Topic on Talk:Article feedback

Hiding ArticleFeedback on the English Wikipedia

21
Rockfang (talkcontribs)

Howdy. How do I hide the ArticleFeedback boxes that are showing up on some articles on the English Wikipedia? I don't want to see them. I posted a question on the English Wikipedia and was given a link to this page.

Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

We will be deploying a change that includes a preference by which you will be able to disable the appearance of the tool in the near future.

Wasbeer (talkcontribs)

Add this line to your skins CSS.

div#mw-articlefeedback {display:none;}

Rockfang (talkcontribs)

Thank you for replying. It appears to have worked wonderfully. :)

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

This was filed in our Issue tracker under bug 29173 as an enhancement request. The request was executed earlier this week and has been deployed on the prototype wiki a few hours ago:

Log in/create an account and in your preferences under "Appearance" is now an option to disable the Article feedback widget.

We are planning to deploy this onto en.wikipedia.org sometime tomorrow.

Rockfang (talkcontribs)

Howdy. Thank you for replying. But why would I go through all of that when I could just add that one line of code that Wasbeer gave me above?

Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Two reasons:

a) Because if the code ever changes (and it may) your css hack will cease to work; and b) Because indicating that you have turned it off is something we (the WMF) can detect, and serves as a useful metric for showing us how many people have elected to hide the feature (which gives us data on the overall acceptance and adoption rate). So if you hate the tool, not using the preference to turn it off will work against you.

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

C) I think for most users, having to find their user subpage, editing it (assuming they are somewhat familiar with CSS), saving it and clearing their cache... is more "trouble" and clicking "My preferences", checking a box and be done with it.

He7d3r (talkcontribs)

Indeed. For a long time before I memorized the names of the skin I was using, I preferred to go to the Appearence section of the preferences page and then click in the Custom CSS/JS link which would allow me to edit my personal stylesheets and scripts... So, if I can turn on/off a feature in the Special:Preferences itself, I think this is easier than editing on of my subpages and clearing the cache of my browser.

Rockfang (talkcontribs)

Makes sense. Thank you all for replying. Any update when this option will enabled? I'm not seeing it in my preferences page on the English Wikipedia.

Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I just asked Roan, and this is being deployed around noon PST, so in about half an hour from now.

94.212.43.20 (talkcontribs)
b) Because indicating that you have turned it off is something we (the WMF) can detect, and serves as a useful metric for showing us how many people have elected to hide the feature (which gives us data on the overall acceptance and adoption rate).

also consider using a tracker/webbug. that way you get to see for which people the AFT loads at all, for any reason.

your metric estimates acceptance, the webbug would estimate adoption.

Wasbeer (talkcontribs)

Do you really think that it is a useful metric?

How are people supposed to know there is an option in their preferences to disable these boxes? Most users that did tick the box probably found it by accident or are regular users since it is extremely well hidden.

Try it yourself. Ask a random person to make an account on Wikipedia. Then ask them how they would hide that box.

Count the amount of clicks it takes for them to answer that question.

People who already have adblockplus installed will hide it with ABP. Some people use different adblockingsoftware.

Please do not think just because people did not disable it that they like it. They are probably unaware that these boxes can be hidden. And if they know they can be hidden they do not know how to hide the boxes.

The problem with this method is that it assumes everyone is on your side and they have to opt-out to indicate that they oppose the AFT.

If you think that is fair then I propose we switch to a opt-in model, so that the AFT is hidden unless a user explicitly asks for it.

If you do not want to switch sides it is probably not fair to use this as a metric.

Bensin (talkcontribs)

I agree.

A few comments to Jorm:

"indicating that you have turned it off is something we (the WMF) can detect"

The WMF should try harder to detect what editors say about the tool. You know very well that 99.99% not turning it off does not equal a 99.99% approval of the tool.

"[turning it off] serves as a useful metric for showing us how many people have elected to hide the feature (which gives us data on the overall acceptance and adoption rate)"

It most certainly does not! And you know it doesn't. (And I know you know I know you know.) Some editors (like myself) will opt not to disable it for the very same reason that a bandage won't heal melanoma; It will just cover up the ugly.

"So if you hate the tool, not using the preference to turn it off will work against you."

"Hey neighbour! I took a crap on ya porch and it's starting to stink. Don't ya wanna clean it up? If ya don't, I'll take it as an OK for me to do it again."
Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The tone here is really getting pretty hostile and non-constructive.

Bensin (talkcontribs)

Ironic. I find the WMF roll-out hostile and non-constructive.

I was trying to get a point across: Claiming that a ratio of editors opting out of viewing the tool is any kind of indicator of its acceptance in the community and then frenetically waiving the "we got the data to support it"-flag without anything supporting that claim is a much lower standard than I expect from the foundation.

If the WMF, at some point, assumed they had strong community support for this tool, then this ensuing discussion is a good indicator that it might be a good idea to reevaluate that assumption and actually ask the community what it wants.

Eloquence (talkcontribs)

Hi Bensin,

like all features we're developing AFT in response to real usage patterns, quantifiable value or lack thereof, and so on. Ultimately that means the development process is a give and take. We'll take some risks, try some things, wait for data, analyze data, share data, ask for suggestions, revise, or even rollback as appropriate. We've made plenty of revisions in response to feedback on this page, in our bug tracker, etc.

I think the office hours discussion here suggested that many Wikimedians are quite comfortable with this process, as long as we continue to engage and don't simply push stuff out and run away. We've done extensive analysis of AFT data already as per Article feedback#Research findings and related pages to better understand the story the data tells us so far, and we've started making the data available to make it possible for more folks to dig into it.

On a high level, see my update here for some initial thoughts where AFT can be specifically useful. I think we'll learn lots more as we make the data more broadly available, get data for the full set of articles, etc. But again, this is just the start of something very exciting: an experiment in engaging our readers, beyond the edit button, in the development of our content.

Bensin (talkcontribs)
Bensin (talkcontribs)

Hi Eloquence,

Yeah, about that office hours-session... I would very much have liked to attend that. I would have, had it not been announced just 3 days in advance. Anyway, it seems the discussion was focusing on how the tool should be implemented, not if.

"I think the office hours discussion here suggested that many Wikimedians are quite comfortable with this process"

This is a conclusion based on weak assumptions rather than facts. The people attending was a sub-section of the people engaged in this tool in some way, who is a sub-section of the tech-savvy-interested people, who in turn is a sub-section of the whole community. Don't say you have support for the tool based on an office hours session.
Wasbeer (talkcontribs)

The fact that the discussion was focussed on how the tool should be implemented and not if it should be implemented is caused by the fact the AFT was already added to Wikipedia, without consensus...

Of course I would like to have attended also. It was on a weekday during working hours, only a few people attended, none of them real sceptics/critics.

List of users that actually participated in the IRC office hours:

  • howief
  • jorm
  • RoanKattouw
  • Eloquence
  • shimgray
  • matanya (asked 2 questions)
  • JoeGazz84 (asked 1 question)
  • dartar
  • Thehelpfulone
  • StevenW
  • Moonriddengirl
  • Fajro
  • WereSpielChequer
  • effeietsanders
  • killiondude

I hope to get an invitation on my talkpage on EN wiki a week before the next meeting happens. Was the office hour meeting only for metawiki users? Why? The community of EN wiki should decide, we should ask them what they want. Was it even announced on EN wiki?

Lets compare:

  • 34 people have the page IRC office hours on metawiki added to their watchlist
  • 2068 people have the page Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) on EN wiki added to their watchlist
Wasbeer (talkcontribs)

This may be a stupid question, I offer my apologies in advance in case it is, but isn't it possible to move the development of the AFT to the Spanish Wikipedia, or another large wiki where there is consensus for implementing it? I am not sure if such a consensus exists, user Helder said so and I think Helder was referring to user Magister Mathematicae link who was probably referring to link 2 but I am unable to read Spanish.

The Spanish Wikipedia has a lot of users, enough to get meaningful data from.

I realize this is a minor inconvenience to the people who develop it since most are native English speakers afaik but this can be solved with the help of the community.

There are a lot of people on this planet that speak both English and Spanish, and Wikipedians are notorious for being extremely helpful.

I think it is better to inconvenience the developers of the AFT (a small number of people) a little bit than all the users of the English Wikipedia.

Another option would be to use the Portuguese Wikipedia, or both! Google Translate is extremely buggy but as far as I can tell they reached consensus to implement it over there.

Reply to "Hiding ArticleFeedback on the English Wikipedia"