Article feedback/Version 5

This is the home page for Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool. In coming days, we will be expanding this page with more details and links to related pages for this project.

Objectives
We are starting development on a set of new features of the Article Feedback Tools, in collaboration with the Wikipedia community.

Our goals for this new Version 5 project are to:
 * engage readers to participate more on Wikipedia
 * focus on suggestions to improve article quality
 * encourage readers to become editors over time
 * invite a collaboration between editors and readers
 * experiment with outsourcing web development

The set of implementation of the Article Feedback Tool (Versions 1-4) were focused on the dual objectives of participation and quality. The existing tool intends to provide a quantitative measurement of quality of articles as well as an on-ramp for contribution (i.e., editing). Based on the research conducted by WMF, the tool shows promise in being an on-ramp for contribution. As implemented, the tool appears to provide a reasonable measurement for quality along some dimensions (Completeness and Trustworthy), while other dimensions of quality (Objective and Well-written) tend to show a lower correlation with ratings.

Based on this research and the input from the Wikipedia editing community (examples are here and here), the next version of the tool will focus even more heavily on participation. Editors told us that it would be valuable if they knew what readers were looking for. Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool will focus on finding ways for Readers to contribute productively to building the encyclopedia.

For example, we will try a version where we ask readers "Did you find what you were looking for?" If the reader selects "no," we will ask them to fill out a form describing what they were looking for. Even if this reader doesn't become an editor, the hope is that they will contribute productively by letting the editing community know what was missing from the article. As we did in the first few phases of the project, we will also invite them to make the edit themselves.

Quality is still an important consideration and we will continue to test various ways of measuring quality. We may, however, do this implicitly. In the above example, the percentage of "yes"'s could be an indicator of article quality, even though we don't ask the reader to explicitly evaluate the quality of the article.

Feature Requirements
Key features for AFT V5 will include: In the first phase of this project, we will be testing different options for an improved feedback form, to find out which option is most effective for engaging readers and improving article quality. will ask if you found what you were looking for, with 'yes' or 'no' buttons and a comment field. will give you the option to add a suggestion, ask a question, report a problem or give praise to the editors. will be more like a review form, with an overall star rating and comment field. We will also compare the effectiveness of these forms against a simple, with as a big button to 'Edit this page.' We are also exploring an expanded version of these forms, where you could suggest specific improvements, rate article qualities, as well as indicate your knowledge of its topic.
 * new feedback forms
 * calls to action
 * expanded feedback
 * feedback page
 * moderation tools

We will also develop a feedback page where all the posts for a given article can be listed together, voted up or down by the community, and moderated by experienced editors and administrators. In a later phase, we hope to provide practical tools for editors to promote some of the most useful feedback to the talk page, where these suggestions can be discussed and acted on by other editors.

For a preview of what these forms and pages might look like,, which include simple wireframes for key touchpoints, as well a project plan and other useful exhibits.

In coming days, a complete set of feature requirements will be posted here.

Workgroup
Link to workgroup page