Talk:Article feedback

Jump to: navigation, search

About this discussion

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
BokicaK (talkcontribs)

This tool shows same articles and same ratings during last four or five days. I noticed this on Serbian Wikipedia.

Reply to "Frozen feedback"
Guaka (talkcontribs)

A question turned into a suggestion while writing it: add a (more prominent) link to Extension:ArticleFeedbackv5 It took me much longer than expected to find this so I suggest adding this link to the Infobox.

Reply to "link to the code"

How do I change Text in Article Feedback?

2
23.16.61.152 (talkcontribs)

Hi, I was asked by a wiki site owner to change the text in his article feedback. By default the article feedback shows the text headings: Page Trustworthy Objective Complete Well-written but the wiki site owner wants different text than these. I searched the ArticleFeedback php files but couldn't find anywhere to edit these. Is this done through toolserver or the dashboard?? Please advise because the instructions at are not clear on this. If you know how to do this, please reply with detailed instructions. Thank you.

Reply to "How do I change Text in Article Feedback?"
5.164.109.155 (talkcontribs)

Hello! I respect your work, but have a problem.... Often is difficult for me to understand your code. It is necessary to implement the rating system on the wiki site . The question is - how can indefinitely store user ratings( $wgArticleFeedbackSMaxage >> unlimited, ), and how to show on the dashboard page list of all articles with rating for all period ($rating_set_threshold = 0 ?, dates? ) . I hope for your help. Sincerely, Roman. ( PS not commercial, /*Sorry for my english*/)

Reply to "Dashboard, some changes..."
Alan Liefting (talkcontribs)

The "Rate This Page" box is too big. Maybe:

  • have it collapsed and/or across the width of page rather than what seem to be a fixed 50% width
  • it should be after categories since it is not article content
  • makes article look silly if it is a stub and there are three templates, e.g. w:Hudson and Halls
  • maybe it should be a new tag on the top of the page (like the talk, history etc tags)

After spending a lot of time browsing as a logged off reader rather than logged in editor the "Rate This Page" box became a real annoyance.

He7d3r (talkcontribs)

This is the "old" version of the tool, and there is an open request on bugzilla:29303.

For the new version, see en:Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5.

Reply to "Too big - needs changing"

More accurate rankings of ratings should consider number of reviewers

3
Readparse (talkcontribs)

I like the rating feature and I think it's well implemented. I knew this information must be aggregated somewhere, and I was happy to finally find the Article feedback dashboard. What I found was surprising.

At the moment that I looked, the Forbes list of billionaires (2012) page was ranked number 1, and the Plastic page was ranked number 2. Not that individual rankings matter so much, because it's not a contest. But I think it is of tremendous value to see examples of what the community considers to be among the most valuable content on Wikipedia. And I think the Forbes list, while not a bad page, does not rise to that level. So looked at the number of reviewers.

The Forbes article had about 20 reviewers at the time. The Plastic article had around almost 500. I believe that a 4.85 with 500 reviews definitely beats a 4.86 with 20 reviewers. The question is, what is the right way to factor in the count in the algorithm. I'll look into whether there's a standard way to do this in the world of statistics, but maybe somebody here knows. But I think it's a conversation worth having. I did a quick look through this Talk page to see if this thread has already been started, and I apologize if I missed it. I didn't see one.

Readparse (talkcontribs)

After further consideration, it might make sense for there to be a threshold before appearing on the list. There may already be, lest you end up with the highest-rated article being one that was given all fives by a single user. The question is, what should the threshold be?

I submit that a "statistically valid sample size" should be determined. To do that, you need to have a denominator to start with. I think that denominator should be based not on the entire number of Wikipedia users, but perhaps on one of the following:

  • The total number of distinct users who have rated any pages in that particular instance of Wikipedia
  • The total number of points awarded in ratings on all pages of that instance.

By "instance," I mean a language or locale. For example, en.wikipedia.org.

So, to summarize, I mean that if I put up a page on trapeze cats, and a few people rate it as five stars (perhaps including me -- I don't know if that's possible), it doesn't show up on the list. But when that 600th user rates me, then my votes have become statistically valid, and I can appear on the list.

Happy to talk more about this with anybody who is interested. I think the ratings are really useful and really interesting.

WhatamIdoing (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure that you understand the purpose of the dashboard. It is designed to show abnormal rating patterns (very high or very low) within the last 24 hours.

Reply to "More accurate rankings of ratings should consider number of reviewers"
Tillman (talkcontribs)

Where is it? Has anyone compiled records over time? Thanks, Tillman (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC), Tillman at en:WP

Von Restorff (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately the data gathered so far is useless. The only conclusion you can draw from looking at it is that the current version of the AFT is a total waste of time.

WhatamIdoing (talkcontribs)

Of course the data is available. See FAQ question #16:

Is data generated by the Article Feedback Tool publicly available?
We are releasing regular weekly dumps of the data we collect via Article Feedback Tool as well as making anonymized data available on the Toolserver. Further information on the data dumps can be found on this page.

The data is basically weekly raw data dumps, which you can analyze however you want.

Tillman (talkcontribs)

Thanks -- Tillman (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

He7d3r (talkcontribs)

And of course the data is only available for English Wikipedia, even if the extension is enabled on other WMF wikis :-(

Reply to "Article feedback dashboard history?"

AFT Dashboard Rating result on custom page

3
Packet8i (talkcontribs)

I searched all over but couldn't find the way to pull the results of "Trustworthy, Objective, Complete, Well-written" for a specific article to my page. In short i want to display AFT Dashboard (Special:ArticleFeedback) with added parameters of my own on page other than Special page.

Name Website URL Content Rating Reviews
Trustworthy Objective Complete
Website Name www.example.com

how can i achieve the above? Thanks

WhatamIdoing (talkcontribs)

There's probably not much point, since these categories of ratings are scheduled to go away soon, when version 5 is rolled out. Before long, no articles will be rated for being trustworthy, objective, complete, or well-written.

Reply to "AFT Dashboard Rating result on custom page"
JohnWittle (talkcontribs)

This is possibly a problem with Wikipedia-en's implementation, but I am skeptical.

I was browsing the article on race conditions. Being a relatively active editor several years ago, I decided to fill out the survey with some 4's and 5's, since it was a very well-written article.

I wanted to learn more about the survey, which led me eventually to this dashboard, which put the race condition article in the 'Recent lows' category, saying its average ratings were 2.06, 1.88, 2.41, 2.44, and 2.20, respectively. I thought, "wow, even with my good ratings, people don't like that article?" So I went to view the averages on the actual article, and saw the following averages: 3.5, 3.5, 3.7, 2.2. This is all currently viewable.

There is something wrong here. JohnWittle (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Von Restorff (talkcontribs)

People base their ratings on the subject of the article and not on the article itself.

WhatamIdoing (talkcontribs)

The two pages use different data sets. If memory serves, the article tells you the average of all ratings recorded during a variable time period (however long it took to have 30 edits to the page, which could be anything from 30 seconds to more than a year, depending on the level of activity at the article). The dashboard tells you the average of all ratings in the last 24 hours.

Reply to "[bug] Averages are broken"
SteveO1951 (talkcontribs)

I am "exasperated and perturbed", to put it politely, concerning the pop-up that appears after a person inputs through the feedback tool. The pop-up asks "Do you know you can edit this article?". It then does not permit the user to answer that question. Therefore: PLEASE DON'T ASK the QUESTION. Fro theavailable responses, one can infer that the real question being asked is "Would you like to edit this article?" in addition, the available responses are just two: "Edit Now" and "Maybe Later". That does not begin to cover an appropriate scope of responses the thoughtful user might want to make. How about "Yes, I know that I CAN edit this but NO, I am never going to edit this"?

The entire pop-up leaves me with a bad taste of WP being incompetent and manipulative. Because I don't have that impression too often about WP (and I spend a LOT of tie contributing), I think WP will want to "rework" the pop-up.

Reply to "Horrible wording of post-feedback pop-up"