki pages, process for suggesting new pages, adding the tool to the page, etc.)? I think it would be great to get more visibility for the test.  If folks think someplace other than/in addition to Village Pump makes sense, go ahead!

Also, it would be great to get your feedback on designs. Jorm (WMF) has Phase 2 Design page he's posted some ideas. Please let him know what you think.

That's it for now. Maybe two people can take on managing the list and another person can take on communicating with the community?

Howief 05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will monitor the list of additional pages. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do either or both. Fetchcomms 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs

 * Possible errors in calculations

Feature requests

 * Compatibility with Lupin's pop-ups
 * Explicit reference to the Public Policy Initiative to provide context
 * Charts of the evolution of ratings over time
 * Graceful degradation for users without JavaScript
 * More visible than the bottom of articles (maybe in the sidebar) but not too intrusive (smaller?)
 * More intuitive UI, current one may scare users away
 * Ability to query articles based on their ratings
 * Ability to leave comments
 * Change colors to avoid Communist stars
 * Use tags like TED's
 * Move the tool below categories to avoid disrupting the usual flow of the page
 * Box is too wide
 * Integrate statistical tools (variance, standard deviation, median absolute deviation) to calculate the ratings
 * Prevent automated/bot assessment

Project requests

 * Run pilots on other wikis
 * Use better metrics