Article feedback/Version 5/Testing Feb 2013

Welcome to our testing page for the Article Feedback v5 project!

The WMF Editor Engagement team has been updating this tool in recent weeks, improving both the the user experience and back end architecture, in preparation for further deployments of AFTv5 to French and German Wikipedias.

We'd love it if you could help us test this beta software throughout February 2013, as outlined below. We welcome any bug reports, issues or suggestions from community members. Once you've tested AFT5, please share your feedback on this discussion page or report bugs on Bugzilla.

How can I test this tool?
To make it easier for you to test this tool, we've installed AFT5 on this dedicated test environment for all new editor engagement features.

Here are three articles we recommend you test on this prototype site:

• Golden-crowned Sparrow (feedback page) This is a low-traffic, uncontroversial article with ~372 comments (used frequently for testing).

• Higgs boson (feedback page) This is a medium-traffic, uncontroversial article with ~799 comments.

• Barack Obama (feedback page) This is a high-traffic, controversial article with ~1,720 comments. (Note that controversial, semi-protected articles like these get less useful feedback than others).

For testing purposes, we have temporarily imported in these three pages all the comments we collected in 2012 from their original articles on the English Wikipedia. (Note that they share the same IP address and registered user name, since the original contributors do not have accounts on this special testing environment, which explains why you'll keep seeing the same contributor name and IP). These are the same articles which we used in this usability study to test our simpler moderation tools.

Some of the features below can be tested by anonymous users, but many of the moderation tools and advanced filters require an auto-confirmed editor account. Because you can't use your existing Wikipedia account on this prototype site, we invite you to log in through this editor test account instead, so you can evaluate more advanced features like our new moderation tools:


 * user ID: test-editor
 * password: test

Please use this test account responsibly. It only works on this prototype site and will be deleted at the end of our testing period.

If you would like to test more advanced features with a monitor test account, please email WMF product manager Fabrice Florin directly at fflorin-at-wikimedia-dot-org.

Which features can I test?




We are now testing a set of new features, which we developed to reduce the editor workload through a variety of ways (e.g.: by providing simpler moderation tools, better filters or surfacing useful feedback).

Here's a brief overview of new features you can help us test, with links to their requirements:

• Better feedback filters: surface good feedback, hide useless comments. To test this feature, go to any feedback page above, then compare 'Featured' and 'Unreviewed' tabs. The 'featured' tab should appear by default and only list posts marked as 'useful' or 'helpful' by moderators. The 'unreviewed' tab lists all posts that have not yet been moderated. These separate filters surface the best feedback in the default view, and make it harder for a casual user to see feedback that has not yet been moderated. If you are an editor, click on 'More filters' and check out the different filters (such as 'resolved', 'no action needed' or 'inappropriate').

• Simpler moderation tools for editors: moderating feedback is now easier and faster. To test this feature, please use the test account above, which will give you the auto-confirmed editor rights required to moderate. Click on the 'unreviewed' tab to try moderating feedback that has not yet been reviewed. This will show you the moderation tools on the right, which make it very easy to mark comments as 'useful', 'resolved', 'no action needed' or 'inappropriate', with only one click. To make moderation faster, you are no longer required to add a note for each moderation (but can do so by clicking on 'Add note'). If you change your mind, simply click 'Undo', then select an other moderation tool. Moderated feedback is then moved into the appropriate queue, which editors can view under 'More filters'.

• Separate reader moderation tools: encourages readers to moderate with their own tools. To test this feature, please log out, which will show you the reader moderation tools (mark as helpful/unhelpful, flag as abuse) below each feedback post. These reader tools are now only shown to anonymous users (and new editors). We have removed these reader tools for editors, to simplify their choices, so they only have to focus on their editor moderation tools on the right.

• Satisfaction rating: show percent of users who found this article useful. To test this feature, count the number of happy and sad faces on the feedback page, then compare them to the overall rating shown at the top of that page. If you are using our test account, click on 'More filters' to see posts marked as 'no action needed', which are included in this satisfaction rating (along with 'useful' and 'unreviewed' posts). This feature helps give a sense of overall reader satisfaction with this article. While this is not necessarily an indicator of quality, it can help estimate if readers are generally finding what they were looking for.

• Feedback link on articles: shows up if there is useful feedback for your article. To test this feature, click on 'View article' on any feedback page to go to its article page -- if you are an editor, you should see a small link below the article title, pointing to any featured posts found useful by editors like you. This feature aims to surface the best comments for editors, so they can use them to improve articles. (While you are there, please scroll to the bottom of the article and post some feedback, so that other testers can have more unreviewed feedback to moderate.)

• Auto-archive comments: remove comments that are not moderated after a while. This feature aims to reduce the moderation workload by automatically archiving comments that have not been reviewed after a period of time. By removing old comments from the 'Unreviewed' list, it gives editors fewer comments to moderate at any given time. But it still offers a special 'Archived' filter for editors who want to check auto-archived comments to see if any of them could be useful. The period of time before a post is archived would vary with the page's overall volume of unreviewed comments. For example, on the controversial Barack Obama page which can quickly collect up to a hundred unreviewed comments, these comments would be automatically archived after a couple days; but for a new page with just a few comments, we would only archive posts once a year. For testing purposes, we are archiving feedback after only a few minutes on this prototype site, as outlined in the 'Timing' sub-section of the Auto-archive feature requirements. (This temporary setting will be changed once we have fully tested this feature.)

• Discuss on talk page: share useful feedback with editors on talk page. This feature makes it easy to promote a feedback post to the article talk page, so that editors can discuss it in the same place where they already have conversations about article improvements. To test this feature, click on the 'Discuss on talk page' link for any feedback post that has been marked as useful (it's in the moderation tool panel on the right of the feedback page, as shown in this first mockup). Note that you may not be able to save your post to the talk page on this prototype site today, but we expect to fix that site problem shortly; for now, you can view an example here. This feature is intended as the first step towards a tighter talk page integration that could be continued in future releases (next, we plan to add a 'Contact this user' link for feedback that is not deemed useful, linking to the user page of the reader who posted the comment).

Once these features have been fully tested and debugged on our prototype site, we expect to release them on production sites such as the French and German Wikipedias in March 2013.

How can I report issues?
If you have any general issues, questions or suggestions about this release of Article Feedback, you are welcome to post a comment on on this discussion page. We will respond as soon as we can.

To report a bug, please post it here on Bugzilla. This link will automatically fill in these fields for you:
 * Product: MediaWiki extensions
 * Component: 'ArticleFeedbackv5'

When reporting a bug, please provide this information:
 * What is the problem you experienced?
 * What steps can we take to reproduce this bug?
 * What did you think would happen?


 * Hardware: What type of computer are you using?
 * OS: Your computer's operating system.
 * Web Browser: Your browser name and version
 * URL: Add a URL for the page where your bug can be found.
 * Attachment: Include a screenshot (if it helps show your bug visually).

To learn more about Article Feedback, check out our project hub or the feature requirements page.

Enjoy ...